... American Police Systems

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Foreword

This study, which I undertook at the invitation of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, as a companion volume to European Police Systems, was practically completed when the United States entered the war in 191 7. Thereafter for over two years and a half my time was so occupied that there was no opportunity to get the manuscript ready for the press. Only recently have I had leisure to finish it, and its publication now is due largely to my associate, Mr. Leonard V. Harrison, whose research and investigation in the last six months have brought my material up to date.

The book is based upon personal study of the police in practically every city in the United States with a population exceeding 100,000, and in many communities of lesser size. In all, seventy-two cities were visited, and Mr. Harrison has recently duplicated my itinerary of several years ago to discover any alterations or new developments in the police situation occurring in the interval. During the last year, too, I have had an opportunity to follow up certain lines of research in London and Paris, so that the comparisons between European and American conditions occurring in the book are based upon the latest information available.

I am very glad to have the oj^ortunity of making grateful acknowledgment of the aid and assistance which I received from police officers and other municipal officials

V

Foreword

throughout the country. It is impossible to mention b name all those to whom my thanks are due, but I ma perhaps be permitted to testify in this general way to tl patience and courtesy with which I was everywhei treated. I am under peculiar obligations to Profess( William Bennett Munro of Harvard University, D Walter Laidlaw of the New York City 1920 Censi Committee, Professor Felix Frankfurter of the Harvai Law School, and Colonel Arthur Woods of New Yor for their thoughtful and discriminating criticism of po tions of the manuscript which they were kind enough read. In justice to these gentlemen, however, I hasten acquit them of any responsibility for the statements ma and the opinions expressed in this book, or for any erro of omission or commission. The book is mine, and I a solely responsible for it.

Finally, it is my privilege to acknowledge the genero assistance and counsel of Mr. Harrison, who has be associated with the investigation from the beginning, a: the long-tried patience and faithfulness of my secretarii Mrs. Jasper J. Mayer, and Miss Helen T. Wisherd.

Raymond B. Fosdick. 233 Broadway, New York City, August 5, 1920.

vi

Contents

PAGE

Foreword v

Chapter I

Contrast between European and American police. — American police problem far more difficult — Heterogeneity of America's population. — Preponderance of crime in America. — Comparative statistics: murder, burglary, robbery. — Relation of heterogeneity to crime. — The relation of court procedure to the police problem. — The law's delays. — The technicalities of procedure. — Faulty personnel on the bench. — The sentimental attitude of the public. — Relation of unenforceable laws to American police problem. — Sumptuary laws. — Borderland between live and dead law. — Embarrassment of the police 3

CHAPTER n

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN POLICE

CONTROL

The early beginnings: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati. — The intermediate period. — Opposition to uniforms. — Mob rule. — The rise of police boards. — The development of state control in police systems. — The New York exanv

gle of 1857. — The extension of state control systems. — The i-partisan board. — The passing of the police board. — The character of the developmment — The search for mechanical perfection. — Politics in the development of the police . . 58

CHAPTER in

State versus municipal control. — Successes of state control. — Failures of state control. — State control in relation to home

vu

G)ntents

Pi

rule problems. — Applicability of state control. — Board control versus single headed control — Weaknesses of board control — Board administration a part time task. — Lack of Unity in board administration. — Conflict of authority in board administration.-* Politics in board administration. — Elective boards. — Bi-partisan boards. — The development of single headed control

CHAPTER IV

The principle of responsible leadership. — Appointments of police heads. — Removals of police heads. — The jurisdiction of the police department. — Growth of suburbs. — Disadvantages of conflicting police systems. — Advantages of metropolitan areas. — Lack of standards in police methods as between states. — Commission government and the police force. — Personnel of commissions. — Commission government wrong in principle. — Commission government and transient management. — Commission government and irresponsible administration. — The effect of commission government on the police force. — City manager plan

CHAPTER V

General organization. — Relation between sui>ervision and work. — Examples. — Adjustment of the machinery to its task. — Examples. — Adaptation of the machinery to its work. — Faulty mechanism due to inelastic legal restrictions. — Illustrations. — European departments far more elastic. — Faulty mechanism due to unnecessary functions. — Faulty mechanism due to inadequate leadership

CHAPTER VI

The task of police administration. — Police administrators promoted from the ranks. — Chicago. — Civilian police administrators. — Their handicaps. — Examples. — Police administration and politics. — Limited tenure of office. — Europe and

viii •

Contents

PAGE

America in this respect. — Residence requirements for commissioners. — European and American examples. — The dilemma and the approach to its solution 217

CHAPTER VII

Inaccurate analogies. — The chief and his relations to the director. — The impermanent tenure of the chief. — Illustrations. — Impermanent tenure due to politics. — Examples. — The chief and civil service. — Difficulties of civil service. — Personnel in the position of chief. — Politics and the chief . 249

CHAPTER VIII

The place of the uniformed force in the police department. — Its relation to other branches of the service. — Civil service and the police. — Demoralized conditions without civil service. — . Civil service in operation. — Appointments. — Promotions. — Discipline. — The limitations of civil service. — A rational civil service needed. — The police school. — Educational activities of the New York department — The patrol service. — Foot patrol becoming obsolete. — Automobiles in patrol work. — Over-emphasis on the mechanical side of police organization. — The lack of fluidity in mobilization. — Police unions. — Responsibility of the community to the police. — The police and industrial disturbance 268

CHAPTER IX

THE DETECTIVE FORCE

The detective force. — The chief of the detective bureau. — How he is selected. — The personnel of the detective bureau. — Methods of selection. — Civil service versus administrative assignment. — The training of detectives. — The organization of the detective bureau. — Centralization versus decentralization. — Too frequent changes in organization plans. — Ilust rations. — Lack of co-ordmation in detective work. — Lack of business methods in detective work. — Lack of supervision in detective work.— Detective record systems. — Criminal identification. — Finger-prints versus Bertillon system. — Need of national bureau for identification of persons and property 326

Contents CHAPTER X

Place of crime prevention in work of department. — Attack on die breeding places of crime. — Special conditions making: for crime. — Educating the public. — The police and ex-convicts.

— Juvenile delinquency .r- Poverty. — Other crime prevention methods. — The development of the crime prevention bureau

CHAPTER XI

Conclusion

Contrast between American and European police departments.

— Europe far in advance. — American progress seen by comparison of present with past. — Irregular character of improvement. — Our achievement sordid and unworthy. — Importance of the police problem

CHARTS

Chicago .

Detroit Los Angeles New York Philadelphia St. Louis .

Washington

CHAPTER I

Contrast between European and American police. — American police problem far more difficult. — Heterogeneity of America's population. — Preponderance of crime in America. — Comparative statistics: murder, burglary, robbery. — Relation of heterogeneity to crime. — The relation of court procedure to the police problem. — The law's delays. — The technicalities of procedure. — Faulty personnel on the bench. — The sentimental attitude of the public. — Relation of unenforcesbble laws to American police problem. — Sumptuary laws. — Borderland between live and dead law. — Embarrassment of the police.

To the American student of European municipal police bodies the contrast with similar institutions in the United States furnishes slight basis for pride. The efficiency of the Metropolitan Police Force of London, the operation of the detective bureau of Paris, the work of the Carabinieri in Rome and of the Politi in Copenhagen have little comparable to them in America ; while even as rc^rds the police of smaller cities like Zurich, Edinburgh or The Hague, an American looks almost in vain for equal effectiveness at home. This is so well recognized, indeed, and we have become so accustomed to think of our police work as perhaps the most pronounced failure in all our unhappy municipal history, that we are inclined to accept the phenomenon without analysis and charge it up generally to " politics." That politics lies at the root of much of it cannot of course be denied. No one can trace the development of police organization in the United States, as we shall follow it in Chapter II, without realizing how true the generalization is; but to believe that the unfavorable comparison between European and American police systems is chargeable solely to politics or to the personnel of our forces is to overlook certain fundamental divergencies in national conditions, customs and psychology which pile up obstacles in the way of efficient police work in America almost beyond the conception of the average European official.

In a word, the police of an American city are faced with a task such as European police organizations have no knowledge of. The Metropolitan Police Force of London with all its splendid efficiency would be overwhelmed in New York, and the Brigade de surete of Paris, with its ingenuity and mechanical equipment, would fall far below the level of its present achievement if it were confronted with the situation in Chicago. It is to the discussion of some of these external factors which complicate police function in America that the present chapter is devoted.

I. HETEROGENEITY OF POPULATION

With rare exceptions, the populations of European cities are homogeneous. The population of American cities is heterogeneous to an extent almost without parallel. Only 3% of London's population is foreign-bom.^

*Caisus of 1911, VqJ. 9. Wherever in this book London is

Paris has 6%,^ Berlin 2.9%,^ Vienna approximately one per cent.* In America — to use only a few illustrations at random — New York's foreign-bom population is 41%, Qiicago and Boston 36% each, Cleveland and Providence 34% each, Detroit 33%. Where London has 211,000 foreign-bom, Paris 170,000, and Berlin 60,000, New York has 1,944,357, of which 1,563,964 are of non- English speaking peoples, while Chicago has 783,428, of which 653,377 are from non-English speaking countries.* This contrast can be emphasized in another way. London has 14,000 Italians among her foreign-bom; Paris has 26,000. New York has 340,000; Chicago has 45,000. London has 45,000 foreign-bom Russians; Paris 18,000. New York has 485,000; Chicago 121,000. Where Paris has 7,000 Austro-Hungarians, New York has 267,000. Where London has 27,000 Poles, Chicago has 126,000. London's 42,000 foreign-bom Germans must be contrasted with New York's 280,000 and with Chicago's 185,000. New York's Italian-bom population is greater than the combined populations of Bologne and Venice. She has more German-bom residents than has Bremen, Konigsberg, Aix la Chapelle, Posen, Kiel or Danzig. Only three cities of old Austria-Hungary — Vienna, Budapest and Prague — have a larger Austro- Hungarian population than New York, while in Chicago

mentioned, the reference is to the Metropolitan Police District which covers an area of 699 square miles and includes a population of 7,^1701.

^Annuaire statistique de la Ville de Paris, 1912.

"That is, bom outside the limits of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Meyer's Konversationslexikon, Vol. 20, annual supplement 1910-11.

^Federal Census of 1910.

the foreign-bom Austro-Hungarians outnumber the ] ulation of Brunn, Cracow or Gratz. In only five Rud cities — Petrograd, Moscow, Odessa, Warsaw and I — can a Russian population be found greater than of New York.

But this is not the whole contrast. The forebear London's present population for generations back i Englishmen, bred to English customs and traditions, as the forefathers of modem Parisians were Frenchi born to French institutions and ideals. In New Y Chicago and other large cities of the United States 1 are hundreds of thousands of residents whose mot or fathers or both were bom abroad. If we add class to the foreign-bom population, of which we been speaking, to form what may be called the for stock element, we find that it comprises 80% of York's population, and that of the total number, am< ing to 3,769,803, nearly three-fourths came of nonlish speaking people.^ Similarly, this foreign-stod ment constitutes the majority of the population ii nineteen largest cities of the United States. In words, the native white population of native pare: amotmts to less than one-fifth the total populatic New York and less' than one-fourth of the populj of Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwa while in cities like Fall River, Massachusetts, it c tutes little more than 10%. In only fourteen o fifty largest cities of America does the native pare population equal fifty per cent of the total.

1 Ibid. Congestion adds to the difficulties of heterogeneity, don in 191 1 had only 180,000 people housed 219 to the acre York tn 1910 had 1,171,000 people so housed.

Again, the contrast can be emphasized in terms not only of race but of color. In London and other cities of Great Britain the negro population is so negligible that the census statistics make no mention of it. Only rarely does one see negroes on the streets and a " color problem " does not exist. In America, in consequence of the great numbers of negro inhabitants, this problem has assumed startling proportions. Its extent can be judged from the following figures : ^

Nearo Percentage of

City . A .1 X.' negroes to total

y population "population

Baltimore 84,749 ^S-^

Birmingham 5^,305 394

Indianapolis 1 21,816 9.3

Kansas City 23,566 9.5

Louisville 40,522 18.1

New Orleans 89,262 26.3

Savannah 33,246 51. i

Washington 9444^ 28.5

The consequences of this mixture of race and color are far reaching, particularly in their effect on such functions as policing. Homogeneity simplifies the task of government. Long-established traditions of order and standards of public conduct, well-tmderstood customs and prac-

^ Census of 1910.

tices which smooth the rough edges of personal contact, a definite racial temperament and a fixed set of grouphabits by which conflicting interests are more readilycomprehended and adjusted — in short, the social solidarity and cohesiveness which come only from a common language and a common heritage — all these factors, so interwoven in French and English community life, and so essential in facilitating the maintenance of law, are utterly unknown in many of the towns and cities of the United States. Our larger cities, indeed, are often divided by more or less well defined lines into nationalistic sections : Italians, Chinese, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Slavs, each with their own districts, where they settle in colony fashion. Here, frequently in comparative isolation, they speak their own language, read their own newspapers, maintain their own churches and their peculiar social life. Occasionally the so-called foreign-section of a city comprises within a narrow area a heterogeneous mixture of races. In a single ward in St. Louis — to use an illustration that could be duplicated many times — are 900 Austro-Hungarians, 830 Irish, 2301 Germans, 2527 Italians, 7534 Russians and 493 Roumanians — all of them foreign-bom — in addition to 14,067 native residents of foreign parentage and 1602 negroes.^ The official census proclamation of 1920 in New York City was printed in 22 languages.

It is this complex problem of nationality that the police are called upon to grapple with. They must enforce the same laws among a score of races and maintain a standard of conduct in a population coming from radically dif-

^ Personally communicated.

s ferent environments. They must be prepared to understand the criminal propensities of Sicilians and Poles, of Chinese and Russians. They must become expert in detecting crime characteristics as shown by twenty races. They must deal with people who have no knowledge of public health regulations or safety ordinances or of those sanitary laws which distinguish the modern city from the medieval town. They must have a ready knowledge of national customs and habits so as to be forearmed against an Italian festival, a Polish wedding or a Russian holiday. They must constantly realize that the juxtaposition of separate racial groups is a factor of potential disorder. To see the London " Bobby " at work, dealing with people of his own race who understand him and whom he understands, is to leara a larger sympathy for his brother officer who walks the beat in New York, Chicago or San Francisco.

II. PREPONDERANCE OF CRIME IN AMERICA

The task of the police is further handicapped in the United States, as compared generally with Europe, by the greater volume of crime committed here. Police statistics show that crime is far more prevalent in American cities than in the cities of England, France or Germany.^ The point will undoubtedly be made that inasmuch as the prime duty of the police is the prevention of crime, this unhappy condition is the restdf of our police ineffectiveness rather than one of the causes of it. In part this

^German criminal statistics after 1914 are not available, and French statistics since that date are unsatisfactory for the use of the careful student The English statistics maintain their standard of excellence and completeness in spite of the war.

point is well taken, and it must be admitted that in ass( ing responsibility for the condition which we shall shoi describe, we are in a borderland where exact analysii impossible. At the same time the large prepondera in America of certain types of crime which are, generj speaking, unaffected by police activity — such as j meditated murder and many kinds of commercial fra — affords a basis for the belief that our greater compc tive propensity to crime is to a certain degree due to make-up of our population, quite apart from the in< ciency of our police forces. To that extent, there f( this condition may be placed in the list of those extei factors which complicate our police problem.

Comparative Statistics — Murder.

As to the fact of our excessive criminality, the sU tics furnish startling evidence. London in 191 6, wit population of seven millions and a quarter, had nine meditated murders. Chicago, one-third the size of I don, in the same period had 105, nearly twelve ti London's total. ^ In the year 191 6, indeed — and it not an exceptional year — Chicago with its 2,500, people had twenty more murders than the whole of I land and Wales put together with their 38,000,000 ] plc.^ The Chicago murders during this year total

^ These figures, in both instances, do not include abortion c I am indebted for my Chicago figures to the Bureau of Recorc the Chicago police department which prepares perhaps the analysis of homicidal deaths to be found an3rwhere in the U; States. The London figures are from the annual reports oi Comniissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It must be empha that these statistics in both instances are based not on judicia terminations, but on a police analysis of crime complaints.

2 Figures obtained from the Judicial Statistics of England more than London had during the five year period from 1910 to 1914 inclusive. In 1917 Chicago had ten more murders than the whole of England and Wales and four more murders than all England, Wales and Scotland.^ In 19 1 8 Chicago had fourteen more murders than England and Wales. In 1919 the number of murders in Chicago was almost exactly six times the number committed in London. A tabulation of some of these statistics follows : ^

Murders

England and Wales .... 92 81 85 81 81

Scotland 8 12 9 6 *

Liverpool 5 4 4 4 5

* Figures not available.

But Chicago is not exceptional. Other American cities suffer equally from comparison with crime conditions abroad. New York City in 19 16 had exactly six

Wales — Criminal Section (Table on police returns). These statistics are published annually by the Home Office. The figures quoted above — indeed the crime figures quoted in this entire section of the chapter — do not represent judicial findings — that is, they arc not based on the results of trials. They are complaints of crime, or, as they are called in England, crimes known to the police, regardless of arrests, convictions, or the particular degrees 01 crime for which prisoners are sentenced. Thus the police in a given community might know that 100 burglaries had been committed in the course of a year. Perhaps 50 arrests are made and 40 convictions secured in / varying degrees of burglary and housebreaking. The index of crime in that community is not found in the arrests or the convictions, but in the 100 burglaries known to the police to have been committed.

* Figures obtained from the Judicial Statistics of Scotland, published annually by the Scottish Office.

2 Exclusive of abortion cases and infanticides.

II times the number of homicides (murder and manslaughter) that London had for the same year, and only ten less homicides than all of England and Wales. In

19 1 7 New .York had six times more homicides than London, and exceeded the total homicides of England and Wales by 56. In 1918 New York again had six times more homicides than London, and exceeded the total homicides of England and Wales by 67.^ This contrast canhot be attributed to the peculiar conditions in London induced by the war. In each of the years from 19 14 to

19 1 8 inclusive New York had more homicides than occurred in London during any three year period previous to the outbreak of the war in 1914.^ A tabulation of homicide statistics follows:

^ The New York figures are taken from the annual reports of the New York police department. The homicide figrures ii> all instances are exclusive of abortion cases and vehicular accident and other criminal negligence cases. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these statistics and careful studies have ^een undertaken in New York, Chicago and London (at Scotland Yard) to test their comparability.

2 At the same time it cannot be denied that the war had some effect upon criminal statistics in England, although the reduction in homicides is not as marked as might be expected. The following table shows murders and manslaughters in London ' during the ten years preceding the war:

Year Murder

1904 19

1905 20

1906 16

1909 18

1910 21

1911 21

1912 24

1913 22

These figures, compiled from the reports of the London police, are

Total homicides

Manslaughter

(murder and manslaughter)

Homicide (murder and manslaughter)^ 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918

England and Wales 220 226 196 180 154

Liverpool 8 8 8 9 5

Glasgow II 23 18 II 9

Washington, D. C 26 25 24 24 27

* Figures not available.

Statistics of this kind could be multiplied at length. In the three year period 1916-1918 inclusive, Glasgow had 38 homicides ; Philadelphia, which is only a trifle larger, had during this same period 281.^ Liverpool and St. Louis are approximately the same size; in 191 5 St. Louis had eleven times the nxmiber of homicides that Liverpool had, and in 1916 eight times the number.* Los Angeles, one-twentieth the size of London, had two more homicides in 1 91 6 than London had for the same period; in 19 1 7 she had ten more than London had. Cleveland, Ohio, one-tenth the size of London, had more than three

exclusive of abortions, infanticides, justifiable homicides and all vehicular accident and criminal negligence cases.

^ Exclusive of abortions, infanticides and vehicular accident and other criminal negligence cases. New York and Chicago figures are based upon police reports, except the 1915 New York figure, which is based on a personal examination of the records. This examination showed twelve more homicides than were indicated in the annual report.

2 Philadelphia statistics from annual reports. Bureau of Police.

'The St. Louis statistics were obtained from the police department records.

times the number of homicides in 1917 and approximate twice the number in 1918.^

The chief constable for Edinburgh in his annual r port for 191 5 wrote as follows: " I regret to state th while crimes against the person have consideraply d creased, a number of serious crimes under the heading • homicide were reported during the year — namely, 01 murder, one attempted murder, and five cases of culpal homicide." ^ The one murder was an abortion case; t\ of the culpable homicides were cases in which infants h; died from neglect ; a third was a vehicular accident cas and two others, "after full investigation by the Cro\ Authorities were not proceeded with/* * Edinburgh is city in excess of 300,000 population. Surely a chief police in an American city of equal size would have re sons for pride rather than regret if he could point such a record.

We have already noted that as a result of the war 1 liable crime statistics are not available in Continental E rope. It is pertinent to note, however, that for a lo: time before the war Berlin had an average of 25 mi ders a year, and Vienna an average of nineteen.*

^ Statistics obtained from police records.

^Report on Crime and the Police Establishment, 191 5, p. 6.

^Ibid, In his report for 1918 the chief constable of Edinbui says: "The only crime of a serious nature recorded during 1 year was that of a young unmarried woman charged with culpa homicide." This was an infanticide case (p. 8). In his report 1919 this same official said: "I regret to state that while cri has slightly decreased during the year, crimes against the pers have considerably increased. . . . Two cases of murder and one c; of culpable homicide were reported to the police during the yea These cases included one abortion and one vehicular accident ca (p. 8.)

* These figures I verified in 1914 at police headquarters in AU Qnderplatz, Berlin, and at the Agent enreferat in Vienna*

Comparative StaHstics — Burglary.

Equally significant is the comparison of burglary statistics between Great Britain and the United States. In 191 5, for example, New /York City had approximately eight times as many burglaries as London had in the same period, and nearly twice the number of burglaries reported in all England and Wales.* In 191 7 New York had four times as many burglaries as London, and approximately the same number as occurred in England and Wales. In 19 18 the burglaries which the police reported in New York were approximately two and a half times those in London.^ While war conditions undoubtedly served to heighten this contrast, they were by no means entirely responsible for it; in 19 15 New York City had more burglaries than occurred in all England and Wales in 1911, 1912, or 1913.* Chicago in 1916 had 532 more burglaries than London, in 19 17, 3459 more, in 1918, 866 more, and in 1919, 2146 more. Detroit and Cleveland generally report several hundred

iln New York there were 11,652 burglaries in 1915; in London 1459; in England and Wales 6^737. In order to establish a comparison I have grouped within the classification " burglary " several crimes which in England are listed under such titles as housebreaking, shop-'breaking, sacrilege, etc. The crime burglary as used in the above comparison includes housebreaking by day or night.

2 It seems probable that these New York figures for 19 18 represent an under-statement of the actual number of burglaries.

'The burglaries occurring in London and in England and Wales from 1910-1915 inclusive are as follows:

Year London England and Wales

1911 3,048 11,045

1912 2,974 11,112

1913 2,911 11,166 more burglaries per annum than London, although London is seven or eight times larger. In each of these two cities in 19 17 and 19 18 the number of burglaries averaged one-fourth the number committed in all England and Wales. The annual burglaries in St. Louis always exceed those in London.

A table of burglaries follows :

Burglary, including housebreaking by day or night, shop-breaking, sacrilege, etc.^

1916 1917 1918

England and Wales 7,809 9453 10,331

* Figures not available.

The disproportionate number of burglaries occurring in American cities as compared with English cities is reflected in the prevailing burglary insurance rates of the two countries. Due to differences in insurance practices

1 The American figures in this table are taken from police department records. Their accuracy cannot be vouched for, because in many of our departments, complaints of crime are deliberately and systematically concealed. It can safely be assumed, however, that these figures represent an under-statement rather than an overstatement. The English statistics, on the other hand, are kept with meticulous care, and after a careful study of the records and methods at Scotland Yard and elsewhere in Great Britain, I do not believe that complaints of crime are ever concealed to avoid unfavorable appearances.