A GOLDEN RULE 
 
 (COMMON SENSE) 
 
 ADDRESS DELIVERED BY 
 
 Fred Kohler, Chief of Police 
 
 OF 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO 
 
 AT CONVENTION OF 
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
 OF CHIEFS OF POLICE. 
 
 Address discussed; accepted and ordered printed 
 in convention held at Detroit, Michigan, 
 June 3rd, 1908. 
 
\ 
 
 
 
 
i 
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE. 
 
 “A Golden Rule.” 
 
 (By Fred Kohler, Chief of Police, Cleveland, Ohio.) 
 
 Mr. President, Brother Chiefs, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 For a great many years in Cleveland, practically always, cer- 
 # tainly throughout the period of my service on the force, the police 
 ^ had done as the police do everywhere with drunks and disorderly 
 |sj persons, petty thieves, bad boys and small offenders generally, we 
 ^ ran them in. It was the custom in Cleveland; it is still the custom 
 of practically the whole police world, and customs—ground as they 
 are into the very fibre of men’s minds—are hard to break. But we 
 have broken the custom of the world and the ages in Cleveland. 
 We are treating men as men; even when they are drunk; even 
 when they disturb the peace; even when they insult the dignity of 
 a policeman. We often make arrests, but even then we deal with 
 our prisoners as citizens; as human beings. And we all like the 
 change; not only the offenders, but the police. It works, humanity 
 does—the results of our so-called Golden Rule Policy are good. 
 
 For many years I have given confused study and some not very 
 enlightening observation to the numerous arrests made for minor 
 offenses. I couldn’t see that these wholesale arrests did any good. 
 The number of them did not diminish; it increased. And I found 
 that the arrests not only did not produce good results; they did 
 harm. They brought disgrace, humiliation and suffering to count¬ 
 less innocent persons in no way responsible for the acts of a thought¬ 
 less, careless, mischievous, or even if you will, a malicious first of- 
 
 3 
 
fender. Think a moment, and you will see out of your own expe¬ 
 rience how true this is. Certainly it was borne in upon me, that 
 something was wrong. 
 
 I found daily at these stations relatives and friends in tears 
 seeking the release of some prisoner, who, when I inquired, proved 
 to be not so very, very bad. In Police Court the next day I saw old 
 and feeble parents, weeping wives with crying babies in their arms, 
 and very often other children clinging at their sides—all there to 
 witness the degradation of those they loved. And what was the 
 result? A hasty trial, and since the offense was usually trivial, the 
 prisoner was discharged. Good! But all that suffering was in 
 vain. Sbmetimes it was worse than vain. Sometimes a friend inter¬ 
 ceded in the prisoner’s behalf and he was released. Perhaps a lesson 
 in ‘‘pull”. Perhaps the prisoner and his friends perjured themselves 
 —you know how often that happens—and a greater crime was com¬ 
 mitted. Again sometimes the offender was fined. That was “a 
 result,” but who paid? The weeping mother and children; they 
 were robbed of the necessities of life and the only gain was a few 
 paltry dollars paid into the City Treasury. Was there one particle 
 of real good accomplished by this process? Watching it all as I 
 did, day after day, I answer “no”, and I say now emphatically, “no.” 
 
 Now, questioning these unfortunates, it struck me that most of 
 them did what they did through thoughtlessness, natural passion, 
 or in a spirit of frolic or mischief. It seemed to me that this should 
 be understood. It didn’t seem at first to be the policeman’s duty to 
 study the cases and to use discretion. That was the judge’s part. 
 But following the cases from the time the persons were thrown into 
 prison to their arraignment before a Police Magistrate, I noticed 
 that, as a rule, the bench showed little sense of the character, and 
 less knowledge of the habits and environment of the offender. The 
 judge has not, of course, seen the offense committed, and he couldn’t 
 comprehend the exact situation or the conditions. Or perhaps he 
 
 4 
 
was a politician; in that case the arresting policeman was the person 
 put on trial, censured and insulted. There was a misunderstanding 
 all around. And gentlemen, misunderstanding is injustice. 
 
 The ‘Very best result'' achieved in all this process was that the 
 offender, who may previously have been of good character and 
 reputation, was given a police court record. He was discouraged 
 and his family and relatives mortified and disgraced. 
 
 Then I remembered that all persons are not arrested who com¬ 
 mit minor offenses and even larceny. Many escape detection and 
 are not exposed. Their escape did not hurt them or society; it was 
 an advantage. 
 
 I know, and you know, men who have erred thus in youth, and 
 yet later have become good citizens; yes, some of them are the lead¬ 
 ing business men of the country. Some of them are Chiefs of Police. 
 As we all know with some crime is a disease; with others it is a 
 lack of proper education, training and healthy environment; and 
 with yet others, it is weakness—inability to resist temptation. Now, 
 I finally concluded, that it was our duty not to help these unfortu¬ 
 nates on their downward course, but to save them. It seemed to me 
 it was up to the police to learn to know the difference between a 
 thief and a mischievous man or boy. And why not? Of all men, 
 who is so able to judge whether an arrest is necessary as the police¬ 
 man, if given the opportunity, who knows the neighborhood, who is 
 first on the scene, who has all the facts and circumstances at first 
 hand—before there has been time to destroy or make up evidence. 
 
 Upon these observations and thoughts my policy was formed. 
 Firm in the belief that some remedy was necessary, I decided to ex¬ 
 periment. I determined to have my policemen use their best human 
 instincts. I proposed that my men should exercise that discretion 
 which the judges did not always exercise. 
 
 To insure the successful operation of the plan, it was necessary 
 of course, that every member of the force should understand it. 
 
They must be made aware of the principle involved and the benefits 
 to be derived from the policy. To that end I personally met with 
 every division of the officers and men and, in an informal discussion 
 considered with them every detail. Every misdemeanor and crime 
 was carefully dissected and we decided together just how far the 
 policy was to be applied. 
 
 First: Juveniles were never to be placed in city prisons. They 
 were to be taken home or the parents sent for and the child turned 
 over to them with a warning for parental correction. 
 
 Second: Intoxicated persons were to be taken, or sent home, 
 unless it seemed necessary for the protection of their lives or their 
 property, to confine them until sober, and in that case they were to 
 be allowed to plead guilty and, by signing a waiver of trial, let go 
 without appearing in court. And for your information I might add, 
 that under this system of so-called Sunrise Court, during the year of 
 1907 there were 7738 persons released by signing such a waiver 
 without any further punishment. 
 
 Third: Juvenile and intoxicated persons are cited only because 
 they appear to be in the majority, but apparent offenders of any mis¬ 
 demeanor charges are warned and released by simply taking their 
 name and address, unless, it can be shown that the offense was com¬ 
 mitted with malice and forethought; with the intention to injure 
 the person or property of another. And I might add, that this policy 
 has also been applied even where it seemed apparent felonies had 
 been committed. 
 
 The force was shown how by conscientiously carrying out this 
 
 policy, they would save many hours’ duty in court, a matter of great 
 importance to the officers on night duty, and to the public when 
 officers are on day duty. They would save to the city thousands of 
 
 dollars in witness fees; much work for the police judges, police 
 clerks and court attaches; wear and tear of all police apparatus. 
 
 And they would cut politicians and shyster lawyers out of their 
 
 6 
 
source of revenue, and drive them back to good, honest work— 
 maybe. 
 
 The force became thoroughly interested, and, though there were 
 a few mistakes to correct at first, the policy has proved a success 
 during the five months of severe trial which we have given it. 
 
 To show this I quote from our reports the number of arrests for 
 the first five months of 1907 and 1908: 
 
 January, 1907, 2158; January, 1908, 911; February, 1907, 2257; 
 February, 1908, 829; March, 1907, 2711; March, 1908, 939; April, 
 1907, 2434; April, 1908, 907; May, 1907, 2731; May, 1908, 888. 
 
 These figures show that arrests have decreased 68 per cent. 
 
 Reports and complaints have diminished at a corresponding 
 rate. Officers, detectives and patrolmen are able to devote more 
 time to the pursuit of the habitual criminal and crimes of a serious 
 nature; to suspicious persons and to those whose livelihood depends 
 upon the swindling and robbing of the honest citizen. This in turn 
 has resulted in driving from our city practically all these vultures, 
 and those that remain are under such close surveillance that it is 
 almost impossible for them to operate successfully. I think I can 
 truthfully say that Cleveland is well pleased with the result. 
 
 I believe in my policy. I believe that if it is properly and gen¬ 
 erally carried into effect, it will put the American policeman in the 
 position he should occupy. He will learn that the people he has to 
 deal with are human beings, not machines; liable to make mistakes 
 and failures, but not therefore lost souls. And I believe that the 
 patrolman should be the friend and parole officer of these laggards. 
 I believe that the best policeman is he who manages all offenders 
 against the law with the least show of authority, with the least per¬ 
 sonal pride, with the greatest sense of human justice. 
 
 At our last meeting I described to you our policy of “Police 
 Repression,’^ and I explained that the purpose of it was to prevent 
 violations of the law instead of waiting for them to occur. That 
 
3 0112 098432963 
 
 policy in connection with this, the “Golden Rule Policy” has really 
 made Cleveland a good city to live in. 
 
 And, to take a broad view, I submit that we police can help to 
 make the world a better place to live in. It has been said, and you, 
 gentlemen, with your long experience in police business, you know 
 that the police, unwillingly and unwittingly, perhaps we neverthe¬ 
 less hasty—have been instrumental in making as many criminals as 
 any other agency, poverty, heritage and association excepted. 
 
 This we have done by making these numerous arrests of first 
 offenders; by exposing and branding them with Police Court and 
 
 Prison records. 
 
 We have discouraged men. We have driven young and weak 
 
 men to the haunts and association of habitual and expert criminals 
 who have taught them the ideals and practices of crime. We have 
 punished, we have NOT PREVENTED CRIME. The time has 
 come to change all this and I believe we in Cleveland have found 
 the way to do it. 
 
 y FRED KOHLER, 
 
 Chief of Police.