Role, Function and History

Role, Function and History

1. History

   • police before 1829 = policing beyond the state... Reiner 2010 = mixed economy of police, mix of civilian force, private and army... parochial and privatised control... similar to current structure
   • 1829 Peelian P = Robert Peel created 1st large scale uniformed, organised and paid civilian police force.... c prevention key role... 9 principles of policing all focusing on prevention of c&d, maintaining respect and use of force... initially met with dislike = Peel is the founder of modern police

2. Need for policing

   • industrialisation and urbanisation caused dislocation and growth in c and dangerous classes... need for organisation or disciplined force to control dangerous classes and educe crime - org that could ensure public safety
   • mass movement into urban areas/cities = social tensions that the state deemed in need of discipline
   • DEF = form of social control.. many institutions that reg conduct but p are a dominant form of reg - national symbol of social conrol
     • Banton 2005 = p are among many agencies that reg behaviour and p are relatively unimportant in the enforcement of law
     • Rowe 2014 = p may be state in uniform, pre0eminent visible embodiment of sovereignty and rule of law not the only agency to regulate soc cohesion
     • Reiner 2010 = p is a set of activities directed at presenting the security of a partic soc order through the creation of system of surveillance coupled with threat of sanction for discovered deviance... involves state and non-state actors using authority, surveillance and sanctions to promote social order

3. Development of PF

   • 1785 = police Bill called for creation of PF in London
   • 1829 = MET police act created MET police
   • 1856 = county and borough police act called all local boroughs to create PF
   • 1857 = 243 pf all with varying policies, procedures, organisational structures... state had no power.... but centralisation slowly developed.... 1945 = 2000.... 1964 = 47.... 1974 = 43
   • 43 PF design is not a strategic design but result of political compromise and centralisation
   • but the political imperative to not have overly powerful state/pf has resulted in pf numbers remaining at 43

4. state policing

   • due to changes in social relations and structure.. generak increase in PO numbers reaching max of 143,000 in 2006 - budget cuts
   • intro with mass opposition from range of political interests... wide spread distrust of centralisation (stand in army - state spies)...wc feard state would have too much control, mc feared control taken away from local communities and uc feared increasing ta
   • strategies to legitimisation - by the 1950s te p had the whole heart of approval of the maj of pop - bobby became the icon of brutishness
     • lay imagery and rhetoric = rep citizens in uniform... p are the pubic and the public are the p.... p are only members of public that are paid to give full attention to the duties which are imcumbert in every citizen (Peel)
     • minimal use of force = hidden truncation.... under-enforcement of law.. unarmed deployment.. p by consent
     • orangisation and structure = entry req, skills, training... micro policis to control (code of ethics).. localism/localiation.. de-centralisation and specialised PO
     • non-political accountable force = are accountable to crown, PCC, complaints system... state influence not state directed
     • proactive, service based role = primary role is to prevent c and preserve public tranquillity though visibility
     • mystification of effectiveness - plice have persuaded the people that pf is necessary for public safety and without the p society would collapse
   • Innes 2003 - state p is specified modern organisation endowned with states legal authority to use physical coercion or threat of it to enforce the law in pursuance of the maintance of social order
     • Egnore Bittners = two chrac of p.. 1) broad functional mandate = wide scope of activity in which the p can intervene.. stop something that ought not to be happening and which somebody should do something about.. 2) distinctive capacity to use force - it is the p and the p alone that is equipped, entitled and required to dal with every extingency in which force can be used..
       • breadth of p role means that it might be more appropriate to define p in terms of institutional authority and power rather than in terms of orientation

5. Arguments for regional PF (super pf)

   • greater effectiveness - enhanced capacity to respond to demands drawing resources from a larger pool = ore ability
   • greater flexibility = increased capacity to respond due to managers being able to summon resources to respond whilst causing reduced disruption
   • greater connectivity - joining up of resources across areas promotes co-op.. greater sharing/flow of intelligence
   • greater specialisation = affordable by larger forces
   • greater standardisation = larger units have reduced local variation as well as reduced risk of P by geography
   • greater economies of scale = enables financial efficiency savings = collaboration (same uniform stores etc)... greater capability and resilience in responding to complex and volatile threats (O'Conner 2007)... but do they relate to local communities?
   • HMIC 2005 = - highlighted the lack of ability of local PF in responding to big events... don't have enough resources to offer the adequate protection services for cross border c, public disorder and terrorism.. found PF with less than 4000 PO lack reactive/proactive capacity to provide protective services... 19 forces had few than 2000 PO and 36 had fewer than 4000 only 7 had the required resources
   • Stevens review 2013 - change needed.... 43 PF structure not best structure... 3 options for change: 1) locally negotiated mergers and collaboration agreements... 2) regionalisation = co-ordinated amalgamation into 10 PF.. 3) nation PF

6. Arguments against regional PF

   • become more remote, detached and unwilling with less focus on local policing... less responsive to local communities = reduced local democratic accountability - associated loss of ID to local forces... lack of community relation and rapport
   • loss of PO familiarity and lack of knowledge on area and people due to policing bigger areas
   • most crime and disorder is opportunistic and local in nature, not planned or global so national p is unnecessary... changing force size is going to impact response to local crime and community concerns
   • size of public bureaucracies doesn't necessary create efficiencies = may be more wasteful and require more management - hard when there is distal management

7. contested visions of policing

   • high policing = preservation of status quo of power distribution... Crime fighting
   • low = general crime suppression and order maintenance... peach keeping
   • Marenis 1983 = police role involves protection of general (universally beneficial protection) and specific order.
   • themes in contemporary policing: austerity, civilianisation, militarisation, pluralisation... Blair 2003 - agencies of com cohesion have declined in influence, agents of soci enforcement disappeared and closure of psych institutions
   • Blair 2005 = p have been sep and silient from soc.. but political interest has grown due to confusion of role
   • conflicting political role/ideas: 1993 conserve gov white paper said "main job of P is to catch criminals"... Lab gov 1997 = "to build safe com and protect society".. ACPO "broad service role. Teresa May = cut c, no more, no less - sim view to public
   • Lister 2009 = public assumption is of crime fighters and law enforcers who disrupt criminal activity.. but this is not true = spend more time offering public general service
   • Dempsey and Forst 2013 = p emph crime fighting as main role and de-emph role of peace keeping and social service providers

8. Peace Keeping

   • Brodeur 2010 = 50% or less of work is devoted to crime .... most studies show that fewer than 20% of calls to police concern c.... 1996 gov white paper = typical day only 18% of calls are about c and only 40% of PO's time is spent dealing directly with crime
   • Reiner 2000 = p work is mainly dealing with low level disputes.... p spend little time devoted to c fighting as people contact whey they don't know who else to contact... deal with people phlight - secret social service (Punch and Nayler 1073)
   • Banton 1964 = p on patrol is primarily a peace officer rather than a law officer... with little time spent enforcing law in a sense of arresting offenders... more time peace keeping and supervising the beat
   • Bayley 1994 = listen patiently.. hear mundane, tedious and hapless sordid details of people lives... begnime reality of lives of people who dont have anyone else... gentle counselling and listening are undoubtedley what PO do most of the time
   • Lister 2009 = rather than use force P relied on personal skills combined with moral and legal authority of their office to negotiate peaceful and consensual outcomes... as enforcing law undermines the function of peace keeping.... Rowe 2014 = p under-enforce the law and use powers of persuasion and negotiation rather than physical force
   • Banton = p relatively unimportant in enforcement of law.. more time spent on public service role
   • Bittner 1974 = "no human problem exists or is imaginable, about which it could be said with finality that is certainly not the proper business of the police
   • Punch 1979 = secret social service = diverse role... Manning 1977 = normal p work is boring, tiresome, dirty, technically demanding and rarely dangerous.... McLaughlin = nature of job is hard to define as mostly unrelated to c

9. Implications of crime fighting role/myth

   • Howard League = not crime fighter as this is unrealistic expectation and diverts attention away from more fundamental peace keeping role.... results in resources being focused on P - P taking critical resources that could be given to other agencies that might be better at crime fighting
   • Garside = as police went higher in the political agenda in the 90's so did public money flow into p resulting in a bloated p service overcrowding/crowding out other services.. marginalising other services.. p just one institution out of many
   • closure of psych units... Nathan Constable = police have taken up slack of other agencies.. mission creep... filling the vacuum
   • Manning 1978 = reifies the impossible mandate of p work.. p can't win the war on crime... in reality less than 2% of c results in a conviction.... main role is now symbolic appearance of law and order due to the inability of p to accomplish self-proclaimed mandate (p manipulating appearance)... even ZTP can't do more than chip away at crime
   • notion of just c fighters fails to explain the chronic underenforcement of law - p as peace keepers..... creates a disjunction betw perceptions and reality of police work - potentially harmful to morale of p.... resulted in the service functions face cultural resistance from file and rank officers.... Reiss 1971 = everytime you begin to do some real p work you get stuck with other stuff - explains the high staff turnover
   • allows gov to control research/findings by focusing on crime fighting the gov can measure police effectiveness in arrest rates - but this is marginal to what they actually do - just a measure on their impact on c levels.... demand for arrests has now been converted into an index for measuring how well the p accomplish their task (Manning 1977)
   • limited resources = selective policing
   • debate over the c fighting role is actually a false dichotomy
     • force is part of service - p can use force legitimately
     • Bittner = p serve social service function and c fighting function
     • Reiner 2010 = p reg social conflict and manage order
     • multi-faceted role - crime fighting and peace keeping
     • Reiner 2010 = underlying
     • Waddington 1999 = breadth of p role reflects the wider range of social situations which may require the potential for authoritative intervention or police presence

10. Broad array of functions

    • public reassurance = visible foot patrol, emergency services and crime investigation
    • crime prevention = patrol, targeted and proactive p
    • crime investigation = reactive, detective work, ID and arresting offenders
    • emergency service - rapid response
    • order maintenance - controlling crowds and traffic.. public order
    • online crime - specialist p
    • mental health - greater demand for safeguarding
    • state security = protecting public figures
    • Blair 2005 = p face widening mission.. society is demanding answers and actions to deal with difficult issues (asb)... increased the number of incidents classed as criminal offences (increasing their status as crime fighters)... also increased workload with teh majority of police time being spent recording crime
    • consensus that essence of p lies in not what p do but in their potential to use legit force... use force legitimately... but where does monopoly of force fit with administering care i.e. reassurring victims of sudden death

11. Role of demand management

    • ACPO - service is grappling with an expanding mission... mission that is wider than ever before in an era of declining numbers of PO and resources
    • higher demand for safeguarding and online protection
    • now multiple aims and competing demands - yet public expect crime fighting = unexpected and unrealistic view of p role continues