Liability, Stress, and Community: Communicative Issues in Policing

Abstract

Liability, Stress, and Community: Communicative Issues in Policing Later Published in Journal of Communication, 53, 545-550, 2003 Howard Giles and Michelle Chernikoff Anderson Payne, D.M. (2002). Police liability. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. xvi-224. ISBN 0- 89089-144-3 (pbk: $30). Toch, H. (2002). Stress in policing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. xvii-259. ISBN 1-55798-829-3 (hbk: $39.95 [APA members: #34.95]). ISBN 1-59142007-2 (pbk 2003: $29.95 [APA members: 24.95]). Morash, M., & Ford, J.F. (Eds) (2002). The move to community policing. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. xvii-299. ISBN 0-7619- 2472-8 (pbk: $36.95) & -2473-6 (hbk: $69.95). With crime statistics volatile, TV cop shows prevalent, media concerns about police accountability rampant, and homeland security an issue of our times, we feel the study of law enforcement (and the roles of communication in it) to be not only timely, but essential. The three books reviewed herein, also themselves, make claims as to the social relevance of the topics explored. Payne, for instance, states that “police liability should be of the utmost concern to the general public. They are the ones who ultimately bear the brunt of liability suits in the form of increased taxes…” (p. xi). In the preface to Toch’s book, Chief Kerlikowske declares that “this text is both a wake-up call and a warning for elected officials, law enforcement leaders, and anyone who cares about how their cities and towns are policed” (p. ix), while the preface to Morash and Ford’s volume speaks to the fact “that police and citizens throughout the world are struggling to reform or develop community-oriented approaches to policing” (p. xv). While these books present action research aimed at effecting appropriate social change and policies, they are also permeated with communication issues that not only present some perhaps unexpected findings, but are pertinent to those who study organizations, the legal system, cultures, and civic communities. Payne’s book deals with lawsuits against the police, and he himself has been involved as an expert witness in over two hundred such cases, not to mention those in which he was involved previously as a police officer. He brings to our attention fifty-two recent American cases, normally covered in fewer than three pages each, that deal with a range of issues from excessive use of force to vehicle pursuits to failing to shoot a violent person. These are concisely addressed in a standard format, first with “the facts” through Payne’s eyes and then an analysis of what the officer(s) did (or did not do) which led to the outcome. In the main, they are lively and absorbing narratives (even short stories) that could be used as the basis for poignant training programs in and of themselves. The cases are hived off into separate sections in the book and embedded within helpful relevant reviews of the literature, police procedures, and the law. Unfortunately, an error in describing the law regarding damages in civil suits might lead some readers to question Payne’s expertise in all relevant domains. Payne states that “actual damages can also be collected for expenses such as medical bills, property damage and lost wages. Punitive damages refer to pain and suffering experienced by the plaintiff as a result of the injury” (p. 5). But pain and suffering are, in truth, part of actual (also known as “compensatory”) damages and, punitive damages, which require a higher level of proof and are granted far less frequently are, as Black’s Law Dictionary clarifies, “based upon an entirely different public policy consideration – that of punishing the defendant or of setting an example” (p. 204). Payne is not alone in this confusion; mock jurors also appear to blur the lines between pain and Giles&Anderson © COPPAC, University of California, Santa Barbara