Policing and Governance in Australia and the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Policing and governance Introduction The question of security presently comes out large in Australia and the United Kingdom (Johnson 1999). In response to different apprehended threats to these nations, its citizens and its borders that have been frequently threatened with drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal immigration, terrorism and many other risks, the governments in these states have assembled a progressively more unrestrained and full-bodied policing capacity (Johnson 1999). In the course, the practice of policing - long well thought-out as a constitutive constituent of the legal and political independence of modern states - has in assorted ways been unhitched from the nation-state and resituated within networks of actors operating across nationwide frontiers (Hebenton 1994). An extension and thickening of proficient police and criminal justice network across the United Kingdom have been put in place. The most common form that has been put in place to combat these crimes includes operational police force of United Kingdom. This body is responsible for dealing with terrorists. There is also a department that deals with drugs. This department is referred to as drug control unit whereby any drug trafficking issue is solved by this unit; this including the criminals trafficking the drugs even within the nation (Johnson 1999). Investigations are conducted by the intelligent officers within this unit. Its area of official legal proficiency now reaches further than drugs to take in unlawful immigration, trafficking of human beings, embezzled vehicle trafficking, money laundering, legal tender forgery ( dollars), terrorism and the smuggling of nuclear supplies (Loader 1996). In principle, the operation mode is about exchanging information and intelligence. In conducting this role, the crime department retains a database of intelligence on transitional crime whereby it deploys to avail national forces with analysis of the crimes and technical expertise (Johnston 2000). Nevertheless, the nations have collaborated with international bodies to enable the organisation to come up with mutual investigative teams with affiliate state forces and to participate in supporting union wide crime prevention, analysis and investigation. A cycle of bi- and multi-lateral provisions between member state police forces premeditated to make possible information-sharing and ‘on-the-ground’ operational cooperation (Held 1992). Normally, crime is the risk, damage or wrong and the dominant regulating practices arise post hoc. In the rising pre-crime society, crime is regarded in actual fact as risk or possible loss, ordering practices are preventive measures and security is a service availed due to that impending risk. Even if this dichotomy oversimplifies a more comprehensive set of changes, it confines an important chronological shift (Loader 1996). As the logical issue of the post-crime society, criminology must become accustomed to meet the challenge of pre-crime and security. There are chief features that security requires to cover. The immanent abilities of criminology for change recommends exterior intellectual resources upon which it might draw, thus this area ought to be explored by criminology. If this is done comprehensively, the pre-crime society need not be a post-criminological one in the long run (Held 1992). Some risks that have been dominant in security and policing include terrorist attacks. Some attacks that have been witnessed include usage of chemicals whereby the terrorist groups persist to show interest in bio-chemicals that can be utilized to kill or to lead to grave injury, because such chemicals are readily available and easy to use (Loader 1996). Products like weed killer and fertilizers are some of the chemicals whose ingredients terrorists use in improvising explosive devices in diverse parts of the world, resulting in fatalities, injuries and harm on a massive scale. In the same way, chemical nerve agents have been utilized in attacks by terrorists to lead to extensive injury and demise. A good example is a chemical attack that took place at Manchester in 1996 (Walker 2000). An Irish Republican Army appliance, made from a blend including agricultural fertilizer. This chemical was transported using a truck and blown up in Manchester. This explosion really devastated the whole of Manchester city but punctual police action barred any fatalities (Loader 1996). Furthermore, at Bali in 2002, a bomb exploded and killed approximately two hundred and two (202) people. Apparently, a vehicle carrying a bomb had been parked outside a famous tourist destination. This device had a chlorate mix explosive that actually led to the fatal explosion (Loader 1996). This was one of the earliest attacks which led to several Australian casualties. A similar attack occurred in Jakarta 2004 where a vehicle bomb having a chlorate mixture explosive exploded outside the entry of Australian Embassy in Jakarta Indonesia. This attack led to the death of 12 Indonesian nationals, a suicide bomber included (Walker 2000). Finally, a chemical attack occurred at London in 2005. Near concurrent attacks were carried out by a minute group of rebels on the London tube network using a double-decker bus The bomb contrivances were made using a blend containing hydrogen peroxide. Fifty-two innocent people were killed and countless hundreds were seriously injured (Nadelman 1993). The terrorist risk has been very dominant in security and policing. Whereas the risk of terrorist abuse cannot be removed completely, the management of chemicals of security concern in Australia is being reinforced to diminish the risks of their illegitimate use for terrorist usage. In 2002 at December, the Council of Australian Governments settled to a national review of the guideline, reporting and security dealing with the storage, sale and handling of hazardous materials. The main purpose of the review was to lend a hand to counter-terrorism efforts by restraining opportunities for, and improving the detection of, the prohibited or unlawful use of perilous materials (Walker 2000). To counter the risk of terrorism attacks, the policing and governing securities have come up with various solutions. In June 2003, Australia came up with a four-tier level system of national response to terrorism alert to keep the public well-versed regarding the alleged threat to Australians at home. There was a four level system responsible for sensing terrorism attacks that had been in place since 1978 (Mitrovica 2002). This was replaced with a three-tier system that has been utilized since1978. However, this system was not put into place because of any specific terrorism attack but rather because the Australian government saw it fit to put a sensible arrangement to better enlighten and direct national preparation and setting up, and to provide greater suppleness for responses. The four level system illustrates the level alert beginning with the low level, whereby no terrorism expected. If the level is medium, a terrorism attack is possible and there is likelihood it could take place (Walker 2000). However, if the level is high, this indicates that a terrorism attack is probable and if it is extreme, a terrorist attack is in the about to happen or could have occurred before. Since September 2001 up to present, the national level of alert has been estimated to be at medium level. The national level of alert is currently estimated to be at intermediate level, and has been such since September 2001.The level of alert is put into place by the Australian Government acting on guidance from intelligence agencies. If there is any information or assessments necessitating an adjustment in the threat level, the public will be advised immediately (Walker 2000). The types of government and social relations that progressively typify existing society are leading to developments of new customs of thinking concerning the various risks brought about by crimes and ways of dealing with the crimes. Particularly it is argued that even though the discipline of criminology is presently conventionally okay in institutional terms, the rational tools of the discipline are of losing ground on significance to the social world that is currently forthcoming (Joerges 2001). There are major developmental inclinations in government policies that are concerned with shift from a welfare state, governed by policing and security governance of demand management to a new structure of regulatory state, premised upon a neo-liberal amalgamation of market competition, privatized establishments, and decentred, at-a-distance forms of state ruling. These new approaches of governance are premised upon acknowledgment of new social forces and mentalities, particularly of the globalising sense of risk management, they will gradually more reconfigure the social and political areas in ways that have penalties for the policing and regulation of crime. Criminology’s customary focal point upon street crimes and the institutions of police force, courts and prisons might be decreasingly applicable to the new tribulations, risks and devices of control that are budding today (Joerges 2001). The ground breaking work of dogmatic state scholars’ such as Clifford Shearing is identified as pushing criminology in new directions that bewilder the discipline’s traditional restrictions but which give it more influence in the attempt to understand and act in response to the control problems of the end of the Century (Lyon 2001). The potentials for restorative justice in the new context are also ought to be addressed together with all other methods helpful in fighting the insecurity. These both are linked to the significance of developing forms of local understanding that are informed by a sense of the global development context (Lyon 2001). Obviously, the zeal to diminish crime through its transformation agenda, applied to public service deliverance, and the resulting stress on performance in the reduction of crime, the government would be overlooking the institution-building task of making up new security governance in the community (Lyon 2001). This disregard may have led to an increase in insecurity in society, fostered by a finely tuned anxiety about disorder. This tendency seems set to go on with the government's approach to police reform. And although a surfacing plan of "civil renewal" holds out some guarantee for policies that acknowledge the position of citizens in the co-production of the public safety, there are also risks of adding force to the insecurity of the disadvantaged, who have restricted access to the social capital essential for any participation (Lyon 2001). Invigorating justice has assumed the lawful place in criminal justice discourse. This is because the punishment has not been that effective after the introduction of restorative justice. This has in turn led to the rise in the risks concerned with the governance. Restorative governance is being defined and redefined by courts and contributors in the criminal justice system. The development of these can be traced back from the Supreme Court cases and this move has been termed as positive (Lyon 2001). The extent covering restorative justice is large especially when related to the model of governance. In order to progress in restorative initiatives, criminal justice is not solely enough to depend on, since such task is too bulky for criminal justice system alone. Thus it is the duty of all sectors and all ranks of government to further the healing required to repair the harm done to and by the offenders; those committing the crimes (Lyon 2001). Judges have for a long time fought back with the many purposes of sentencing and this includes rehabilitation, prevention, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Restorative justice is the most recent concept of sentencing and it might stand for the chief way of changing the way people respond to the offenders in the future. However, in struggling to characterise its practical relevance, it is definite that no punishment’s objective restorative justice included will help in dealing with the elementary social problems that the criminal justice system is in due course called upon to determine (Haggerty 1997). In restorative governance, societies address social problems in a way. Thus restorative is just a portion of larger flame of reference of the restorative governance. Of course, there are many risks associated with resources distribution within a nation. Through governance and policing, there should be set policies whereby there is a set organisation meant to make sure that each and every citizen is provided with fair share of existing policing goods (Bellamy 2001). This is an area that needs attention both to the ones not warranted over (the overly invasive) policing of particular people or social groups, and to the powerlessness of the underprivileged citizens and communities to obtain a fair level of such goods (Weiler 1999). Without such policing and governance, there could be several people who would end up defying the law through taking advantage of their senior positions thus end up with very large portions of the resources. The governance ensures that no ones steals public resources and if someone is investigated and proved guilty, necessary measures are taken against the person (Mitrovica 2002). Another risk affecting governance is the issues that arise as a result of cultural changes. These changes call for reforms in the policing and governance. Because of the cultures capacity in defining the exercise coercion, the police have professional sensibilities that are inclined to undermine the new thinking ways and new way of behaving introduced in reform programs. Conversely, there have been some people thinking otherwise; culture transformation is not a risk since it can take place even within the police fields (Lord 1998). On the other hand, there are several ways of enhancing within and across a nation’s sphere. This is possible in search of understanding the civilisation and culture change in the wide field of security governance (Haggerty 1997). Even if notable difference has been made in moving from a state centred to plural governance. It is therefore important to analyse the cultures and the cultural change prospects to reduce the risk that could happen in governing and policing incase cultural changes occurred. The cause of the risk is that discussions regarding cultural and the associated changes stay restricted to the institutional framework of the public police with minimal or no attention being given to the opportunities for revolution within the wider area of security governance (Beetham 1991). A major risk present in governance and policing is corruption whereby the organisation governing ends up benefiting the people privately, rather than benefiting the public. There are so many abuses of authority that happen when pursuing policing objectives. This is what is referred to as organisational police deviance. For a long time, there have been various agendas forge a realistic move in the way the public governing and policing is done. The main idea is to shift away from a customary or professional form of policing where officially the main alternative for regulating the citizens is usage or threatening the citizens with a punishment (Bellamy 2001). Punishment is perceived as one of the many ways that are effective and efficient. There have been apprehensions that probable transformations are not possible even if there have been major emphasis to reduce organisational deviance or the more determined stress on community policing (Bellamy 2001). This scepticism stems principally from observation that culture gets internalized in them and consequently cultural issue keeps on being a major stumbling block in governance and policing (Gill 2001). The police culture is changed through several processes of socialisation that occur as they carry on with their job. Of particular significance is the informal socialisation that takes place while the police are on the streets with their peers, seniors and criminals interacting; for the officers, such interactions take place everyday (Gill 2001). Thus what this conception means is that the police’ working personality is formed as a result of dealing with dangerousness, capriciousness and estranging character of public policing. Without reconfiguration of the authorisation and roles of profession, the required cultural change would not result (Gill 2001). The behaviour of the police is also likely to be affected by the stories police share concerning their past experiences. These stories consist; perception, emotional response and the way of which the action flowed without alternative to definite instructions (Lord 1998). Thus these stories are viewed as necessary to the transmission of realistic knowledge as they present tangible examples of the action the “listeners” could apply to other comparable scenarios (Weiler 1999). The scenarios that the listeners experience in the future could not be the same but a story is still applicable as it avails a case of a best practice to follow. Thus in a policing reform, it is hard to transform the culture of police without including the change in the rules that offer justificatory frameworks for non-standard actions and without introduction of new stories to commemorate other sensibilities (Weiler 1999). Conclusion If security is a mutual good rather than public good and new arrangements require to be made to guarantee that the communal good is distributed according to justice, equality, and diverse rights of access and use, the normal which is used is that which has been convoluted under the rule of law (Anderson 1995). There is no trepidation that security has been having additional or re-emergent privatising and commodifying, thus this has exasperated the democracy within the security field. For re-assertion of legal values, the most important duty of security work will not be to the community but rather the social, predominantly that social detailed in rule of law, in democracy building, etc (Anderson 1995). This then is an acknowledgment that the new truth is more like the old reality: policing terms in Australia and somewhere else needs the re-assertion of policing and governing as a public good. Finally, this will in someway help in solving or even eliminating risks that are currently dominating the policing and security governance (Anderson 1995). Bibliography Anderson, M., 1995, Policing the European Union: Theory, Law and Practice, Clarendon: Beetham, D., 1991, Transnational Private Policing: The Impact of Commercial Security’, Issues in Transnational Policing. Macmillan: Basingstoke. Gill, P., 2001, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Bellamy, R., 2001, Constitutive Citizenship versus Constitutional Rights: Republican Reflections on the EU Charter and the Human Rights Act, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Haggerty, K., 1997, Policing the Risk Society. Clarendon: Oxford. Hebenton, D., 1994, Policing Across National Boundaries. Pinter: London. Held, D., 1992, Democracy, the Nation-State and the Global System’, Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity. Held, D., 1995., Democracy and the Global Order. Polity: Cambridge. Johnson, L., 1999, Policing Britain: Risk, Security and Governance, Longman: Harlow. Johnston, L., 2000, Transnational Private Policing: The Impact of Commercial Security, Issues in Transnational Policing, Routledge: London. Joerges, C., 2001, Responses to the White Paper on Governance, Robert Schuman Centre: Florence. Loader, I., 1996, Youth, Policing and Democracy, Macmillan: Basingstoke. Lord, C., 1998, Legitimacy and the European Union. Longman: Harlow. Lyon, D., 2001, Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life, Open University Press: Buckingham. Mitrovica, A., 2002 Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Australia’s Secret Service. Random House, Toronto. Nadelman, E., 1993. Cops across Borders: The Internationalization of UK Criminal Law Enforcement, Pennsylvania State University Press: Philadelphia. Walker, N., 2000, Policing in a Changing Constitutional Order. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Weiler, J., 1999, The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor’ and Other Essays on European Integration, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Read More