PROCESO DE IMANACIÓN EN MATERIALES FERROMAGNÉTICOS

The consensus is that over the second half of the twentieth century, police departments became more militarized (Meeks 2006). Kraska (2007) defines militarism generally as be- liefs and values that emphasize the threat and use of force to solve problems. He defines militarization as the implementation of a militaristic ideology. However, the militarization of police departments goes well beyond a simple change in ideology to organizational and psychological changes in departments and police officers. There are two potential mecha- nisms through which police may become militarized.

1_{It is worth noting, however, that Delehanty et al. (2017) conduct a very similar study that reaches a} substantively similar conclusion, but with a more limited dataset. I discuss their article in more detail below.

The first mechanism is hierarchical, encouraged by the language used by elected of- ficials when discussing matters of law enforcement as well as cues from leaders within law enforcement agencies. The use of warlike rhetoric can have strong impacts on public attitudes and behaviors (Boggs 2005), and police are not immune to these effects. In the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, the US launched two major law enforcement-related efforts: one to eliminate drugs and the other terrorism. American political leaders call both of these efforts wars and required the participation of both the military and law enforcement in carrying out these wars. For example, President George H.W. Bush called for law enforcement to fight the drug war house by house, neigh- borhood by neighborhood (Meeks 2006). As drugs became more prevalent in communi- ties, the military mindset combined with anti-drug, and more generally anti-crime political rhetoric that referred to war.

Another part of the hierarchical mechanism may be cues from police agencies them- selves. Police culture appears to be the primary method of organizational control of police officers (Worden 2015). Research on the use of force by police find that officers adjust their behavior according to what agency leaders consider to be appropriate (Alpert and Dunham 2004). Similar to other organizations, officers adapt to their roles and behave according to rules within the organization, whether formal or informal (March 1994). They make deci- sions based on the cues they receive from police leaders and the socialization they receive from more veteran officers. Over time, new officers adopt the perspectives and preferences of the organization. Police training that emphasized the role of police officers as warriors (Stoughton 2014; Stoughton 2016) could have led to police officers seeing the communities they served as enemy territory for them to occupy and control. Police leaders see the role of their agency as one of fighting against crime, drugs, and other undesirable elements rather than one of partnership with the community. The emphasis on the warrior mindset moves from leadership to mid-level supervisors to rank-and-file officers through the training and socialization process. If a police department’s leadership is militarized, the perspectives of

the officers–and their behavior–will change to match.

The second mechanism is operational, which has at least two primary components. The first is direct cooperation between the military and police forces. Traditionally, the role of the military was to provide security from external threats while civilian police protected internal security through the enforcement of laws (Kraska 2007). Kraska (2007) also notes the erosion of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which established a clear separation between the military and domestic law enforcement, leading to more involvement between the mili- tary and police in internal matters. This involvement includes cross-training, cooperation in anti-drug and anti-terrorism activities, and sharing technology, weapons, and information (Kraska 2007; Kraska and Kappeler 1997; Meeks 2006). One example of this cooperation is the federal 1033 program, which provides surplus military equipment to law enforcement agencies. I use this program as a measure of a police department’s militarization, which I discuss below. Through cooperation and inter-mingling, law enforcement may pick up the mindset of the military–that of a force intended to use lethal violence against an enemy as its primary function. Alternatively, police recruitment practices that involve a preference for former members of the military for hiring as new officers could have a similar effect. In either case, or both, police become militarized by adopting the same perspectives as the military, where suspects become enemies that must be violently defeated and communities become foreign territories to occupy and subdue.

The second component of the operational mechanism is the creation and expansion of elite police units modeled on military special operations forces. Alongside the wars on drugs and terror, and the new access to military training and equipment, police created special units referred to variously as Special Response Teams (SRTs), Police Paramilitary Units (PPUs), or Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. Police departments see these teams as elite, military-style special operations units trained as use-of-force specialists (Kraska and Cubellis 1997). Although few officers receive the training, equipment, and experience that goes with being a member of these teams, such training and experience–which involves

more emphasis on the use of force–can cross over into officers who do not directly receive such training because the members of these specialized teams perform the same duties as other officers when not called to a SWAT-related action. Comparison of the use of lethal force between SWAT and non-SWAT officers shows little difference (Williams and Westall 2003).

Kraska and Kappeler (1997) and Kraska and Cubellis (1997) document the sharp in- crease in the number of these units around the country. In addition to the number of these units, there has also been an increase in their frequency and purpose of use. Originally in- tended for use in rare situations that involved hostages or barricaded suspects (Kraska and Kappeler 1997), they began to participate in more routine activities such as patrolling and serving search warrants (Kraska and Cubellis 1997). Deployments of these teams increased more than 1400% since the 1980s (Rahall 2015).

These mechanisms–operational and hierarchical–represent a trend toward increasing militarization of law enforcement. Officers become militarized by exposure to both mecha- nisms. New officers develop militarized attitudes by both self-selection of potential officers who already share these attitudes (Oberfield 2011), by professional socialization with other, more tenured officers (Alpert and Dunham 2004; Worden 2015), and by leadership-driven culture that emphasizes the role of police officers as warriors (Stoughton 2014). In other words, both prior ideals about policing acquired before entry into the police and early so- cialization with veteran officers and leaders after entry influence the psychology of police officers. In the next section, I explain how police militarization interacts with the discretion police enjoy as street-level bureaucrats to lead to more frequent use of lethal force.