Police Officer on the Frontline or a Soldier? The Effect of Police Militarization on Crime

Policing Through Subsidized Firepower: An Assessment of Rational Choice and Minority Threat Explanations of Police Participation in the 1033 Program*

“…Although criminologists and criminal justice scholars have debated the appropriateness or usefulness of using the military as a professional model for law enforcement (see Cowper, ; den Heyer, ; Waddington, , ; cf. Buerger, ; Jefferson, , ; Kappeler and Kraska, ), many American politicians, law enforcement professionals, and average citizens assume that the emulation of military traditions, tactics, chain of command, culture, and equipment can supplement and improve police efficacy (Bove and Gavrilova, ; Campbell and Campbell, , ; Harris et al., ; Phillips, ; Turner and Fox, ). To assess empirically how police may or may not be adopting or emulating such militaristic practices, however, as well as to assess the effect of such practices on police work, we must be clear about what is meant specifically by the term police militarization .…”

“…Although scholars and journalists have fixated on the combat equipment (including uniforms, body armor, firearms, radios, night‐vision goggles, mine‐resistant armored protected vehicles or MRAPs, and aircraft), the 1033 Program also provides materiel such as survival gear, medical utensils, and office furniture and supplies. Researchers have found that some LEAs may take advantage of office supplies and other noncombat materiel to offset policing costs (Bruce et al., ), whereas others may use combat materiel for law enforcement efforts (Bove and Gavrilova, ; Harris et al., ).…”

“…Even though there is a growing body of scholars who argue that participation in the 1033 Program makes an excellent test case for theories of police militarization (Ajilore, ; Bove and Gavrilova, ; Dansky, ; Delehanty et al., ; Harris et al., ; McQuoid and Vitt, ; Radil, Dezzani, and McAden, ), it is not an exhaustive indicator of police militarization . We focus on the 1033 Program, however, because accessing materiel such as weaponry, vehicles, and uniforms is an early and often necessary step for many LEAs toward further militarization in the dimensions of language and terminology, organizing using military principles, and practicing military‐style tactics (Ajilore, ; Insler, McMurray, and McQuoid, ; Kraska, ; Phillips, ).…”

“…In doing so, we draw from criminological and sociological theories of rational public choice and minority threat. Rational public choice theories posit that police acquire and use military equipment not only as a reaction to high crime rates but also in response to the wars on drugs and terrorism, which have changed the nature of policing (Bove and Gavrilova, ; Campbell and Campbell, , ; Harris et al., ). A parallel argument contends that law enforcement priorities reflect the desires of politically and socially powerful majorities in society (Blalock, ), suggesting that the acquisition and use of military equipment is a response to growing minority populations viewed as threatening to the majority's social order (Ajilore, ; Balko, ; Meeks, ).…”

Police militarization in theUnited States

“…LEA applications for the 1033 Program supplies do not require distinctions between combat and non‐combat gear, and once a request is approved, the only financial cost to LEAs in is shipping charges (Bruce, Carruthers, Harris, Murray, & Park, ; Harris, Park, Bruce, & Murray, ). While LEAs may purchase military equipment using their own funds or grant monies (including from Department of Homeland Security grants) (Parlapiano, ), the 1033 Program is unique because it has a lower level of oversight and is less expensive than alternative approaches (Bove & Gavrilova, ; Department of Homeland Security 2018). Research on police militarization has grown rapidly, as the DoD has increased the quality of data reported from the 1033 Program in recent years.…”