|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
beginning was far more violent,” with riots being a “recognized feature of pre-industrial urban life” (pp. 5–6). Bailey (1989) explained that these riots had specific political targets and goals. While “rioters rarely took life…they often destroyed considerable property,” as exemplified by the riots “associated with the American Revolution, such as the protests over the Stamp Act of 1765, the Boston Massacre of 1770, and the Boston Tea Party of 1733” (p. 554).
Eventually, however, “whenever families failed in their tasks of nurturing and disciplining their members, other institutions had to step in to remedy the deficiencies” (Bailey, 1989, p. 555). While some situations were dealt with by social and religious institutions, others necessitated the establishment of some form of policing. These early forms of policing differed from place to place, reflecting the different backgrounds and experiences of the early colonists, most of whom came from different parts of England. This contributed to an uncoordinated and fragmented policing system. Addressing this point, Purpura (2001) wrote that “prior to 1800, over 90 percent of the people in the North American colonies were from England, and perhaps a third had been subject to ‘transportation’ (i.e., forced to leave England as a sentence for a crime)” (p. 12). Consequently, “many colonists resented royal authority and were determined to live without it in America. These circumstances influenced the fact that constables and sheriffs were typically elected positions held for short periods of time” (p. 12), which in turn set the stage for a decentralized and politically influenced policing “system.”
In sum, America's early policing system reflected a pragmatic response to the needs and interests of the local constituency. By most accounts, policing represented a disorganized, uncoordinated, and decentralized enterprise, due in great part to the colonists’ contempt for centralized government. This brought the police to local control and, by default, under the influence of local politics. Clearly, in retrospect, there was a conspicuous absence of any uniform or standardized mission, vision, goals or objectives, and training. Bailey (1989), discussing the development of police training in the United States, indicated that “most police scientists agree that police training [has] changed little from the constabulary and