Democratic Accountability and Policing — Maria Ponomarenko & Barry Friedman (2017)
Ponomarenko and Friedman argue that policing should be governed democratically, not solely by police departments.
Communities should help shape policing policies before they are implemented, improving transparency, legitimacy, accountability, and public trust while ensuring policing reflects community values.
1. Policing Lacks Democratic Accountability
2. Communities Should Help Shape Policing Before Problems Occur
3. Democratic Policing Improves Legitimacy and Trust
4. Policing Should Be Governed Like Other Public Agencies
5. Community Participation Can Improve Public Safety
6. Building Democratic Accountability Requires Institutional Reform
⭐ Star Facts
- The authors argue that policing lacks “front-end accountability”—the public rarely helps decide police policies before they are implemented.
- Most police accountability today is back-end, focusing on discipline or investigations after misconduct has occurred.
- Unlike agencies such as the EPA or local school boards, police departments often do not publicly propose policies or invite community input before adopting them.
- The 2015 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended involving communities in setting policing priorities and department policies.
- Research on legitimacy shows that giving people a voice increases trust and cooperation, even when they disagree with the final decision.
- The authors argue that democratic policing should include clear rules, transparency, public participation, and rational policymaking before officers act.
- Cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Cleveland, and Portland have experimented with civilian bodies that help shape policing policies.
- The central recommendation is to treat police departments more like other public agencies, making community participation a permanent part of how policing policies are created.