An International Perspective on Policing

An International Perspective on Policing

Chapter Overview

  • Focus on global policing frameworks and classifications of police systems based on structure and decentralization.

Classification of Police Structures

  • Bayley's Categorization: Focused on type of command and number of forces to be supervised.

    • Decentralized: Different authority supervises the police force at each level.

    • Multiple: At least three types of police exist.

    • Uncoordinated: Overlapping layers of authority exist.

Coordinated vs Uncoordinated Systems

  • Distinction: Bayley differentiates between multiple coordinated and uncoordinated systems:

    • Coordinated Systems: Several forces operate within defined jurisdictions.

    • Uncoordinated Systems: Several forces have overlapping authority.

Developing a Cross-National Index of Police Decentralization

  • Authors: Grichawat Lowatcharin and Judith I. Stallmann.

  • General-purpose police definition (Bayley, 1992, p. 517 ): Police officers have full powers of access, arrest, and investigation for any criminal offense throughout their jurisdiction.

  • Decentralization: Defined as the transfer of power/authority from a higher level of government to a lower level (vertical decentralization).

  • Trends: Since the 1980s, international organizations have supported decentralization reforms, notably in developing countries.

    • Historical roots of decentralization are stronger in developed countries compared to developing countries, where it typically began in the 1970s or later.

  • Research Insights:

    • Differences in technological accumulation, human capital, governance capacity, and administration of police services exist between developed and developing countries.

    • The issue of centralization/decentralization in police services is a global policy concern.

    • Notable growth in studies of police systems in the 2010s, primarily descriptive.

    • Lack of standardized typology complicates empirical studies.

Police Decentralization Index

  • Decentralization Scale:

    • Ranges from highly centralized (0.25) to highly decentralized (1.00).

Examples of International Policing Systems

  • Countries reviewed include Ghana, Japan, England and Wales, France, Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the USA.

Policing in Ghana

  • Centralized Single System:

    • Consists of one national police force enforcing a unified set of national laws.

    • Operates under the Ministry of Interior as an autonomous organization.

    • Divided into 12 Police Regions and further into districts for local policing.

    • Ghana Police Service Structure:

    • Administered by the Inspector-General of Police.

    • Includes Criminal Investigations, Operations, and Legal Units.

Policing in Japan

  • Decentralized Single System:

    • Uniquely centralized yet decentralized.

    • Initially relied on a Home Ministry for central control; decentralized post-WWII.

    • All towns over 5,000 established police departments; over 16,000 independent municipal police departments formed.

    • 1954 Police Law integrated municipal and rural forces into Prefectural Police Forces.

    • National Police Agency (NPA) responsibilities include: statistics compilation, equipment procurement, educational supervision, and emergency command.

    • Roles of Local Police: Prefecture employees ensure decentralized daily policing, with high-level oversight from NPA.

    • Small deployment areas: Koban and Chuzaisho.

    • Influences on community policing in other countries noted, particularly in neighborhood-based patrols.

Policing in England and Wales

  • Centralized Multiple Coordinated System:

    • 43 police forces exist.

    • Organization allows responsibilities shared between local police and elected crime commissioners.

    • Central government funds forces, approves chiefs' appointments, and conducts inspections.

Policing in France

  • Centralized Multiple Coordinated System:

    • Two primary national police forces: Gendarmerie Nationale (rural) and Police Nationale (urban).

    • Local police supplement national forces under coordination, with a centralized command structure.

    • Responsibilities divided among two forces: rural vs urban policing.

Policing in Germany

  • Decentralized Multiple Coordinated System:

    • Several police forces managed at federal and state levels.

    • Federal police includes: Federal Criminal Police (BKA) and Federal Police (BPOL).

    • Each of Germany's 16 states maintains its own policing force, demonstrating decentralized authority.

    • The federal government coordinates and acts as a liaison among different forces.

Policing in Spain

  • Centralized Multiple Uncoordinated System:

    • Three police forces: National Police Corps (urban), Civil Guard (rural), and Municipal Police (local).

    • Each force operates under national authority but maintains overlapping jurisdictions, causing uncoordination.

Policing in Mexico

  • Decentralized Multiple Uncoordinated System:

    • Various police forces exist at federal, state, and local levels with overlapping authority.

    • Issues include perceptions of ineffectiveness and corruption leading to military trust.

    • Introduced the Policía Federal (National Gendarmerie) in 2014 to address systemic issues.

Policing in the United States

  • Decentralized Multiple Uncoordinated System:

    • U.S. Constitution does not mention a national police force.

    • Law enforcement is decentralized, with the federal, state, and local governments sharing responsibilities, often leading to jurisdictional overlaps.

    • Law enforcement is segmented as follows:

    • Federal Law Enforcement: FBI, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, etc.

    • State Law Enforcement: Highway Patrol, State Bureau of Investigation, etc.

    • Local Law Enforcement: City Police Departments, Sheriff's Offices.

Research Insights on Police Decentralization

  • Effective decentralization can enhance citizen trust in police in developed nations.

  • For developing nations, merely decentralizing does not guarantee improved trust; systems must be better managed and responsive.

  • Key Factors for Building Trust:

    • Transparency

    • Community participation

    • Local government control with oversight

    • Police policies reflecting community values.

Police Misconduct

  • Perception of police corruption varies between countries. Notable examples include:

    • High corruption perceived in Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Indonesia.

    • Low corruption noted in Australia, Finland, Japan.

  • Questions arise whether misconduct is due to individual traits or systemic issues within police work.

Police Killings as a Problem of Governance (Franklin E. Zimring)

  • U.S. police killings exceed other developed nations; many are deemed unnecessary.

  • Major causes include:

    • Lack of authority over lethal force.

    • Insufficient resources and motivation for research on policing strategies.

    • Lack of formalized government oversight regarding fatal policing practices.

  • Discussion points include:

    • The need for effective governance in policing strategies.

Body Cameras in Policing

  • Pros:

    • Improve accountability and reduce misconduct.

    • Useful in domestic violence cases.

    • Public support for reform.

  • Cons:

    • High costs and reliability issues.

    • Privacy invasion concerns.

    • Potentially increase dangers for officers.

State-by-State Legislation on Body Cameras

  • Varied laws regarding body-worn cameras across different states, including recording and privacy regulations. Current challenges in managing and legislating police conduct reflect broader policing issues globally.