TO say that I was impressed with the recent initiative of the Minister of Home Affairs would be an understatement. The call for a Retreat will be recorded as a timely intervention when the history of the Guyana Police Force reviewed. At the outset I should state that Mr. Rohee (for a politician) demonstrates a keen understanding of security matters and –I dare say, the organizational culture in law enforcement.
I think that the minister should be also applauded for his consistency in pursuing the community policing philosophy which promotes a shared responsibility for community safety and security. To be sure this of necessity involves proactive crime prevention through a visible neighborhood police presence, and effective efforts to identify and solve crime-producing problems, arrests, maintenance of order, and resolution of disputes.  Having said that I wish to share a few observations and hope that they not be seen as unwarranted criticism of, or worse, deemed hostile to the GPF by my erstwhile colleagues.
I recall during 1994 at the Annual Officers Conference where officers are expected to make their contributions I suggested that members of the GPF involved in the use of deadly force should be given the opportunity to be psychologically evaluated. My thinking at that time and which remains with me was that a clearer understanding would be derived of specific and general situational factors where deadly force is used. I was at pains to point out that the rank(s) involved should not be made to feel that the process was anything other than an attempt to arrive at informed operational policies and standard operating procedures based upon actual experiences and an appreciation of the stress inherent in those experiences. I was to hear a similar suggestion at the level of Force’s administration some twelve years later.
I contend that stress may be the most important a factor which determines the outcome in situations of conflict and places policing among the most stressful occupations. This evidently due in major part to having to operate in a hazardous environment (including having to deal with citizens who may be chronically ill with a contagious infection) which are sometimes life threatening.  Dantzer (1987) lists law enforcement as among the top five most stressful occupations worldwide. The uniqueness of law enforcement resides in the expectation and perception that it is an opportunity to protect and serve while respecting the integrity and individuality of the beneficiaries of that service and protection.
Jaramillo et al on “The effect of law enforcement stress on organisational commitment” argue that the statutory role of the police produces a monopolistic structure where poor quality service may result from lack of competition. They propose an examination of the model on stressor-strain relationship for police officers whereby stressors of role conflict; role ambiguity; supervisor support; group cohesiveness; and promotion opportunity are seen as influential antecedents of commitment to the organization so-much-so that the resultant job satisfaction experienced brings with it a diminished desire to leave the job. (Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Vol. 28 No. 2, 2005 pp. 321-336).  While it may be true that police administrators have little influence over certain individual and situational factors, it is unarguable that they do have some influence over the organizational structure of the work environment. In this regard organizational influences may be more important in controlling police behavior and managing outputs than situational factors.
It sometimes appears as if the concept of community policing has not been embraced as tightly as it should among the rank and file, which brings me to the oft expressed desire that there is need for the police to improve their relationships with the public as far as practicable and avoid citizen complaints. Reiss (1971) found that more than sixty percent of complaints against police were allegations of inappropriate verbal conduct. Scenarios involving police misconduct impact on public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system and engender questions of whether the police as agents of the legal system acted fairly. If people feel that they were not treated with fairness, respect and dignity by a law enforcement officer they are likely to question the legitimacy and fairness of the criminal justice system.
Involuntary contacts with the police (e.g. traffic stop encounters and traffic accidents) are particularly likely to generate negative reactions to police procedures among citizens (Davis, 2000) and these reactions can lead to negative perceptions of the police. An example of frequent police-citizen contact outside of the police stations is a vehicle stop for a violation of the traffic law. Thus, in order to provide proper procedural justice to citizens during traffic stops, it is necessary to determine what the public perceives as appropriate behavior during these encounters. What does the motoring public perceive as fair and respectful behavior when they are pulled over for a traffic violation?  Are the perceptions of all citizens generally the same or are there variations by age, race, and gender with regard to their expectations?  Do these expectations fit the current police traffic stop practices in use? Common sense would suggest that personal experience with the police is a key factor in determining how citizens perceive the police as an organisation.
With particular reference to traffic encounters I suggest that our traffic ranks should be exposed to training similar to a system called verbal judo taught to police officers in the USA that focuses on using pre-determined steps, scripted phrases, responses that deflect insults, showing of empathy, and gaining compliance through personal appeals.  Developed by police officer and professor of English Dr George Thompson this interpersonal communication during routine traffic stop demonstrate empathy, deflect insults or excuses in a professional manner, and allow the citizen to save face while gaining the citizen’s compliance. The officer’s demeanor is to remain friendly, yet professional at all times using the following nine-step process:
(1) Greeting the citizen. (2) Introduction of the officer and the officer’s department. (3) Explanation of the reason for the stop. (4) Allowing the citizen to offer justification for the violation. (5) Request of license documentation and cooperation. (6) Clarification of details. (7) Decision on enforcement action. (8) Decision on whether or not to conduct a search. (9) Explanation of citizen’s option and conclusion of the stop (Thompson and Jenkins, 1993, pp. 141-3).
Editor space does not permit me to elaborate but there are several areas which the GPF may wish to revisit as they relate to its relationship with the public and which – I am sure fits into the general thinking of the subject minister.