Policing in Contempoary Society - Essay Example

WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY THE NOTION OF "POLICING " IN A CONTEMPOARY SOCIETY The concept of "policing" has changed over the two centuries that police forces have been in existence. However, a number of basic functions have remained in force since the institution of modern forces in the late nineteenth century. These are uniformed patrol to preserve the peace, criminal investigation, traffic regulation, special procedures for dealing with commercial crimes such as drug dealing, regulation of the control of various substances such as alcohol and procedures for dealing with young offenders. In recent years some other tasks have been given to the police in the investigation and attempted curtailing of terrorism, within the British context this started with the IRA in the 1970's and continues with the threat from Islamic terrorists in the present day. The basic reasoning behind having a police force has not changed, bu the methods that at uses and the tools at its disposal have. Thus "policing" in the late Nineteenth Century implied a much greater degree of one-on-one human contact than many police functions today (Holdaway, 1979). The "bobby on the beat", often a member of the community who might be on first name terms with many of its inhabitants has often been replaced by the much more 'efficient' (and yet more isolated) surveillance camera. Modern day policing is essential an attempt to balance conflicting forces of technology versus traditional techniques. An interesting attempt to return to the idea of a very visible police force was the creation of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) early in this century to support the actual police. The PCSO was introduced within the Police Reform Act of 2002 in response to increasing calls for a more approachable and accessible police force. Some confusion has occurred regarding the actual duties and powers of a PCSO, as their role is essentially defined by the Chief Constable of the area they are working within. Thus many PCSOs may detain a person for up to thirty minutes but may not use force to prevent them from escaping. In what precise sense the person is then "under arrest" is thus uncertain (Tameside, 2006). A series of powers that nearly all PCSOs possess include issuing Fixed Penalty Notices for various traffic, littering and animal offenses; the seizure of alcohol from minors and general powers to keep the peace. In many ways they represent an attempt to return to the role previously held by foot-patrol police officers. One reason that such a new position is needed is the increasing numbers of police who are now assigned to serious crime and anti-terrorism activities. In a sense the anti-terrorist activities are an extension of policing into an area normally occupied by the armed forces and various "secret" (and officially non-existent) groups such as MI5 and MI6. Thus the police are being used not only to enforce British laws but to protect the population from attack from both foreign and domestic groups. For example, on 22nd of July 2005 (the day after the London bombings) a Brazilian electrician called Jean Charles de Menezes was shot and killed by police officers while boarding an underground train. He was thought to be a potential suicide bomber. It turned out that he was nothing of the kind. Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police, stated a few days later that police did indeed have a "shoot-to-kill" policy regarding suspected suicide bombers. He said that the head was the only place that a terrorist could be effectively stopped: There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be. There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it. (Blair, 2005) This is a remarkable change from the old ethos of British policing, but one that can be seen to reflect a new situation. Before the existence of the IRA there were few terrorist threats to Britain, and the new threat is greatly different because the people involved with it are quite prepared, and indeed, eager to end their own lives in order to kill others. The police task is not to find the terrorists before they plant the bomb, or to defuse the bomb once set, or to find terrorists after the bomb has exploded: their task is now to find people who are bombs. There are of course many potential dangers to this kind of proactive policing, as the case of Menezes graphically illustrates. The tradition of British policing, and one that it was admired for throughout the world, was to use the minimum force necessary in order to counter crime and catch criminals. The fact that the British police were essentially unarmed except for a rather small truncheon was a subject of both amazement and admiration throughout the world. But now many police officers have essentially been co-opted into a semi-military role in which they shoot first and ask questions later. Another increased role for "policing" is the massive surveillance operations that now appear to be rife within Britain. By the year 2000 Britain had more surveillance cameras per capita than anywhere else in the world, "with one million of the devices, often installed in city centers and stores" (Telegraph, 2001). These cameras are now being placed in more rural locations, supposedly to try and change driver habits to be more careful than to give them more traffic tickets. Ken Williams, the Chief Constable of Norfolk, argues that "we need to be very public about where the cameras are going to be, and make them bright and visible" (Telegraph, 2001). By 2006 the number of surveillance cameras had more than quadrupled, with approximately 4,000,00 in place. Making the cameras bright orange, placing them in very public locations and announcing their locations on everything from local television and radio to the Internet, shows that the police are attempting to avoid a "Big Brother" charge by being very open about what they are doing. These cameras are designed to help public safety rather than to spy on people. But since the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 increased amounts of apparently 'secret' surveillance has been occurring, especially in the centre of large cities such as London which are perceived as major targets. The efficacy of this type of policing is somewhat uncertain. All the July bombers were captured on surveillance cameras as they entered the tube stations with their bombs, so this might appear to be a successful use of them. But identifying people who are about to blow themselves (and dozens of other people) to pieces hardly helps in stopping crime. Within terrorism the criminals are often dead and beyond the reach of the law by the time they are identified on the surveillance cameras. The effects of surveillance cameras on more ordinary types of policing such as traffic control and ordinary property crimes are also problematic: a 2002 British Home Office study of 22 separate reviews of surveillance cameras found that they tended to reduce crime by a "small degree" in parking lots, "but had little or no effect on crime in public transportation and other urban settings" (Grunion, 2006). So if a deterrent effect is not an advantage for surveillance, the question may be sensibly asked as to whether this massive investment in spying on a population (even if the 'spying' is open in nature) should really be a part of modern policing. If the surveillance does not, over a period of time, seem to actually reduce crime, then it should be stopped. The ideal of a free society is to have as little government interference in an individual's life as possible. The police force is perhaps the most visible tool of government power and thus needs to be very careful in its actions, for both literal and symbolic reasons. The problematic investment in surveillance could in fact be transferred to a type of policing that is clearly far more needed, and which will only grow exponentially over the next decades. This is the area of "cyber-crime" that has developed over the last fifteen years with the expansion of the Internet. From the stalking of young people online by predators to large-scale identity theft and other types of business fraud, the Internet represents a massive temptation for criminals that they have succumbed to with expected ease. The increased possibilities for crime that the Internet provides, from identity theft to bank fraud to illegal child pornography are massive and will only increase and the Internet becomes both faster and even more ubiquitous. Law enforcement authorities must attempt to keep abreast, and hopefully actually keep ahead of this type of crime before it appears. But with the rapid, almost dizzying advance in computer technology, this seems somewhat unlikely. Increasing number of law enforcement officials will be needed to enforce laws within the cyber world as an increasing amount of human activity and interaction occurs there. But the need to police this new technology also provides benefits for wider policing. The status quo of contemporary law enforcement vis-as-vis technology is one in which forensic science has developed to a point where a single fragment of a hair can, and often is, traced to a particular person through micron dial DNA analysis (Savona, 1999). Computer technology and software can now also be used to cross reference numerous different variables within a case and can, at least theoretically provide access to the criminal records of any criminal in the country to a policemen after the entering of a name into a database search (Chu, 2001). The development of wireless internet and intranet systems enables a law enforcement officer in a car to access this information. Indeed, technology has been an element of law enforcement since the first police forces started to appear in the Nineteenth Century. From the beginnings of fingerprint analysis in the nineteenth century through to the development of forensic science and on to breakthrough in DNA profiling in the last fifteen years technology has had a profound effect upon law enforcement. Basically, it is now more difficult to commit a crime because of technological advancements that make the identification of evidence much easier and more accurate (Savona, 1999). The need for traditional police work, relying on human intuition and interaction with suspects and victims alike on a personal level will never be entirely replaced by technology. Thus while the DNA of a suspect may be found at a crime scene, apparently linking him to a crime, there will still need to be more traditional evidence gathered in order to obtain a conviction. Traditional police techniques, often involving intuition, as well as traditional interrogation, will still be needed. NOW THAT THE UK IS UNDER CONSTANT THREAT OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERROISM - HOW CONCERNED DO THE POLICE NEED TO BE WITH THE APPLICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS The question of the balance between human rights and the need for police to effectively investigate crime has perhaps never been more poignant, more difficult nor more important than it is in the present day. Any analysis of the police's attitude towards human rights needs to initially state that the most "crime-free" countries in the world are with the most draconian police, the harshest laws and the fewest human rights. There is little ordinary crime in Saudi Arabia, nor was there much crime in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but it is unlikely that the British population would exchange their freedoms for living in a similar type of society. Given this perhaps undeniable fact, the question arises as to what the police should and can do in trying to stop terrorism. Webster's dictionary defines "terrorism" as "the use of terror and intimidation to gain one's political objectives" (Websters, 1995). This is a fairly rational and non-judgmental definition of the word, and perhaps because of the objectivity of the statement, virtually every country in the world could be said to have used "terrorism" as a tactic many times. Every war uses terrorism on a massive scale according to this definition. Those people that are defined as "terrorists" today just happen to be rather ineffective in their killing methods (compared to sovereign countries) and have a purer political ideology than most of them. Al Quaeda killed around 3000 people on 9/11/2001, the Madrid bombers killed 192 people on 3/11/2004 and the London bombers killed 52 on 7/7/2005 (White, 2005). These figures would have been laughably small for any of the countries that deliberately bombed one another's civilian populations in WWII. The German, American, Japanese and British authorities would have had severe questions for any bombing mission that came back with these paltry numbers. By way of comparison, more than the total 9/11 deaths die every month on American roads. So neither the method of killing, nor the numbers seem to suggest that "terrorist" is an easily definable word. This situation is complicated by the fact that all terrorist crimes would be crimes whether one precedes the word with terrorist or not. Killing another human being without justification is a criminal offence in Britain (Homicide Act, 1977), and so is attempting to kill them or to cause injury to them. The question that needs to be asked when dealing with legislating against terrorism is whether any new laws are really required. Should terrorists be prosecuted as common criminals If so, then the police need to consider their human rights as similar to those that are enjoyed by ordinary citizens, and ordinary criminals. Since 9/11/2001 and more recently, the 7/7/05 bombings in London, the Labour government has introduced and, after occasional upsets and moderating measures from the Lords, passed sweeping "anti-terrorist" legislation that makes the policies of the Conservative Party towards the IRA seem laughably gentle. The initial reaction to the 9/11 attacks on the United States was an attempt by the government to push through a series of measures under the "Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill". While this was pushed through the Commons with Labour's massive majority, it came upon a wall of opposition from the Lords. The Bill that was eventually passed limited the new powers that police and security services would have to examine confidential records, and made provision for appeals for suspected overseas terrorists interned without trial. At this point, the government abandoned altogether a proposed provision that would have made it a crime to incite religious hatred. The question which arises within the context of this analysis is the following: If this legislation had been in place before 9/11, and if the terrorists had planned to hijack British planes, would they have been stopped by it The answer is clearly "no". Taking the American "9/11 Commission Report" as a model, the terrorists would have entered Britain posing as students and/or tourists, and as several of them held German citizenship, they would have scarcely registered on entering the country. It is unlikely that any of them would have been held as suspected terrorists and interned as such. Second, the young men were well-educated, apparently "Westernized" and steered clear of contact with any Islamic groups, including ordinary Mosques. They went so far as to attend strip clubs, to drink alcohol and to seamlessly fit into the society they were planning to attack. The terrorists did not seek to incite religious hatred or violence, because that task had already been inculcated within them abroad. It becomes clear that the initial laws to counter the 9/11 attacks were in fact highly impressive in an advertising sense, but would do nothing to stop a similar attack on Britain. The terrorists are simply too sophisticated and organized to allow rather crude measures such as investigating suspicious financial records and banning religious hate speech to influence them. In the years after 9/11 no attack occurred on British soil and the government was tempted to claim that its legislation had in fact prevented such an attack. Such claims were often muted, probably because officials knew that any free society is in fact by definition vulnerable to terrorism. The very freedom that the government is meant to protect means that terrorists can move freely, plan and execute their acts with little interference from the government. On 7/7/2005 this situation changed. Several bombs exploded in London, killing 52 people. These terrorist acts contrasted with the 9/11 attacks in a number of ways. They were, first of all, much more low-tech and modest in their planned results. Second, the terrorists involved were in fact British citizens - they were not foreign terrorists who had infiltrated the country as the 9/11 hijackers had. Third, the official explanation is that, while the bombers used military grade plastic explosive, and had sophisticates timers so that the three underground bombs went off within seconds of each other, they were in fact "independent operators" working on a shoestring budget. Al-Qaeda may have claimed responsibility for the bombings, but in fact the four men were sympathizers to the cause rather than actual members. After the attacks a series of rather remarkable leaked facts led to very serious questions regarding the security and police force's use of their new 2001 powers. Thus The Observer reported that the leader of the small terrorist cell, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was actually identified by MI5 as a potential terrorist months before the attack. He was under surveillance, and then mysteriously dropped from MI5's interest soon afterwards. As of the writing of this paper, MI5's oddly incompetent action regarding this man have yet to be explained. So it becomes clear that whether the police adhere to human rights or not will make little difference as to whether terrorists will succeed in killing people. It is a sober but undeniable fact that if a person decides he wants to kill a number of people, and is not only willing but positively looking forward to dying in the process, he simply cannot be stopped. This is especially the case with home grown terrorism in which British citizens who were born and raised in the country decide to become terrorists and to attack people. So from a pragmatic point of view the police should respect human rights because not doing so will probably be ineffective in stopping terrorism. Indeed, not doing so is likely to make the communities that may be able to identify possible terrorists unwilling to actually help the police. On a purely legal front, Britain is a signatory to numerous Human Rights conventions that prohibit the use of techniques that will diminish a person's dignity. Specifically, the United Nations Convention: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (United Nations, 1948) Various other conventions and European laws that Britain is a signatory to and which it must obey as part of its membership of the European Union are based upon these ideas of human rights as promulgated just after World War II. So from both a pragmatic and an ethical/legal point of view, the British police should continue with their adherence to both the spirit and the letter of the laws that govern their behavior. The tendency of governments to act in a knee-jerk fashion to threats, and, if one is more cynical, to push through desired legislation at moments of weakness, should create a moderating tendency within the police. If at all possible, the police should only use those powers whenever absolutely necessary, basing their moderation upon the fact that the most effective policing is almost always that which treats a population with respect. This is particularly the case with domestic terrorism at the present time, as the co-operation of Muslim populations will be essential to countering the threat. The plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, which would have dwarfed both 9/11 and the smaller 7/7 attacks, was actually thwarted after a Muslim man went to the police and described a suspicious conversation he had heard. If that man had not known that he would be treated decently; if, for example, he knew he was under the threat of being imprisoned secretly and "interrogated" in a harsh manner, he would have been much less likely to come forward. Without his initial role as a catalyst for the investigation the plot may have remained invisible and eventually have been carried out with massive loss of life. To conclude, it is of advantage to the police to have a society in which human rights are respected. Coerced confessions or information are very unreliable, and the general atmosphere of suspicion and fear that they create make police work much more difficult. Ethics teaches that a respect for the human rights of even the most despicable individual guarantees they will be respected for all. Once a few are regarded as somehow less deserving of human rights then the trend may continue and expand to other groups. A totalitarian police state is not far behind. Legally, Britain is a country that prides itself as living under the rule of law, and police need to respect human rights because they are written into both British and international law. Thus for pragmatic, ethical and legal reasons police should respect human rights, even in the current climate of a threat from terrorism. ___________________________________________ Works Cited Chu, James. Law Enforcement Information Technology: A Managerial, Operational and Practitioner Guide. CRC, New York: 2001. The Daily Telegraph, "Angry British Motorists Destroy Roadway Surveillance Cameras". 8/21/2001. General Assembly of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948. Grunion Gazette, "City Looks at Cameras for Safety". 11/2006. Holdaway Simon. The British Police. Sage, London: 1979. Police Reform Act, 2002. Savona, Ernesto. Crime and Technology: New Frontiers for Regulation, Law Enforcement and Research. Springer, New York: 1999. Tameside Advertiser, December 6th, 2006. Read More