This week’s question comes from Gregory Stock’s The Book of Questions: What appeals to you most about aggressive, rigid enforcement of the law? What repels you?

When I first encountered this question, I found myself reflecting on the complex relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. It’s a topic that generates intense debate, especially in our current social climate, and one that deserves careful consideration rather than knee-jerk reactions.

Let me start by acknowledging my own position of privilege in this discussion. In my nearly thirty years of driving, I’ve had exactly two encounters with law enforcement over traffic violations. Both experiences were remarkably unremarkable – professional, courteous interactions that ended with a ticket and a “have a nice day.” No aggression, no tension, just a straightforward exchange between a citizen and an officer doing their job. But I’m acutely aware that my experience as a white male likely colors these interactions in ways that others might not share. If I were writing this post as a person of color, the story might be radically different.

This brings me to what I find most appealing about strict law enforcement: when it’s done right, it provides a framework for maintaining order and protecting society in a fair, impartial way. The key phrase here is “when it’s done right.” The ideal of law enforcement is that it serves as a stabilizing force in society, ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone and that justice is administered evenly and professionally.

However, what repels me about aggressive, rigid enforcement is when that professional detachment crosses a line into something more disturbing. We’ve all seen the viral videos – officers escalating situations that could have been de-escalated, using excessive force when compliance was already achieved, or treating detained individuals with contempt rather than professional distance. These incidents, while not representative of all law enforcement interactions, highlight the dangers of rigid enforcement without human judgment and compassion.

Recently, I’ve found myself watching body camera footage that makes its way around social media. These videos offer fascinating glimpses into the complex dynamics between officers and civilians. Sometimes you’ll see an officer maintaining remarkable composure in the face of increasingly hostile behavior from a civilian. Other times, you’ll witness an officer entering a situation with such an aggressive stance that escalation becomes almost inevitable. These contrasting approaches illuminate a crucial truth: the attitude and approach of law enforcement officers often set the tone for entire interactions.

This observation leads me to believe that the issue isn’t necessarily with “rigid” enforcement of the law, but rather with the way that enforcement is carried out. There are certainly situations where a firm, unwavering approach is necessary – particularly in cases involving violent crime or immediate threats to public safety. In these high-stakes scenarios, officers need to maintain strict control to protect both themselves and the public. The appeal here lies in the security that comes from knowing that when serious threats arise, there are trained professionals ready to respond with appropriate force.

However, this brings us to a critical point about flexibility in law enforcement. Human behavior is inherently unpredictable. Whether someone is being pulled over for a minor traffic violation or confronted about a more serious offense, their reactions can vary wildly based on countless factors – their personal history, mental state, past experiences with law enforcement, or even just having a particularly bad day. This unpredictability demands that law enforcement officers be trained not just in the rigid application of law, but in the subtle art of human interaction.

The mainstream media tends to focus on the most dramatic examples of law enforcement gone wrong, and for obvious reasons – controversy drives viewership and ad revenue. This selective coverage can create a skewed perception that aggressive, problematic policing is the norm rather than the exception. The reality is likely far more nuanced, with the majority of officers carrying out their duties professionally and responsibly every day, their routine positive interactions rarely making headlines.

What appeals to me most about law enforcement isn’t its capacity for rigidity or aggression, but rather its potential to serve as a stabilizing force in society when implemented with wisdom and restraint. The best officers understand that their authority comes with a responsibility to use good judgment, to know when to be firm and when to be flexible, when to assert authority and when to de-escalate.

What repels me is when that authority is wielded without this crucial understanding – when power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to serve and protect. The line between appropriate and excessive force might not always be clearly defined, but as a society, we generally recognize when it’s been crossed. It’s crossed when an officer continues to exert dominance over someone who’s already subdued, when verbal interaction devolves into harassment or abuse, or when force is applied disproportionately to the situation at hand.

As we continue to grapple with questions of police reform and justice system oversight, it’s important to remember that law enforcement isn’t a monolithic entity. It’s made up of individuals, each bringing their own training, judgment, and human fallibility to a challenging and often dangerous job. The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate rigid enforcement entirely – there are times when it’s necessary and appropriate. Rather, we should strive to build a system that combines firm adherence to the law with the wisdom to know when flexibility and de-escalation serve justice better than rigid enforcement.

The appeal of law enforcement, at its best, lies not in its capacity for aggression or rigidity, but in its potential to protect and serve with both strength and wisdom. The challenge lies in building and maintaining a system that consistently lives up to this ideal.