policing week 7
Police Accountability Study Notes
Learning Objectives
Examine the theoretical basis for police accountability.
Examine the mechanisms used to hold the police to account.
Examine the effectiveness of police accountability.
Previous Discussions
In previous weeks, we have considered the foundation of state authority through the lens of the social contract, which posits that the state acts on behalf of the people.
We explored different interpretations of police roles:
Minimalist viewpoint according to John Locke, suggesting limited police intervention.
Intrusive interpretation per Hegel, advocating for a comprehensive role of police in society.
We also discussed the nature of policing by consent, the implications of the 'office of constable', and the considerations surrounding police discretion.
Understanding Accountability
The concept of police accountability is not a novel idea and invokes the critical inquiry framed by the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" which translates to "Who watches the watchers?" This illustrates a central paradox in policing: while police are empowered to enforce the law, they must simultaneously be perceived as being subject to it.
As Bowling, Reiner, and Sheptycki (2019) articulate, a poignant question arises: "How can an institution endowed with special coercive powers be rendered accountable to the legal and political processes that established it?" This paradox is especially pertinent in democratic societies where the populace is considered both subjects and masters of police power.
The Stakes of Accountability
Police accountability plays a vital role in maintaining democracy, which inherently suggests a commitment to universal rights and representation. The essence of accountability lies within the relationship between the populace and state power, establishing it as a core principle of effective governance.
Legal Framework: Common Law
Common Law Standard:
Originating through case law, the definition of a common law offense states: "A public officer, acting as such, wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification." [cps.gov.uk]
Key components include:
Public officer: The role lacks a fixed statutory definition; it varies depending on duties and public trust levels.
Acting as such: Misconduct must occur in the individual's official capacity.
Wilful neglect or misconduct: The behavior must be deliberate, not mere negligence.
Abuse of public trust: Conduct must significantly breach public trust.
Without reasonable excuse or justification: No lawful explanation can account for the misconduct.
Punishment: Maximum sentence for such misconduct can be life imprisonment, raising questions about whether this sufficiently encapsulates the standards of behavior expected of police officers.
Primary Concerns regarding Police Misconduct
The following issues are central to discussions of police misconduct:
Abuse of investigative powers.
Abuse of covert activity.
Abuse of the judicial process.
Use of force, exemplified by the Ian Tomlinson case, illustrating how modern recording devices have intensified public scrutiny of police actions.
Mechanisms for Accountability
Official Mechanisms for Reporting Complaints
Citizens report experiences to police bodies, often monitored by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
Two primary options for complaints exist:
Criminal complaints: This pertains to reported crimes requiring police investigation.
Non-crime complaints: This includes internal disciplinary issues or low-level failures that do not rise to criminal conduct.
Outcomes of Complaints
Criminal complaints are recorded and innovated by the police, leading to investigations that يمكن أن range from disciplinary actions to outcomes such as dismissal, final warning, or advice.
Non-crime complaints also can lead to informal resolutions, addressing lower level misconduct via discussions, apologies, or explanations.
Statistical Data on Complaints
In 2023, there were 85,458 complaints lodged against police conduct:
50,594 were resolved informally.
32,511 were formal complaints.
The efficacy of responses include:
57% resulted in explanations.
13% led to learning opportunities.
7% yielded apologies.
Over 1% (141 cases) initiated misconduct processes, reflecting potential inadequacies in overall accountability.
Technology's Impact on Accountability
Significant changes have occurred in public scrutiny due to advances in technology:
The availability of body-worn cameras, smartphones, CCTV, door cameras, and social media has heightened public oversight and decreased deniability of police actions during encounters.
Despite these advancements, why do so few officers face repercussions for misconduct? This leads to speculation that unhealthy behaviors may now manifest in private 'safe' spaces among trusted colleagues, including more subtle forms of discrimination that are harder to identify and combat.
Ethical Standards for Police Conduct
Core Standards of Good Police Behavior
Lawfulness remains paramount for all police officers.
Established documents from Chief Officers and Codes of Practice attempt to set clear ethical guidelines incorporating common-sense standards, outlined primarily by the 'Nolan' standards for public life.
Key Ethical Principles Include:
Accountability: Officers must be answerable for decisions and actions.
Fairness: Officers must treat individuals fairly.
Honesty: Officers must be truthful and trustworthy.
Integrity: Officers must adhere to high ethical standards.
Leadership: Officers are expected to model good behavior.
Objectivity: Decisions should be based on evidence and professional judgment.
Openness: Actions and decisions must be transparent.
Respect: Every individual must be treated with dignity and respect.
Selflessness: Officers must prioritize public interest above personal gains.
Standards of Professional Practice
Police officers should exhibit behaviors aligned with professional standards which include:
Respect for individual rights.
Impartial treatment of all individuals, free of unlawful discrimination.
Use of force only when necessary, proportionate, and reasonable.
Compliance with police regulations and lawful orders at all times.
Diligence in duties, ensuring fitness for duty.
Conduct that does not discredit the police service publicly.
Reporting any criminal offenses against themselves.
Challenging and reporting colleagues' improper conduct.
The Cultural and Organizational Challenges
Issues Related to Police Role and Culture
The nature of policing can inherently attract individuals seeking authority, which may breed a cynical perspective towards society, similar to experiences in military organizations.
These dynamics foster a strong team ethos that becomes insular, often leading to self-protecting behaviors which can complicate accountability.
The ability to challenge any examination of police actions reflects deep-seated issues within police culture.
Additional Mechanisms for Ensuring Accountability
Additionally, the roles of Police and Crime Commissioners, Chief Officers, and Internal Reporting Systems, alongside politicians and media play vital roles in sustaining accountability structures.
Police and Crime Commissioners often lack policing experience and are political appointees, sometimes leading to question their effectiveness in real oversight.
Chief Officers, while instrumental in setting values, may feel pressured to prioritize target outcomes over addressing poor conduct.
Internal reporting is typically not open, with officers hesitant to report wrongdoings due to fear of retaliation, while anonymous reporting can provide critical insights into misconduct.
The Role of Media
Media acts as a watchdog, receiving public concerns, investigating, and exposing misconduct. Media is less constrained by prosecution restrictions, making them impactful in highlighting issues to the public or policymakers, which can lead to a stronger demand for accountability from law enforcement.
Future Considerations
Reflecting on the framework of police accountability, there remains ongoing discussion about whether the culture and role within law enforcement itself impede effective accountability. Various instances have shown that despite structured mechanisms, behavior normalization may lead to acceptance of low standards of conduct, ultimately requiring a systemic overhaul in police culture and ethics.
Next Steps in Discussion
Engage with further analysis into the implications of documentaries on police accountability and the broader discourse on policing, including topics about gender and policing in the subsequent week.
Conclusion
The quest for perfect accountability remains elusive. Issues such as systemic racism, as highlighted by reports like the Macpherson Report (1999) regarding the Metropolitan Police, underscore the need for an extensive re-evaluation of police organizational decision-making processes and ethical standards.