There is a concept in law enforcement that has been circulating for years: “Procedural Justice.” It claims that people are more likely to accept decisions and trust authority if the interaction is perceived as fair, transparent, and respectful. It is built on four pillars: Voice, Neutrality, Respectful Treatment, and Trustworthiness.
In theory, this is the backbone of a professional department. In practice, it has become the most dangerous tool in the modern bureaucrat’s kit. It has been warped into a tactical method of control—a way to ensure the populace remains compliant while the state does whatever it wants.
The “Check-the-Box” Betrayal
Many institutions—HR departments, corporate boards, and government agencies—now use “Procedural Justice” as a sedative.
They hold meetings to “let you tell your side of the story,” but it is a farce. The decision was made in a closed-door meeting months ago. They don’t want your input; they want your acquiescence. By letting you vent—by “listening” to you—they gain the moral high ground to claim they were transparent. They aren’t seeking Justice; they are seeking to reduce the “friction” that comes from dissent. It is a psychological tactic designed to keep the subjects of a policy feeling heard while they are being actively ignored.
The Australian “Experiment”: Policing as Automaton Performance
I recall sitting in a class at the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in Boston. A high-ranking official from an Australian law enforcement agency was presenting his “findings” from the COVID-19 lockdowns.
He detailed an experiment where they trained some officers in “Procedural Justice” techniques while leaving others untrained. He then compared the complaint data. He was beaming with pride as he described how the “trained” officers received fewer complaints, even when they were handing out thousands of dollars in fines to citizens for the “crime” of walking outside. He actually boasted that some citizens “thanked” the officers after being cited.
That turned my stomach.
If you are a law enforcement professional, and you are being taught to use “communication techniques” to make a citizen thank you while you strip them of their fundamental liberties, you have stopped being a police officer and have become an instrument of the state.
The 1930s Mirror
Let’s stop soft-selling this. The German police in the 1930s were the most “procedural” force in the world. They didn’t view themselves as monsters; they viewed themselves as professionals. They followed the law. They followed the procedure. They were “neutral.” They were “respectful.” And in doing so, they served as the reliable, efficient engine of a regime that destroyed the concept of human rights entirely.
If our Law Enforcement Professionals are trained to be nothing more than automatons—technicians who prioritize the “process” of the interaction over the inherent justice of the law they are enforcing—we are repeating history.
Justice is not a communication technique. Justice is a moral state. If you are enforcing an immoral order—if you are fining people into poverty for the “crime” of breathing fresh air—it doesn’t matter how “respectful” or “neutral” you are. You are the problem.
When you use “Procedural Justice” to enforce tyranny, you aren’t “policing.” You are simply ensuring that the gears of the machine don’t squeak while they crush the people they are supposed to protect. If you cannot look at an order and say, “This is wrong, and I will not do it,” you have no business wearing a badge.
We aren’t here to be efficient bureaucrats. We are here to serve a Code. If you can’t tell the difference, you’re just waiting for a different master.
Leave a comment