Week 2 Notes – Police & Policing (ACR102)

Assessment 1 – “Presentation” Task (Due in 2 weeks)

  • Weighting & word count
    • Worth 10 % of unit grade.
    • Total of ≈ 400 words (±10 % → 360–440 words).
    • No verbal presentation required; you submit a PowerPoint file.
  • Due date & submission window
    • Deadline: exactly 2 weeks from the seminar at 8 pm.
    • A built-in 4-hour grace period runs until 11 : 59 pm for technical issues.
  • Core task
    • Select a recent Australian crime-related issue reported in the media in which either police or courts play a role.
    • Analyse competing viewpoints & interests (victim, offender, family, police, courts, community, NGOs, media, etc.).
    • Show how difficult it is for the system to satisfy every party and still deliver a fair, just, equitable outcome.
  • Slide structure (≤ 6 slides total, including references)
    1. Cover slide – name, student ID, article title (+ link if online).
    2. Issue overview – 2–3 lines summarising the specific case/problem.
    3. Competing interests/expectations – brief bullet points for each stakeholder.
    4. Options available to professionals – police powers, sentencing ranges, diversion, etc., with citations where helpful.
    5. Option chosen & whose interests were prioritised – identify what actually happened.
    6. 300-word analytical summary – explore core debates, factors shaping the decision (race, gender, public panic, media framing, etc.), evaluate justice/fairness.
    • Reference list (within the same slide deck; not included in word count).
  • Word-allocation rules
    • Slides 2–5: ≤ 100 words total (use keywords, images, dot-points).
    • Slide 6: ≈ 300 words (±10 %). You may redistribute the ±10 % across slides.
  • Presentation tips
    • Make slides visually engaging, concise, and professionally formatted.
    • Cite sources to justify alternative options or critical claims.
    • Reflect on media influence on public understanding of policing/courts.
  • Administrative reminders
    • Extensions via online form (request early!).
    • Discuss questions with the lecturer (email) or via discussion forum.

Core Seminar Theme – Police & Policing in Australia

What Do Police Do?

  • Participants’ spontaneous answers: maintain order, traffic control, enforce laws, reduce crime.
  • Distinction between reactive vs proactive work:
    • Reactive: responding to breaches (e.g.
    • domestic violence call-outs,
    • burglary investigations,
    • issuing speeding fines after detection).
    • Proactive: preventing disorder (e.g.
    • presence at protests & public events,
    • community engagement visits,
    • educational school talks).
  • Revenue-raising via traffic enforcement highlighted (speed cameras, fines).

Force vs Service Debate

  • Language matters; police websites market themselves differently across states.
  • Class consensus leans toward “police service” ideal—community support & public safety.
  • Yet real-world practice oscillates between force & service, affecting legitimacy.

Discretion & Decision-Making Power

  • Street-level officers often possess more freedom than top executives (fewer layers of oversight in the moment).
  • Example used: jay-walking – technically illegal, seldom enforced; illustrates selective enforcement.
  • Factors shaping discretion:
    • situational conditions (weather, traffic volume),
    • offender profile (age, socio-economic impact of fine),
    • media climate (e.g.
      corruption scandals → tighter compliance),
    • organisational culture (masculinity, loyalty).
  • Impact on justice
    • Police are “gate-keepers” of the criminal process; their choices determine who enters the system.
    • Discretion can either mitigate or amplify inequality.

Police Culture – Key Traits & Intersections

  • Masculinity / Brotherhood
    • Emphasis on bravery, loyalty, “toughness”.
    • Can improve team safety/bonding but discourage vulnerability (mental-health stigma).
  • Code of Silence
    • Reluctance to testify against peers; breeds under-reporting of misconduct.
  • Us-vs-Them Mentality
    • Public perceived as “other”; erodes community trust.
  • Power & Authority Consciousness
    • Officers carry lethal force; need for self-confidence can slip into abuse.
  • Lack of Diversity (W.A.S.H.-male dominance)
    • Limits cultural insight into racial/gendered contexts (domestic violence, Indigenous relations).
    • Hinders training relevance; discourages minority recruitment.

Implications & Broader Connections

  • Historical context: modern policing emerged ~200 years ago, when male, white, colonial power structures were entrenched.
  • Australian settler-colonial backdrop: police roles in Indigenous dispossession colour present distrust.
  • Media framing influences public trust & perceived legitimacy—crucial for compliance.
  • Police mental-health pressures exacerbated by 24/7 public scrutiny & social media.

Oversight & Accountability Mechanisms

Internal Oversight (Professional Standards/ Ethical Standards Depts.)

  • Advantages
    • Efficiency & access: immediate entry to records, personnel, evidence.
    • Ability to feed findings straight into training reforms.
    • Protects sensitive operational details.
  • Disadvantages
    • Lack of transparency → weakened public trust.
    • Fear of retaliation; whistle-blowers at risk (clash with code of silence).
    • Potential bias: investigators share same culture as subjects.

External Oversight (e.g.

IBAC, historical Police Ombudsmen)

  • Advantages
    • Independence & transparency boost legitimacy.
    • Fresh perspective; less bound by internal culture.
    • Signals genuine accountability to public & minority communities.
  • Disadvantages
    • May lack specialised understanding of policing realities.
    • Slower; limited direct access to secure databases.
    • Risk of politicisation or data leaks.
  • Australian landscape
    • No dedicated national external police ombudsman.
    • Oversight mostly internal; anti-corruption commissions have broad remits, not police-specific.
    • Past state-level ombudsmen (e.g.
      Victoria) disbanded in early 2000s—political pressures & debates over efficacy.

Positive & Negative Aspects of Police Culture (Class Brainstorm)

  • Positive
    • Team bravery & rapid risk response.
    • Strong intra-team trust → operational safety.
    • Public education & community outreach roles.
  • Negative
    • Us-vs-them outlook reduces openness.
    • Under-reporting of corruption/misconduct.
    • Diversity gaps → biases in discretionary decisions.
    • Mental-health stigma; high stress.

Administrative / Seminar Logistics

  • Unit resources:
    • Study guide & recorded lecture are compulsory weekly prep.
    • Textbook access queries → contact lecturer or admin (Chris).
  • Engagement requests
    • Switch cameras on if comfortable.
    • Use discussion forum for collective Q&A—chances are others share your question.
  • Future weeks
    • Week 3 examines criminal process funnel & courts, building on policing discussion.

Key Take-Home Messages

  • Policing is multidimensional: service vs force, proactive vs reactive, law enforcement vs social work.
  • Discretion sits at the heart of police power; cultural factors shape its use.
  • Trust, legitimacy, and diverse representation are foundational for effective, just policing.
  • Oversight structures must balance efficiency, expertise, transparency, and public confidence.
  • Your Assessment 1 asks you to critique media portrayal & competing interests—directly applying today’s concepts.