Policing the Individual: Why Freedom Needs Boundaries
No one likes to be told what to do. It’s human nature. From childhood, we test boundaries, resist orders, and value autonomy. Yet, as we grow, we discover a basic truth: society cannot function if everyone acts entirely as they please. In a world that prizes freedom, we sometimes forget that freedom is not an absolute, but a negotiated privilege, one that exists within boundaries.
Today, the work of policing the individual sits at the center of this paradox. While many bristle at law enforcement’s presence, especially when it comes to small infractions or seemingly minor rules, history shows that effective policing of the “little things” is often what keeps society from unraveling. But how do we square our desire for liberty with our need for order? And how can police navigate their difficult role without trampling the very rights they’re sworn to protect?
Let’s begin with the psychology. The urge to resist authority isn’t a flaw; it’s a feature of being human. Psychologists call it “reactance”; an emotional reaction to perceived threats to our freedom. When an officer says, “Move along,” or “Show me your ID,” many people feel a jolt of indignation. “Why me?” they think. “What did I do?”
But this reaction, though natural, can lead to a breakdown in social order if left unchecked. If everyone ignores traffic rules, streets become dangerous. If everyone dismisses noise ordinances, neighborhoods become unlivable. So, we have laws – and police – to enforce them. The best policing doesn’t crush independence but channels it, asking for compliance not as submission, but as a contribution to the collective good. Studies show that people are more willing to obey the law when they feel treated fairly. Procedural justice matters. When officers act with respect and transparency, explaining not just what is required but why, resistance fades. People want to feel seen, heard, and not singled out. It’s not the uniform or the baton that wins cooperation, but the sense that enforcement is legitimate.
In the 1980s, social scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling popularized the “Broken Windows” theory. Their argument was simple but profound: visible signs of disorder; broken windows, graffiti, public drinking, signal that rules don’t matter, inviting worse behavior. Police, by addressing these “small” problems, help prevent bigger ones. So when tempted to tell officers “Way mek aryo nah go ketch the killers,” ponder on this.
Critics argue that such strategies can become oppressive, disproportionately targeting marginalized communities or criminalizing poverty. They’re right to warn against abuse. But when applied with nuance, the evidence suggests that order maintenance makes communities safer and more livable for everyone, especially the most vulnerable. Zero tolerance, however, is not the same as broken windows. Where broken windows calls for attention to detail and discretion, zero tolerance leaves no room for judgement, treating every infraction with maximum severity. This approach risks alienating the very public police need to serve, feeding the narrative of authority as hostile rather than helpful. The lesson? Good policing means drawing boundaries, not building walls.
We live in constitutional democracies for a reason. Our rights; to privacy, to speech, to due process, are the hard-won guardrails that keep government power in check. Police must respect these rights, even when confronted by belligerence or non-cooperation. But what happens when individuals refuse every request, when they see any assertion of authority as tyranny? Modern policing faces a dilemma: too soft, and chaos seeps in; too hard, and trust is shattered. There’s no simple formula. Officers must use judgement, communication, and, above all, restraint.
Consider the “sovereign citizen” phenomenon; people who believe the law does not apply to them. They refuse to answer questions, hand over documents, or comply with even the most basic requests. For police, these situations are fraught. The goal must always be to de-escalate, to enforce the law while upholding rights, and to avoid using force unless truly necessary. It’s a tough job. The public demands accountability for any overreach, and rightly so. Every mistake, every unjustified use of force, reverberates through the media and society, fueling further mistrust. Yet, police are also expected to act decisively when needed. The tightrope is real, and the stakes are high.
Trust in policing is built slowly but can be lost in an instant. It’s not just about what officers do, but what they’re perceived to do. Take gratuities; a free drink, a meal on the house. It seems harmless, a gesture of goodwill. But over time, such favors can breed expectations of special treatment, blurring the line between community engagement and corruption. Most officers refuse gratuities precisely because they understand this slippery slope. Public confidence relies on the perception of impartiality. If citizens believe the law is applied unevenly, that some people or businesses get a pass because of relationships or perks, then faith in the system erodes.
Professionalism in policing means more than following the rules. It means living up to the higher standard of public trust. Police must not only be above reproach… they must be seen to be so.
Policing is a deeply human profession. Officers must make split-second decisions under stress, often in ambiguous situations where the right course isn’t obvious. The law provides a framework, but judgement fills in the gaps. Emotional intelligence is just as vital as physical courage. A good officer knows how to read a room, how to defuse tension, when to listen and when to act. The most effective policing isn’t about power, but about persuasion and presence.
Yet, this expectation is almost superhuman. Officers are asked to be social workers, mediators, and guardians, all while facing the possibility of violence or backlash for any misstep. The pressure is immense, and support, training, and accountability are crucial for officers to thrive and for communities to feel secure.
Different societies approach the question of boundaries and policing in unique ways. In Singapore, strict enforcement yields low crime but comes with fewer civil liberties. In Japan, community-based policing, with officers embedded in neighborhoods, fosters trust and order. The UK’s tradition of policing by consent, where officers are seen as part of the public, not above it, offers another model.
History, too, warns of the dangers of unchecked power. From the civil rights struggles in the US to authoritarian abuses elsewhere, we see that when police lose sight of the distinction between maintaining order and stifling liberty, society suffers. The best results come from a delicate equilibrium: enough authority to prevent harm, enough restraint to respect individual rights. For example, you have the liberty to swing your fist… but that liberty ends where someone else’s nose begins. Laws (and police who enforce them) step in at the nose: to prevent or punish harm caused by those who would violate others’ rights to safety and property.
So, where does this leave us? With a challenge… and an opportunity. We must recognize that freedom and order are not enemies, but partners. One cannot exist for long without the other. Police, for all their flaws and the scrutiny they face, remain essential to the project of democracy. They are the custodians of the space where liberty can flourish, not by ruling with an iron fist, but by drawing clear, just boundaries.
For citizens, the task is to hold police accountable without denying their crucial role. For police, it is to serve with humility, integrity, and a relentless commitment to both public safety and constitutional rights.
In the end, real freedom is not found in doing whatever we want, but in living together in peace, with rules that make room for both individuality and common good.
If we can walk that line, if we can police the individual while protecting freedom’s boundaries, we won’t just preserve order. We’ll build a society where everyone has the chance to thrive.
