Dr. James J. Nolan is a former Wilmington Police Department officer, a professor emeritus at West Virginia University and a board member for American Civil Liberties Union Delaware.
Recent allegations of police abuse in Wilmington and Dover have reignited calls for police accountability and reform. As a former Wilmington police officer, I know firsthand the necessity of confronting egregious police abuse with speed and transparency. As a university professor and policing scholar, I see broader danger: Allowing ineffective, abusive systems to continue only perpetuates crime and violence, ultimately putting both community members and police officers at greater risk.
In Delaware, discussions around police accountability and reform typically center on normal law enforcement practices rooted in a professional model that emerged in the United States over a century ago. This model was steeped in racism and xenophobia, and viewed crime prevention as controlling “dangerous classes,” predominantly immigrants and communities of color. Today, the core mandate of American policing remains focused on controlling crime and maintaining order through enforcement, and disproportionately on marginalized communities. While tactics have evolved, the flawed belief that crime originates in dangerous people, rather than systemic conditions, persists.
The law enforcement game, scorecard and playbook
To better understand police behavior in Delaware, picture normal police practice as a game played on an athletic field — one that shapes the officer’s identity, disposition and worldview. In this law enforcement game, officers view themselves as professional crimefighters searching for dangerous people to apprehend. As a result, they act as outsiders who monitor, surveil and seize, rather than insiders who collaborate, repair and restore. This mindset explains why police leaders often value secrecy over transparency and why officers view themselves as warriors or guardians, rather than partners in building safe communities.
The game’s scorecard relies heavily on quantifiable outputs: vehicle and pedestrian stops, searches, arrests, citations and drug and gun seizures. Official recognition — such as promotion, pay and informal status within departments and in the public — are linked to these enforcement metrics, rather than actual safe community outcomes. Meanwhile, the game’s playbook consists of policies, practices and technologies designed to execute the law enforcement mission. Since the 1960s, virtually all police reform in the United States has merely altered playbooks — leaving the underlying game and scorecard untouched.
Bad or good apples?
Within the law enforcement game, police accountability and reform are generally understood in two ways. The “bad-apple” view focuses on individual misconduct — officers violating department policy or the law. This perspective dominates public outcry following an unjust arrest or questionable use of force. It also applies to patterns or practices of misconduct where officers systematically violate people’s rights. From this viewpoint, the game and its scorecard remain unquestioned; reform means altering playbooks to detect and deter officers from breaking the rules.
By contrast, the “good-apple” view focuses on systemic abuse. This occurs when officers conform to accredited policies and practices that are entirely lawful yet inherently ineffective or damaging to communities. Though this perspective is rarely emphasized in debates over police accountability and reform, many of Delaware’s most chronic police abuses stem not from bad-apple deviance but from good-apple conformity.
Systemic abuse in law enforcement manifests as overenforcement, excessive and avoidable force, and racial discrimination. For instance, since 2006, Wilmington and Dover police have made more arrests than the total population of each city — even as violent and property crime rates have remained relatively stable. Roughly half of those arrested were charged with public order offenses, rather than violent or property crimes. Further, Black residents were arrested at two to three times the rate of White residents in both cities. These stark racial disparities pervade every aspect of normal policing in Delaware, from routine traffic citations to the use of deadly force. Harm on this scale can never be explained as the misconduct of a few bad apples.
There is a thin blue line separating systemic abuse by “good apples” and the explicit misconduct of “bad” ones. By design, the law enforcement game and its scorecard instill a mindset that drives officers to seek dangerous people at all costs. While often ineffective and systemically harmful, this behavior remains strictly within bounds of policy and law. On occasion, officers are tempted to cross this line, violating policy and law, to achieve the goal set by the game itself.
Research shows that community bonds and strong police-resident trust are key to neighborhood safety. Therefore, a new policing game should prioritize collaboration to solve problems, build trust and help neighborhoods thrive. This approach deters police abuse, while encouraging transparency, such as releasing body camera footage to the public.
Ultimately, the success of Delaware’s police reformers will depend on their ability to address systemic failures and abuses, not just officer misconduct. This refers to the game and its scorecard. When the logic of policing and its metrics of success focus on building safe, strong communities, both the public and the police win.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
