Street Corner Politicians: The Utility of Mediation in Law Enforcement
Although law enforcement is an institution created for the purpose suggested by its namesake, many disputes to which a law enforcement officer (LEO) responds do not involve a violation of the law. While an LEO may have the authority to arrest a person when probable cause exists, even for violations of the law, their primary obligation is to de-escalate situations and use the least amount of force necessary, to the best of their ability. The most effective method of de-escalation is what is known as Mediation.
The two primary methods of conflict resolution are mediation and arbitration. The mediator's role is to act as an unbiased yet empathetic middleman and guide both opposing parties toward an agreed conclusion through compromise; the arbitrator slightly differs, through listening to both parties and then rendering a decision. There are appropriate use cases for both methodologies; however, mediation should always be the LEO's priority when handling conflict resolution. As Christopher C. Cooper (2003) notes, citing Muir (1977), patrol police officers often serve as "street-corner politicians" who must resolve community disputes through communication and negotiation rather than enforcement alone. Mediation and its five-step process are superior to arbitration for two primary reasons. First, mediation allows disputing parties to feel a sense of self-determination and control over the outcome. Second, because both parties are required to engage in a rational, five-stage compromise process, the outcome is naturally more stable and less likely to fall apart. Though some may argue in favor of arbitration, when disputants are left with a decision imposed upon them, the losing party is more likely to feel resentment toward the perceived unfairness of the outcome. As a result, the arbitrator's decision has a lower chance of being followed and may, in some cases, lead to further escalation.
The mediation process is by far the most stable and long-lasting form of conflict resolution. According to Pruitt and Rubin (1986), individuals tend to value and protect outcomes in which they have invested their own effort and decision making. Using an analogy of a rental car, people generally treat their own vehicles with more care than a rental vehicle. The five-step mediation process is designed to create buy-in and ownership, which in turn creates greater stability and commitment to a permanent, compromised outcome (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).
A study produced by Christopher C. Cooper (2003) of Saint Xavier University outlined the five steps of mediation. First is the opening statement, in which the mediator explains the dispute, establishes the rules, and outlines the flow of the discussion. Second, each party presents his or her account of the dispute. Third is clarification and reiteration, during which the mediator identifies flaws in reasoning, addresses misunderstandings, and ensures that all parties, including the mediator themselves, clearly understand the matters in contention. Fourth is the creation of resolutions, where the mediator encourages and facilitates both parties to propose solutions and works with them toward a mutually acceptable outcome. Finally, the fifth step is the agreement and its memorialization (Cooper, 2003).
Fairness is at the heart of mediation, or at least the perception of fairness. In a 1993 study titled "Comparing Three Processes," Shapiro, Debra, and Jeanne Brett examined 158 coal miners who had filed grievances. The participants, the miners, were assigned to one of three conflict-resolution methods: instrumental, noninstrumental, and procedural enactment. (Shapiro & Brett, 1993).
Instrumental process is analogous to an authoritarian arbitration method in which the outcome is either accepted or denied with no explanation or “hearing out” the claim. If the disputing party receives the outcome they desire, they generally do not care about the process because they got what they wanted. The noninstrumental process allowed disputants to speak and present their case, even though they had little actual control over the outcome. This resulted in greater acceptance of unfavorable decisions and reflects what effective arbitration should look like; though it was not the most effective method studied. The third and most positive outcome, and most akin method similar to mediation was procedural enactment, in which complainants were treated with understanding, respect, and validation regarding their disputes. This highlights a key distinction between mediation and arbitration: perceived influence over the outcome and, more importantly, the empathy and professionalism demonstrated by the third party mediating the process. This case study can also be applied to law enforcement, not just coal miners.
Mediation also extends beyond the courtroom into situations where culture, race, economic status, marital status, and religion may influence perceptions of fairness. As Meierding (1992) observed: "The significance of divorce in Islam, Judaism, and conservative and fundamentalist Christianity is discussed(…) Given the diverse population of the United States, it is important for mediators to become familiar with each party's cultural and religious perspective of fairness in order to facilitate an agreement that will provide long-term psychological and substantive satisfaction." (Meierding, 1992, p. 304). Meierding highlights mediation’s ability to account for factors that formal legal proceedings may overlook. This is especially important when dealing with disputes, especially with cultures that may differ from one another, or cultures that may have different domestic lifestyles where gender or familial dynamics might occur more frequently. It is the responsibility of the LEO to lead these mediation discussions with empathy, understanding, and a decent outer cultural literacy.
Mediation is by far the most professional and effective way of resolving social disputes. Its five-step process: beginning with the opening statement, followed by each party's account of the dispute, clarification of the issues, collaborative brainstorming, and finally the creation of a mutually acceptable agreement. The five-step process creates buy-in from both sides and establishes ownership of the solution. Just as senators and politicians must negotiate and compromise to achieve lasting outcomes, it is likewise the LEO's responsibility to serve as an effective "street-corner politician." Through mediation, officers can resolve conflicts in a manner that is fair, stable, and far more likely to produce a long-term solution.
Work Cited:
Cooper, C. C. (2003). Conceptualizing mediation use by patrol police officers. Saint Xavier University.
Meierding, N. R. (1992). The impact of cultural and religious diversity in the divorce mediation process. Mediation Quarterly, 9(4), 297–305.
Muir, W. K. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Random House.
Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1167–1177.
