Should police officers be compared to warriors?
Policemen are often compared to warriors. Both fight enemies and both risk their lives. However, because of the differences in their intent, they are not quite comparable, which the difference in the rationale of a warrior and a policeman shows graphically.
The goals and responsibilities of police do cross with the ones of warriors at some points. Much like warriors, policemen are supposed to protect innocent people from harm and make sure that civilians should not be under attack by those who cross the law.
However, when going into details concerning the goals and responsibilities of police, one must admit that policemen and warriors aim at different objectives. The first and the most obvious difference concerns the treatment of criminals. While warriors are supposed to eliminate the enemy or, at the very least, capture him/her, the duty of the police is restricted to solely apprehending criminals.
It should also be mentioned that, much like warriors, police officers get rewards for successful completion of particular operations, years of service, etc. In most cases, Peak explains, these rewards are not monetary, which can be related to the way in which warriors are honored.
However, the reasons for police to be compared with warriors should stretch beyond the mere comparison of the way in which police and army are organized; instead, it will be more reasonable to focus on the functions that each of them performs in society, as well as the features that are typically associated with each of the professions in question. For instance, the policeman – criminal relations are different from the warrior – enemy ones.
While a warrior is usually supposed to kill his adversary, a policeman should do everything possible in order to apprehend a criminal alive. The given detail defines the difference between a policeman and a warrior – while the former represents justice and does everything possible so that the accused should be given up to the court and undergo a trial, the latter is justice. Unlike a COPPS representative, a warrior does not have any doubts regarding not only the guiltiness of his/her opponent but also about conducting the trial and execution at the exact same time.
One must mention that a warrior being the judge and the executioner at the same time is absurd in the realm of the everyday world, yet works strangely well on the battlefield. Hence, it is wrong to compare a warrior and a policeman not only because their goals and rationales are different, but also because the environments in which they exist are not the same.
Therefore, the legitimacy of the comparison of police to warriors depends on the concept that the person making the comparison has of a warrior. As long as a warrior is interpreted as a crusader for justice, the comparison has the right to exist. However, as soon as the concept of a warrior emerges with the principle of merciless and blind extermination of the enemy, the comparison becomes groundless and, therefore, wrong. Unlike warriors, who are forced to do justice and must envision their enemies as targets that are yet to be killed in a fight, policemen must bring criminals to justice. Thus, unlike warriors, policemen are not supposed to judge the people they apprehend. The given difference between a police officer and a warrior makes it clear that the two are not supposed to be confused and that, though being crusaders for justice, policemen cannot be technically called warriors.
Would the title of “warrior” conflict with the rationale of COPPS?
As it has been stressed above, the goals of a warrior in the traditional meaning of the word do not quite coincide with the ones of a police officer, which may already lead to a negative answer to the given question. However, to be more objective, one will have to take a closer look at the details of the COPPS rationale and figure out if there are certain points at which the two notions cross.
According to the existing evidence, the rationale of a police officer consists of several major parts. Before going any further, one must stress that, from what Peak (2012, p. 3) says about the rationale behind serving in COPPS, the latter can be defined as not merely an organizational strategy that helps prevent crime, but also as a management style and even as philosophy. At the given point, the similarities between a warrior and a COPPS officer come out in full blue, since both appear to be guided by the principles that stem from a particular philosophical thought.
However, when going into details concerning the rationale of a police officer, or, to be exact, a COPPS officer, one will have to bring up the two aforementioned parts of belonging to the police force. First, there is problem solving, which can be attributed to the idea of being a warrior only partially. It must be admitted that taking part in battles rarely requires the ability to analyze and synthesize, as well solve puzzles; the above-mentioned tasks are, however, a part of policemen’s daily routine, as Peak explains.
Another important distinction that sets the two phenomena in question apart is community engagement. True, warriors fight for their families and homes; however, being at war means staying away from home and, therefore, growing detached from the specifics of the community life. For a warrior, his/her battle partners soon turn into a mini-community, which (s)he slowly becomes a part of (Challan 2007, p. 6). A policeman, on the contrary, particularly the COPPS officer, must constantly be in touch with the members of the community that (s)he protects. No matter whether the S.A.R.A. process is used for the given purpose or not, a policeman always remains linked to the community that (s)he is accountable for, which separates him/hr from a warrior. Therefore, if interpreting the concept of a warrior as the one of a soldier, the links between a warrior and a policeman fade away at the stage of defining the rationales for the existence of both of them.
The similarity between the idea of a warrior as it is perceived by most people nowadays and the rationale of a typical policeman, or a COPPS officer, cannot be doubted. However, the few differences that there are still keeping the two phenomena miles apart. From the point of view of a COPPS rationale, the key responsibility of a policeman is to provide safety for the community by working in it, whereas a warrior, in the traditional understanding of the word, defends the civilians, who are at the home front, and, thus, does not have a close connection with them.
That being said, the rationales of both a policeman and a warrior are very close, yet they do not quite match. Fulfilling solely the duties of a warrior, who is focused on the process of attacking the enemy, will eventually conflict with the duties of a policeman, who is supposed to take care of the community.
References
Challan, T L 2007, Awakening warrior: revolution in the ethics of warfare, SUNY Press, New York, Albany.
Peak, K 2012, Justice administration: police, courts and corrections management 7th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson: Prentice Hall.