Presentation on theme: "Prospects for Democratic Policing Presentation to the Scottish Institute for Policing Research University of Edinburgh November 8, 2011 Peter K Manning."— Presentation transcript:
Prospects for Democratic Policing Presentation to the Scottish Institute for Policing Research University of Edinburgh November 8, 2011 Peter K Manning Northeastern University
Rationale for Democratic Policing Policing and justice Justice and its role Justice as fairness Why other conceptions are not useful
Two Great Ideas Summary from Rawls, JF (pp. 42-43): a). Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a full adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and b). Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least – advantaged members of society (the difference principle). The first principle is prior to the second and is essential to its attainment. I adopt these principles as standards, in spite of the empirical realities of the present welfare capitalistic state which does not respect “ …. all the main political values expressed by the two principles of justice” (Rawls, JF: 134). In a sense, this outline of principles is a thought experiment intended to guide investigation. The matter of inequalities – to be discussed
Why Study Police as an Institution? Inference from Rawls Distribute life chances Rationale for Difference Principle Failure of other approaches Local context of policing “Policing as a shifter” modernity
How Should We Judge Policing? How can this grand working principle be grasped as a set of objectives or guide lines? The key points below reflect the arguments of Liang, Bayley and Bittner in regard to democratic policing. General expectations of policing are questions of function: if the below principles or rules of thumb are observed, we might expect of (domestic) democratic policing that it function: Constrained in dealing with citizens and fair in procedure. These dealings should entail a degree of civility in interactions and in police practices. This excludes under virtually all conditions, torture, mass detentions, “round ups” based on political beliefs, not behaviors, and lengthy suspensions of habeas corpus for citizens. Largely reactive to citizens’ complaints- reticent rather than sporadic- and not given to frequent secret proactive interventions, crackdowns, sweeps, and militaristic “operations.” Equal in its application of coercion to populations defined spatially and temporally. The level of coercion is based on minimalistic criteria, much as counter insurgency tactics (Nagel, 2007), rather than a mechanistic “use of force continuum.”
Judging Policing Continued Fair in hiring, internal evaluation, promotion and demotion, transfers, and disciplinary treatment of employees, officers and civilians. Competitive in an environment which includes private police, vigilante groups, posses, ad hoc policing under the guise of “self-help” and revenge. It may include the National Guard and the armed services (army, navy, coast guard and the air force). This implies formal and informal modes of cooperation rather than unified and unrelenting actions. Accountable and responsible for their actions individually and organizationally (Brodeur, 1997). Each of these points requires some elaboration and explanation.
Police Deployment and Symbolic Violence Elastic tasks and foci Symbolic violence defined Human rights – a weak idea
Definition of Policing Definitions one and two Versions of Democratic policing
A Definition The police as an organization in Anglo-American societies, constituted of many diverse agencies, are authoritatively coordinated legitimate organizations. They are legitimate and stand ready to apply force up to and including fatal force in politically defined territories. They seek to sustain politically defined order and ordering via tracking, surveillance and arrest. As such, they require compliance to command from lower personnel and the citizens, and the ability to proceed by exception.
Versions of Democratic policing There are at least seven serious conceptions of democratic policing, but they are limited in their scope
Contradictions in the Mandate Claims for unity of the mandate Law, morality, justice and social order
11 Features of Anglo-American Policing 1.Police are a public entity and are accountable 2.Individual citizens cannot guide the organization 3.Police cannot eschew their symbolic role 4.Police violence is generally cautious 5.Political territory of policing is problematic 6.Police manage order they do not produce it 7.Police are not a neutral political force
11 Features of Anglo-American Policing (continued) 8.Compliance with command and loyalty in face of danger Are essential 9.Police highly respected for carrying out dangerous work 10.Loyalty and commitment always problematic in policing 11.Police tracking and surveillance of citizens are increasing
Does Dramaturgy Tell Us Where the AADP Paradigm Fails or is Weak?
Policing in Transformation Not well studied Mostly Historical Context of development not well articulated Historical events produce organizational character Central functions –Redistribution function –Order function –Crime control function –Expressive function Process plus practices Equal a Paradigm