Enforcement activity that lacks visible public rationale or measurable outcomes is perceived as selective, biased, or self-directed.
When the public cannot see the logic behind enforcement, enforcement begins to feel arbitrary.
This is extremely important because it:
- explains distrust psychologically
- validates public concerns
- preserves room for proactive policing
- justifies data-driven reform
Perceived Bias
The public’s perception of law enforcement officers is that they are not fulfilling their primary obligation of maintaining public safety by effectively responding to radio calls (ie., the police are never there when you need them).
Subsequently, any activities officers do outside of responding to calls for service (especially proactive work) is perceived as arbitrary, selective, (i.e., biased) and not in the interest of the public good.
Operational Legitimacy
Peace officers have a variety of options and/or mandates when performing their duties (radio calls, investigations, arrests, traffic stops, pedestrian stops, consensual contacts, special projects, community outreach, et al).
Due to lack of consistent and comprehensive data analysis and outcome tracking, it is unclear how/if each individual option significantly contributes to the overall mission of maintaining public safety, and to what extent.
Proactive enforcement is already regarded with pessimism because it is often authoritative, punitive, and officer initiated.
Lack of data toward its effectiveness means there is a lack of justification, which compounds public distrust.