The relationship between the United States government and its police forces has always been a shifting, and frequently uneasy, one.  The bonds between them are apparent; the government, supported by taxes, is untrusted to set into place the machinery to keep the society safe.  Moreover, as laws evolve and legislature is created by changes in public attitudes, which inform public policy, something like a cooperative arms race comes into play.  The police must enforce the laws in place, even as changes in society demonstrate the need for changes in the laws.

This complicated and highly influential interaction is necessary within a democracy.  Without government support and watchfulness – with the understanding in place, again, that the government represents the people – a police force becomes an expression of a police state.  The checks and balances, however difficult, are crucial to maintain a police force that remains a service to the citizens.  If the relationship is often marked by tensions and contrary ambitions, these components are inherently parts of so essential a process.

Unfortunately, other factors determine how the government directly affects police activity, and these are typically born from the distinct arenas the two elements occupy.  That is to say, a government agency completely removed from actual police work, and one with the responsibility of overseeing or funding it, must run a course between two sources of input: that of the police, and that of the people.  Similarly, the police are expected to enforce existing laws, and the difficulties inherent in adapting to changes in legislation may be understandably resisted by them.

For example, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was formed in the 1960s, when vast social unrest was bridging the gulf between government authority and actual police work.  At a federal level, the U.S. government became convinced that it had “a unique responsibility to conduct research on criminal justice programs, and to develop creative programs based on research findings” (Roberts, 2003, p. 142).  Issues of civil rights and individual liberties were exploding nationally, and the police faced enormous pressure to alter their policies, even as governmental shifts were changing the parameters of their duties seemingly overnight.  In those days, as elsewhere in American history, policing was viewed less as a simple means of addressing crime and more as a component to maintain social control.

Another regrettable issue in how the government directly affects policing in the U.S. also arises from that separation of the two authorities.  Simply put, corruption within a government organization, and in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, must have a concrete and adverse affect on how policing is conducted.  It is not a new problem; going back to the eighteenth century, the political organization known as Tammany Hall virtually ruled New York politics.  By the early twentieth century, it had become a matter of course for political favoritism to fill police jobs at the highest levels, and government corruption was the driving force (Thomas, 2010, p. 7).  Only long-term, and often dangerous, investigations from both honest officials and the public eventually reversed this pattern.

This serves to emphasize the vital, third component in the equation of government and police interaction, that of the public’s presence.  Policing must always reflect the laws in place, which in turn are created to reflect American ethics and changing views on justice, and these provide the basis for, presumably, everything the government does.  The police act as an extension of the government, but the most important aspect to this is that the government is representative of the people.  That abuses occur is regrettable, but inevitable, as there is also a built-in “delay” factor in how new policies are implemented within existing police procedures.  The mechanism, nonetheless, must operate as the cooperative venture is was designed to be.