There are many reasons why individuals take up the challenge of a law enforcement position. Being part of a noble enterprise that exists for the benefit of mankind might be part of it. Finding out whether they can withstand intense training and physical and mental challenges might be the motivation for some. Being able to serve others in a useful way might be the reason for others. One thing is for certain—there has to be a motivating factor beyond the pay and benefits offered.

Underlying Motives of Enforcement Officers

A great deal of attention is paid before and after hiring to the tangible benefits of being a law enforcement officer or agent. These benefits are the measurements by which many people determine success in our society. To some, the more money that is made, the better the person is who is making it. But the accumulation of money alone is seldom the primary motivator for people who aspire to enforce the law. There is a higher calling, one that is focused more upon achievement of an ideal and the acquisition and maintenance of respect. Not unlike a calling among the clergy, the self-sacrifice and struggle that accompanies every law enforcement job is validated for officers by the level of esteem to which they are held by the public they serve.

It may sound simplistic, but the knowledge that you are engaged in a career that is vital to the success and well-being of society can be all-consuming and thoroughly rewarding. That knowledge, coupled with the fact that only a tiny fragment of society is even capable of handling the job you do, keeps most officers motivated and on the job.

Emotional Benefits

Because a substantial aspect of the job is intangible by nature, it can't be evaluated objectively the way salaries and benefits are compared. For some, the action that accompanies the job is the primary motivation. Others actually crave the danger that can ensue. While these can be strong motivations among active agents, these are not the primary personal aspirations that are considered desirable among candidates for the job.

There is a universal theme that defines virtually all law enforcement endeavors: to protect and to serve. Many departments and agencies have actually codified this slogan into a department motto, have it painted on their vehicles and adorning their letterhead, and have even carved it into the exterior facades of their headquarters. It is a noble and worthy goal that department members strive for. Achieving that goal is a matter for subjective analysis. When an agency employee believes he is accomplishing the mission, or an officer feels she has gone above and beyond the call of duty, a sense of pride in accomplishment is felt. But the underlying issue is service and protection for a constituency—a constituency that is often blind to the many challenges that confront law enforcement every day. The unwritten and unspoken part of the credo is that there is little or no reward for those who do the job properly, beyond the knowledge that they did their job.

Savoring the Challenge

There is certainly a measure of excitement and challenge that comes with every law enforcement job, and this aspect is likely appealing to many people who are new to the career. The true challenge for real law enforcement aficionados, however, is to minimize danger. Agents must aim to reduce the potential for harm to an absolute minimum, thereby ensuring safety and longevity on the job.

Some officers are in it for the lifestyle associated with law enforcement officers. Being trained in the use of firearms and carrying a gun much, if not all, of the time can be a motivation unto itself. Some agents are in it for the money, happy that they can make a livable wage in a respectable profession and not have to compete in the harsh and competitive world of the free-enterprise system outside of public employment. Some like wearing uniforms, while others like the power that they can wield over others. But most remain with law enforcement for a career because of the constant challenges that confront them. There is nothing more unpredictable than the public, and reading the changes that the constituency invokes as those changes are being made is the hallmark of a career law enforcement agent.

Knowing Where to Draw the Line

There is a line that is drawn constantly, either by law enforcement officers or by the existence of the written law itself. This invisible line exists to define what is inside the law and what is outside of the law. Actions inside the line are not a matter for consideration. But actions that cross over the line require law enforcement interdiction. The struggle between law enforcement and the lawless, between cops and robbers, between good and evil, all boils down to where you stand in regards to the line. You are either on the right side of the line, or the wrong side of the line.

Judges exist to assess whether law enforcement plays by the rules. Defendants are presumed to be innocent from the outset, so any actions of theirs that were outside of the line need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by law enforcement.

Usually the written law itself is what determines where the line is drawn. Homicide is a pretty clear-cut violation of a law, since it is against the law to take the life of another person. The elements of the offense are fairly simple—a life ended prematurely, and that action was initiated by another. But what about laws like disorderly conduct? What constitutes conduct that is disorderly? Isn't that a matter of subjective analysis? Where does the law draw the line? The answer is that the law doesn't. The officer does.

In many instances, law enforcement officers are called upon to invoke their own moral code, and exercise their common sense in defining what is inside and outside of the law. Is the stereo in that next-door apartment too loud? Was the driver squealing his tires on purpose or accidentally? Should the drunk in custody face a charge or should they just be held in protective custody until they sober up? All of these are instances where law enforcement officers must rationalize their actions relative to the situation.

An example of putting things into context and looking at the big picture can be seen in the job of a drug-enforcement officer. Drug-enforcement officers often let the little fish off the hook in order to work their way up to bigger drug pushers. This is a clear example of drawing the line. Has the small-time offender broken the law? Should they be subjected to the criminal justice system for their offense? It depends. If the information they have to offer can result in a bigger crime being stopped, or a bigger offender prosecuted, then allowing them to cross over the line makes sense.

Defending the Line

Knowing where to draw the line is a matter of common sense and experience, and is contingent upon the circumstances that prevail. But one thing is essential for all law enforcement officials with regard to the line—once it is drawn, it must be defended at all costs. Defending the line is a matter of life and death, of right and wrong.

The line, once drawn, is the landmark that distinguishes the evil from the good in society, and officers are obliged to protect it with everything they have, including their lives. Therein is the sacred obligation of the job—defending justice by holding the line.

The trick to the job comes in knowing where and when to draw that line. Younger, less-experienced agents, have a tendency to set the limit too far out too quickly. More experienced officers know that it is often more prudent to withhold the temptation to immediately establish the line, and allow people an opportunity to come to their senses, reverse their course, and return to the law.

There is a distinct benefit to possessing this ability to redefine objectives as a situation unfolds. There are few professions where a person can invoke this entrepreneurial spirit, and it is indeed rare to find a job that provides this kind of elasticity in performance. Law enforcement is situational. It's not that there are not definite limits on right and wrong, but there exists an enormous gulf between these two polar opposites where agents can exercise judgment and bring to bear their personal beliefs. Officers may not be able to shape society to conform to their ideal, but they can shape the moment and the immediate circumstance.