California Police Chief- Fall 2013 CPCA_2017_Spring Magazine.v3 | Page 36

aggravating circumstances attending the case, requiring
both parties to examine the legal and human components
of sentencing. In explaining the value of the program,
Anne Redding, Department Chair of the Santa Barbara City
College Justice Studies Program, explained how this inter-
group setting brings together officers and civilian students
“in a way that they can begin to understand each other in
a context which they have probably not been previously
able to talk with each other about or understand” (personal
communication, April 17, 2017).
Evaristo Arreola, a student participant in the course,
discussed the negativity portrayed in the media surround-
ing police and civilian interactions, and described how
there always seems to be some miscommunication. Arreola
believes “for this to ever resolve, for there to be a solution,
we need two people (police and civilian) talking to each
other, and I feel like this (course) is really helpful. It helped
me be more comfortable around cops and made me realize
they are people just like me.” When asked what he hoped
to be the takeaway for the officers in the classroom, he said
“to be more empathetic to a young person who is nervous
for maybe their first contact with the police. We all know
we have impartial biases about certain things, so for them
(police) talking to people and discussing certain taboo sub-
jects, they can learn from that and may be better prepared
to handle certain situations” (personal communication,
April 17th, 2017).
Choi and Giles (2012) suggest that communicative
accommodation by law enforcement has a dramatic im-
pact on how the community evaluates its police officers,
even more so than other predictors such as age gender,
and ethnicity. Officer nonaccomodativeness could induce a
perceived negative experience, even more so than whether
a citation was issued during a police civilian contact. Inter-
group dialogue reinforces communicative accommodation
by reducing implicit prejudice (Vezzali & Giovanni, 2011).
Intergroup dialogue puts us on a path to implement many of the critical dimensions of
Procedural Justice. Humanizing police officers and increasing public trust leads to increased
cooperation between police and the public they serve. Our communities, which include
civilians and the officers who protect them, should consider courageous conversation, in
a mediated intergroup setting that is deemed “safe” for both parties, as a vessel to deliver
procedural justice.   ■
REFERENCES
Choi, C. W., & Giles, H. (2012). Intergroup messages in
policing the community. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook
of intergroup communication (pp. 264-277). New York,
NY: Routledge. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic
test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.82.3.300
Giles, H., & Harwood, J. (in press). Giles, H., & Harwood,
J. (Eds.). (in press). The Oxford research encyclopedia
of intergroup communication. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press Saad, Carmel (2016). Implicit bias: Do hidden attitudes
predict behavior. The Westmont College Magazine, 36,
2-15.
Giles, H. & Maas, A. (2016). Advances in intergroup
communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Reiman, J. (1985). The social and the police use of deadly
force. In F. A. Ellison & M. Feldberg (Eds.), Moral issues
in police work (pp. 237-249) Savage, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Lowe, M. (2017). Santa Barbara bends toward the beloved
community: Two congregations gather for a meeting
of the minds. Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved from
http://www.independent.com/news/2017/mar/26/
santa-barbara-bends-toward-beloved-community/
36
California Police Chief | www.californiapolicechiefs.org
Vezzali, L., & Giovanni, D. (2011). Intergroup contact and
reduction of explicit and implicit prejudice towards
immigrants. Quality and Quantity, 45, 213-222. doi:
10.1007/s11135-010-9366-0
Vollmer, August (1969). The police and modern society.
New York, NY: McGrath.