.png)
The police are a key institution of Western democracies. They protect and uphold the rule of law, ideally treating all citizens without prejudice. Politicians from across the aisle have historically endeavoured to support and equip the police with the tools it needs to ensure social order and the safety of citizens. However, the theory behind modern policing has been increasingly challenged in recent political discussion. Incidents such as the deaths of George Floyd, which sparked the reignition of the Black Lives Matter movement, and Sarah Everard are recent cases which have stimulated debate over the utility of modern policing. Similarly, arguments have been made by criminologists and other academics for decades against problematic assumptions inherent in policing. This article seeks to introduce key arguments from both sides of the debate.
Before the 19th century, no formal police force existed in the UK. Law was upheld by parishes (systems of local governance) and informal groups of local men. In 1829, Sir Robert Peel formally established the Metropolitan Police, which led to a series of legislation establishing a state police force across the country. This new force was predicated on the ‘Peelian principles’, which can be summarised by the idea of ‘policing by consent’. Unlike the army, police officers were to be citizens in uniform, and their existence legitimised through the consent of society as opposed to state power. Whilst this is the stated philosophy, many cast doubt on the extent to which society, especially minorities, truly consent to the police .
Do check out this extended news report explaining tensions between civil liberties and policing in Britain.
‘Effective’ policing has taken many forms and drawn on many theories. One strategy now discredited is ‘reactive policing’. Reactive policing reduces the police to simply responding to a citizen’s call for assistance. Their role is limited to dealing with the consequences of a crime – reacting only after it has been committed.
Community policing, however, emerged in the late 20th century and expanded the goals of the effective police force. It asserts that connecting officers with their communities gives police a preventative effect over crime. The distance between police and those ‘policed’ is reduced, and the priorities of each community are given more importance. Trust and open communication between the police and community is therefore fostered, driving down crime rates. An example of this strategy in the UK is the creation of Police Community Support Officers by the 1992 Police Reform Act. These PCSOs aimed to be a constant presence in crime-afflicted communities, with their role focused as much on prevention as on response. Similarly, David Cameron’s ‘Hug the Hoodie’ campaign focussed on fostering community links between young people often assumed to be delinquents in the public conscience.
Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is another strategy which emerged in the 1990s. ILP uses data analytics technology to identify trends in crime and support targeted and pre-emptive police operations. Individuals, locations, and activities can be identified as problematic, and be dealt with in a tailored manner. Beginning in the early 2000s, the UK government harnessed the National Intelligence Model (NIM) to gather and share intelligence across agencies, following the ILP philosophy. Indeed, some have cited ILP as having the most dramatic effect on UK policing over all other strategies.
‘Broken windows’ is yet another approach to policing. Popularised by New York City police commissioner William Bratton, it proposes that the policing of minor crimes – such as vandalism, loitering, and fine evasion – creates a positive atmosphere in which more major crime is discouraged. However, broken windows theory has been criticised as part of a broader reality of policing in which minorities and the poor are violently persecuted. Cases such as Eric Garner and Tamir Rice in the US, and Stephen Lawrence in the UK, evidence the toll that modern policing takes on minorities. Dismissing government arguments, scholars such as Christina Heatherton argue that broken windows policing, associated with policies such as stop and search, is driven by a ‘racist common sense’ and acts to push these communities into further poverty and deprivation .
Cases of the miscarriage of justice at the hands of police officers have spawned movements which challenge the conventional logic of policing. ‘Broken windows’ is argued to merely suppress the symptoms of deeper social issues. Similarly, ILP has been criticised as it reflects only the priorities of the state, and allows for potentially malicious targeting of groups, areas, and individuals. Defund the police’ is a movement which argues for the reallocation of funds from policing agencies to social services – such as healthcare, housing, and mental health support – who are trained to tackle the roots of the problems which cause crime. For example, often the bulk of funding allocated to addressing homelessness goes to the police. Criminalising and policing the homeless acts only to deepen the problems they face – an alternative approach to the logic of policing is required.
An important debate therefore exists on the theory of policing and its application in the 21st century. Many see community policing, and all its variations, as a successful response to charges of prejudice and unaccountability which have been levelled at the police. In this manner, society retains its most important protection against anarchy and harmful individuals whilst still becoming more socially just. To others, the theory which underpins policing is problematic. Initiatives such as ‘broken windows policing’ have allowed the police to victimise vulnerable communities and deepen social inequality. For them, equipping officers with more body cameras and adding more layers of bureaucratic accountability does not address the root of the issue. By redistributing funds away from the police into specialist social services, crime, and those who commit it, would be dealt with in a more effective and socially just manner.
Comments