Pennsylvania Democrat: The Founders “Did Not Even Understand” the Term “Policing”

Pennsylvania Democratic U.S. House nominee Chris Rabb put a curious spin on police reform proposals this week. When confronted by Sean Hannity on Fox News, Rabb explained matter-of-factly that the Founders did not have a clue about what “policing” was, suggesting that policing was a later-developed concept. It appears that not just our Constitution, but our history must be rewritten to meet contemporary political demands on the left. Rabb’s claim is historically unfounded. Just ask John Morton, signatory to the Declaration of Independence and local county sheriff.

In the interview, Rabb reaffirmed his alliance with socialists and categorically rejected the notion that undocumented people entering this country are “illegals.” Hannity asked, “Would you like to abolish prisons and abolish the police?”

Rabb responded:

“Well, what’s interesting about that statement is, long before there was any notion of policing, we had founders that did not even understand that term. Policing has evolved. Ultimately, we want communities that are safe. And 99% of what police do [is] not going after the bad guys, all of that can be done in different ways by professionals who are trained to do so.”

It is a gross over-statement. Signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Morton would likely beg to differ after serving as a local sheriff.  He would probably note that in the 1600s, colonies organized “night watch” forces that were precursors to formal police departments. The British governors also enforced criminal laws through their own forces. Constables were prevalent.

The suggestion is that the colonies and early American states had no notion of policing for crime. In fact, the first constable was appointed in the Plymouth Colony in 1632.

Likewise, the first prisons stretch back to 1720 in York, Maine. There was also the establishment of the larger Newgate State Prison in Greenwich Village in 1796 and a similar prison in New Jersey in 1797.

It is not clear what Rabb is suggesting. He is certainly correct that, like other aspects of modern life, policing evolved with technology and conditions. The use of private prosecutions was initially carried over to the colonies. However, public safety was a concern in the colonies as it is in early states. It is simply not true that the Founders lacked “any notion of policing.” Constitutional amendments from the Fourth (on searches and seizures) to the Fifth (on the right to remain silent and due process) to the Eighth (on cruel and unusual punishment) all limit the police and the courts in criminal cases. American grand juries were used to investigate and charge crimes.

The punishments in colonial and early American cases tended to be swift and final, viewed as needed deterrents of crime. That included floggings, pillories, branding, and, of course, capital punishment. Many of these traditions came from Great Britain, which protected public safety through a mix of constables, sheriffs, attorneys general, and private prosecutions.

This historical account appears to be an attempt to justify the common mantra to “reimagine” policing and prisons. Such changes are clearly choices for the public to make in the democratic process. However, suggesting that there was no conception of policing is untrue.