Kristian Williams - Our Enemies in Blue - Police and Power in America

TIlere is a further advantage to this approach: it acknowledges the factof continuing development and leaves open the possibility of further modernization.Hence, rather than a revolution of modernity, occurring between1829 and about 1860, we are faced with a much more protracted process.We find police departments approaching their modern form quite a whileearlier; and yet, we can recognize that these same departments may notbe fully modernized, even now.ll In short, this view avoids the tendency totreat our contemporary institution as the final product of earlier progress,as an end-point marking completion, and instead situates it as one stage inan ongoing process.ENGLISH PREDECESSORSMany people find it astonishing that the police have predecessors. They seemto imagine that the cop has always been there, in something like his presentcapacity, subject only to the periodic change of uniform or the occasional technologicaladvance. Quite to the contrary, the police have a rich and complexhistory, if an ugly one. Our contemporary institution owes much of its characterto those that came before it, including those offices imported or imposedduring the colonial period. These in turn have their own stories, closely linkedto the creation of modern states. It is worth considering this lineage and theforces that propelled change, from one form of control to another.During the time between the fall of Rome and the rise of modern states,policing-like political authority-became quite decentralized. "Gradually,new superordinate kingdoms were formed, delegating the power to createpolice but holding on to the power to make law.''J(, Within such arrangements,policing initially took an informal mode, such as that of the frankpledge systf'min England.'7 Under this systcm, families grouped theillselves togetherin sets of ten (called "tythings") and collections of ten tythings (called "hundreds"). The heads of these families pledged to one another to obey the law.Together they were responsible for enforcing that pledge, apprehending anyof their own who violated it, and combining for mutual protection. If theyfailed in these duties, they were fined by the sovereign.'kUnder the frankpledge system, the responsibility for enforcing the law andmaintaining order fell to everyone in the community.Our extremely modern concept of a specialized police force did not thenexist. Neither was there any public means for repressing or preventingcrime, as distinguished from its detection and the apprehension ofoffenders. The members of each tything were simply bound to a mutualundertaking to apprehend, and present for trial, any of their numberwho might commit an offense.]"This arrangement relied on the social conditions present in small communities,especially the sense of interpersonal connection and interdependence.But we should be careful of romanticizing this idyllic scenario. The frankpledgesystem was imposed by the Norman conquerors as a means of maintainingcolonial rule. Essentially, they forced the conquered communities toenforce the Norman la w. 2030