Due to the close ties between police and local politicians, the time period from the 1840s through the early 1900s is often referred to as the political era of American policing (Kelling & Moore, 1988). While it is often argued that the implementation of the first U.S. urban police departments, such as those in Boston, MA (1838), New York, NY (1844), and New Orleans, LA (1852), was in response to rising crime and increased riots, there is no empirical evidence to support these claims. In contrast, historical record indicates that crime rates and the frequency of riots remained relatively stable over this time period (Gurr, 1989). Most likely, citizen support for the development of the first urban police departments was spurred by intolerance for riots and reports of “spectacular crimes,” such as the 1841 murder of Mary Rogers in New York, depicted in Figure 6.3 below (Brodeur, 2010; Monkkonen, 1992); see Today in History: The Mysterious 1841 Murder of Mary Cecile Rogers. While the precise catalyst remains a matter of debate, the outcome was the establishment of the first formally organized police departments in the U.S, complete with full-time employees.

Early urban police departments in the U.S. attempted to replicate the English model but fell short of adopting it entirely, resulting in the adaptation of a distorted version of the English policing system (Brodeur, 2010). The most noticeable distinctions between the U.S. and English policing models lie in their overall structure, oversight, and funding allocation at the government level. Specifically, the English policing model is highly centralized, operating and receiving funding from the national government. In contrast, the American policing model is highly decentralized, as well as operated and funded by local governments.

In this political era, law enforcement officers were tightly regulated by political leaders and partisan politics. Hindered by a lack of institutional freedom, they were constrained from operating independently to the current prevailing political opinion, leading to a close alignment between law enforcement and local politicians and political machinery. This entanglement facilitated pervasive bias and corruption within law enforcement agencies. Coupled with insufficient training, basic investigatory strategies, and meager wages, law enforcement proved essentially ineffective in addressing crime alongside their additional responsibilities for maintaining social order and managing various social service tasks.

Typically, cities and counties controlled the police department budgets, exerting political influence over various aspects of the department, including hiring practices, salaries, and job responsibilities. In return, police departments were expected to further the goals of politicians in power, resisting change and upholding the status quo that ensured the politicians’ continued tenure. The relationship between politicians and the police was so intertwined that it was common practice to overhaul entire police departments when changes occurred in the local political administrations. For instance, following the 1880 Cincinnati elections, 74% (219 officers) of the Cincinnati police department were dismissed, and an additional 7% (20 officers) resigned (Uchida, 2005).

Careers in Criminal Justice: The Past and Present of Private Investigation

The history of private investigation and security in the U.S. is a fascinating journey that begins with the establishment of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency by Allan Pinkerton in 1850. Originally formed to combat counterfeiters, the agency quickly expanded its services during the Wild West era to address a wide array of criminal activities, including espionage, labor strikes, and train robberies (Horan, 1967). The Pinkertons gained widespread recognition for their involvement in high-profile cases such as the pursuit of infamous outlaws like Jesse James and thwarting an alleged plot to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln. In the face of this notoriety, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency experienced much criticism, controversy, and conflict. One prominent challenge emerged from their involvement in labor disputes during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where Pinkerton agents were frequently employed to dissolve labor and workers’ union striking activities as depicted in Figure 6.4 below. Equipped with weapons and use of force tactics, the Pinkerton agency was perceived as anti-labor and gained negative public sentiment (Morn, 1982). In addition to conflicts with labor movements, the agency also faced legal obstacles regarding its involvement in a variety of controversial cases, including the failure to prevent the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. Concerns also grew about the agency’s influence on public affairs, leading to legal restrictions on the federal government’s hiring of Pinkerton agents in the late 19th century. Over time, the Pinkerton agency evolved from private detective and security and shifted focus as a global entity offering a comprehensive range of risk management and consulting services. Despite the agency’s storied history, the Pinkerton agency played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of private security and investigation, leaving a long-lasting legacy in the history of American law enforcement.

Today, careers in private investigation offer a diverse and dynamic field for individuals interested in contributing to the legal process outside the realm of public law enforcement. Private detectives and investigators conduct independent research to uncover information often related to legal cases and security matters, typically working irregular hours from several locations. Careers in this field require a combination of skills essential for success, including critical thinking, attention to detail, patience, intuition, effective communication, and a strong understanding of surveillance technology. Depending on the specific assignment or case, work generally includes a variety of office tasks, computer research, fieldwork, surveillance, and conducting interviews (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024).

Careers in the private security and investigation sector require a blend of education, a license, practical experience, and a commitment to ongoing learning. Job requirements in this field include a minimum of a high school diploma or equivalent, although many employers often prefer candidates with higher education, such as an associate or bachelor’s degree in criminal justice or a related field. Importantly, private detectives and investigators often require a license, with specific requirements varying by state. Practical experience, such as prior work in law enforcement, the military, or private security, is highly valued in this field. Continuous professional development is crucial in this field to stay abreast of evolving investigatory strategies and related technologies. Therefore, specialized training and certifications, such as those in surveillance techniques, cybersecurity, or crisis management, are beneficial.

The pay range for private investigators varies widely based on factors like level of experience, specialization, specialization, and location. Entry-level positions generally range from $40,000 to $50,000 annually, while experienced professionals with expertise in specialized areas or those operating their own agencies can earn significantly higher, with salaries exceeding $100,000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024).

Private detectives and private investigators are important contributors to the safety, protection, and justice across diverse clients and industries. As the landscape of private security threats expands, so does the demand for skilled investigators in the private sector.

As documented in Figure 6.5 above, a great migration of Europeans commenced in the 1870s, coinciding with the period of industrialization. This era drew both immigrants and existing citizens to the larger cities, enticed by opportunities for factory work. Concurrently, there was a substantial movement of African Americans from the southern U.S. regions to urban areas in the North. The year 1910 signified the initiation of “The Great Migration” characterized by hundreds of thousands of African Americans resettlement in northern cities (National Archives, 2021).

In the early 20th century, migrants relocating to developed northern cities were not culturally assimilated or otherwise integrated into the existing structures in their newfound communities. Frequently arriving without housing or employment, these newcomers were commonly viewed as a burden by city residents (Muller, 2012). In addition to the municipal police department’s responsibilities to maintain order and prevent crime, many departments also operated soup lines and assisted new immigrants in finding lodging (Monkkonen, 1982). These extended efforts not only fostered public relations but also provided an opportunity for officers and local politicians to recruit new immigrants into the police force as well as ensured additional voter support.

Strengths and Shortcomings of Political Era Policing Strategy

The political era of American policing, spanning from the 1840s to the early 1900s, witnessed significant change in policing strategies (outlined in the list below, as cited in Kelling & Moore, 1988), yielding both positive outcomes and inherent problems.

Police Organizational Strategies During the Political Era

• Authorization: Primarily political.
• Function: Crime control, order maintenance, and broad social services.
• Organizational Design: Decentralized and geographical.
• Relationship to Environment: Close and personal.
• Demand: Managed through links between politicians and precinct commanders, and face-to-face contacts between citizens & foot patrol officers.
• Tactics & Technology: Foot patrol and rudimentary investigations.
• Outcome: Political and citizen satisfaction with social order.

One of the most beneficial outcomes of the implemented policing strategies was the strong integration of policing departments and local politicians with the neighboring communities. This fostered a sense of empowerment in local communities, garnering strong citizen support for their neighborhood police officers, especially from citizens aligned with the current dominant political interests (Kelling & Moore, 1988). This connection facilitated a more direct influence of elected officials on policing procedure, enabling them to more effectively address the unique needs and priorities of specific neighborhoods. Many times, police were perceived as both successful crime fighters and crucial government agents who assisted immigrants and the poor (Reppetto, 1978). However, this integration also presented significant shortcomings.

The localized focus of the political era struggled to establish consistent standards and practices across jurisdictions, resulting in a lack of uniformity and potential disparities in the application of law. Additionally, the strong ties between police and politicians allowed opportunity for potential corruption, favoritism, and manipulation of law enforcement for political gain. Police departments, in many cases, became tools to maintain the status quo and suppress dissent, hindering the pursuit of justice and impartial law enforcement. Living and working closely with citizens and politicians, combined with a decentralized bureaucratic structure, resulted in poor supervision of police officials, allowing for the emergence of corruption (Friedman, 1993; Kelling & Moore, 1988). Another concern was the close ties with cultural elites, which influenced discriminatory ideas and perpetuated racist attitudes and actions towards those deemed as outsiders, particularly ethnic and racial minorities, who were often greeted to the neighborhood by police officials with the end of a nightstick (Kelling, 1987). Lastly, patronage was used for promotions, leading to inept policing and the widespread negative perception of police officers, stereotyping them as keystone cops (Kelling & Moore, 1988; Muller, 2012).

Overall, while the political era emphasized community connection, it also underscored challenges related to corruption and the potential misuse of policing for political agenda. The close entanglement of politics and policing resulted in inferior social decisions, allowing greed and power-mongering to infiltrate the frontlines of the justice system. Moreover, poor pay, inadequate hiring practices, and unethical management led to an unfair, unbalanced policing system that exhibited bigotry and discriminatory treatment, especially towards ethnic and racial minorities and members of lower socioeconomic classes.

Impactful Moments In Criminal Justice: Alcohol Prohibition

The early 20th century witnessed a significant surge in federal power amid growing concerns about alcohol consumption. The temperance movement, fueled by worries about alcohol-related social issues like domestic violence and economic instability, in conjunction with xenophobia, gained momentum in the 19th century. Moral and religious sentiments, notably championed by groups like the Anti-Saloon League, advocated for the prohibition of alcohol. This social pressure culminated in the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1917 (U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, repealed 1933), outlawing beverages exceeding a 2.75% alcohol limit. Two years later, the National Prohibition Act (1919), known informally as the Volstead Act, provided the legal framework for enforcement, defining illegal alcoholic beverages as any beverage containing more than 0.5% alcohol and outlining penalties for violations, including fines and imprisonment.

While the Eighteenth Amendment XVIII (U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, repealed 1933) banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, the Volstead Act (National Prohibition Act, 1919) aimed to distinguish between permitted and prohibited alcohol use, allowing exceptions for religious rituals and medicinal purposes. During Prohibition, physicians could prescribe medicinal whiskey, leading to widespread availability (Mennell, 1969).

The Act required federal agents to police illegal alcohol trade, triggering an extensive complication of unforeseen challenges for law enforcement officials, such as the illicit production and distribution of alcohol, the rise of underground bars, and the upsurge of organized crime. Rather than eliminate alcohol consumption, Prohibition merely changed drinking patterns, driving it underground (Mennell, 1969). A vast and lucrative black market for alcoholic beverages emerged as underground bars and bootlegging operations flourished. Speakeasies became popular social venues, and the glamorization of illegal activities became part of popular culture. However, with no regulatory oversight, the quality and safety of bootlegged alcohol were often questionable. Illicitly produced alcohol was often improperly produced and sometimes contained harmful substances, leading to cases of poisoning, blindness, and even death (Okrent, 2011). Meanwhile, organized crime syndicates, such as the infamous Chicago Outfit led by Al Capone, seized the opportunity to profit from the illegal production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. The illegal alcohol trade fueled violence and criminal activities, with gangs engaged in turf wars and violent clashes between rival groups becoming common, while law enforcement faced additional challenges concerning corruption and bribery.

Prohibition was widely viewed as government overreach and an infringement on personal freedoms, while the enforcement of Prohibition laws placed significant strain on the legal system and the economy. Many citizens, otherwise law-abiding, were willing to break the law to obtain and consume alcohol. This widespread disregard for Prohibition eroded public trust in the legal system, while police and courts became overwhelmed with alcohol-related cases, diverting resources from other criminal matters. Furthermore, the consequences of Prohibition inflicted harm on the economy as the legal alcohol industry, including breweries, distilleries, and bars went out of business, leading to job losses and economic decline in neighboring industries. In addition, the government also lost tax revenue that would have been generated from legal alcohol sales, further deepening the negative economic impact of Prohibition.

The Volstead Act (National Prohibition Act, 1919), criticized for being overly vague and difficult to enforce, compounded the array of unintended consequences of Prohibition. These negative outcomes eventually led to the ratification of Prohibition, with the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933 (U.S. Const. amend. XXI), repealing the Eighteenth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, repealed 1933), marking the end of Prohibition.

Although the Prohibition was repealed, it demonstrates several important policing dynamics, such as the Federal government’s reliance on local law enforcement agencies for federal law enforcement as well as the significance of a healthy relationship between police and the community, while also demonstrating the interrelatedness among politics, laws, and law enforcement, which exemplifies the Political Era of American policing (Mennell, 1969).

Attributions

1. Figure 6.3: Mary Rogers, the cigar girl, murdered at Hoboken, July 25, 1841 by The New York Public Library Digital Collections in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
2. Figure 6.4: Ohio – the mining troubles in Hocking Valley – scene in the town of Buchtel – the striking miners’ reception of “Blackleg” workmen when returning from their work escorted by a detachment of Pinkerton’s detectives / from a sketch by Joseph Becker ; Hyde. by Joseph Becker in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
3. Figure 6.5: Close view of European immigrants entering Immigration Building from boat, Ellis Island, New York Harbor by Keystone View Company in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
4. Figure 6.6: KeystoneKops by Mack Sennett Studios in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
5. Figure 6.7: New York City Deputy Police Commissioner John A. Leach, right, watching agents pour liquor into sewer following a raid during the height of prohibition by Unknown author in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.