Police Accountability: A Special Case of Accountability - Essay Example

Police Accountability: A Special Case of Accountability Police accountability forms a special part of accountability arrangements. All accountability arrangements allow their agents some discretion and independence while holding them accountable for their actions. But in case of police, accountability is much more than control of discretion of members of the police organization. It is the basic requirement of democratic policing. Hence, it has come to acquire a huge structure containing rules and safeguards which ensure that the police forces are accountable for their actions. In this paper, we first find the rationale for police accountability and then explore the various mechanisms through which police in UK are being made accountable to the public. The Rationale The OSCE in its report on democracy in Serbia says that to establish democratic stability in a country "it is crucial that the policing is both democratic and free from political interference" (OSCE, 2002). For this purpose, accountability is essential both within and outside the organization. This is to ensure that the police do not function in an undemocratic manner and can be held to account by the citizens for its actions. The report says that the most important feature of democratic policing is that "policing must be with the general consent of the public" (OSCE, 1). This applies both to the actions of the police personnel and the manner in which the action occurs. There must be an ongoing dialogue between the public and the police regarding the style of policing and the limitations of police powers (OSCE, 1). It implies an agreed understanding between the two about when the police will intervene and the acceptable ways for them to do it. It is known as "moral consensus." In this system there is a balance between power and accountability. Power is granted to the police forces by the parliament on behalf of the citizens, who are granted the ability to hold the police accountable for their actions, policies, procedures, priorities, and expenditure (OSCE 2002). The police is also expected to have integrity, fairness, sensitivity, and these values are upheld through systems of accountability. In a democracy, policing needs to be based on consent across the community (Accountability I). "The community recognizes the legitimacy of the policing task, confers authority on police personnel in carrying out their role in policing and actively supports them" (Accountability I). Consent depends on proper accountability. The police needs to be accountable in two senses - the subordinate or obedient sense; and the explanatory and cooperative sense. In the former sense, the police are subordinate to the law and the community expects to get the service for which its money is spent. In the latter sense, the public and police need to communicate with each other and work in partnership to ensure effective policing. OSCE has recommended five levels of supervision to ensure accountability of the police forces to the public. These are: 1. Internal affairs: The first level of accountability insists on integrity. There is the need for an internal affairs department which overlooks the integrity of the individual police staff. Its responsibility will be to investigate allegations of crime, corruption and inappropriate behaviour on the part of the police personnel. They would also devise tactics to prevent corruption. 2. External oversight: To uphold the integrity of this internal affairs department there needs to be an organization, completely independent of the police, which will oversee the allegations of crime, corruption and malpractices against the police. This external organization would also have the right to see the documents of the internal affairs department. This organization would report back to the public after investigating allegations against the police department. It will also be able to influence police procedures and comment publicly on incidents (OSCE 2002). 3. Parliamentary oversight: The external oversight organization also needs to be accountable to the people. The people are best represented by the parliament. Thus, the external oversight organization is accountable to the whole parliament. It is important that accountability is not held by just the government or the interior ministry. This may have the possibility of producing a police state in the hands of a corrupt government. The Parliamentary Committee on policing needs to hold to account both the police and the interior ministry with the help of the external oversight organization. 4. Police and media policies and procedures: There may be chances of a minor event, incident or misunderstanding to occur, which damages the trust on the police. In order to control such a damage of trust, which can be very difficult to repair, there is a role for a media between the police and the citizens. The media will give regular feedback to the police and also provide accurate facts to the public to dispel inaccurate rumour. The media also has an important role to play in informing the public about the latest laws and procedures related to the police. The police staff, the police trade unions and the police organisation should be able to talk to media according to certain policies and procedures. 5. Local police and community consultation: There is need for a mechanism where the local police and the local people can hold regular meetings to discuss various matters related to policing. These could be in the form of local committees which further report to the parliamentary committees on policing. Also the records of the police should be available to the general public, with certain restrictions in place in order to avoid organised criminals interfering with the investigative process. This could be done with certain policies and procedures on operational confidentiality. Another important part of accountability is financial accountability. This requires that the public taxes are spent judiciously and on those issues agreed between the police and the government and overlooked by the parliamentary committee. The police should be held accountable if they are seen to be indulging themselves at public expense. There are many aspects to accountability. One of them is democratic accountability. In this type of accountability the elected representatives present their own expectations, regarding service, to the police and hold them accountable for delivering the services. (Accountability I). Another type is transparency. In this from the public is kept informed and get answers to their questions on what the police is doing on a particular matter and why. Another aspect is legal accountability. In this the police is held accountable by the law if they abuse their powers. An important aspect is financial accountability. This allows the audit of police accounts, and the police are held accountable for the delivery of value for public money (Accountability I). Internal accountability holds the police officers accountable within the police organization. All these aspects need to be addressed if the police is to be held fully accountable. According to Samuel Walker, accountability forms an important part of American policing. He says that effective accountability procedures are very important to achieve the goals of lawfulness and legitimacy, as given by The National Academy of Sciences (Walker 2007). Walker says that lawfulness and legitimacy are important for the police to achieve their goals of reducing crime and disorder, to enhance the quality of neighbourhood life, and to serve community needs (Walker 2007). It has been found that a lack of legitimacy interferes in the development of healthy partnerships essential to community policing and problem oriented policing. Walker says that experts like Bayley have recognized the fact that lawful conduct and accountability are very important for crime fighting. This is contrary to the earlier view that effective crime control was antithetical to respect for constitutional principles (Walker 2007). Walker believes that there is an increased interest in police accountability in recent years on the part of the police managers, policymakers and police scholars. He says that this is a result of three developments in the U.S. The first development is Section 14141 of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act. This authorizes the U.S. Justice Department to bring suit against the law enforcement agencies where there is a "pattern or practice" of abuse of citizens' rights, and to seek organizational reforms to end those abuses (Walker 2007). Under this law the Justice Department has come to several settlements which require agencies to adopt state of the art policies on the use of force, to implement an early intervention system, to improve citizen complaint procedures and improve training related to these matters (Walker 2007). Another development that Walker mentions is early intervention systems (EIS). This management tool has been developed to enhance accountability and is now being used to analyze the officer performance by police commanders. This is for the purpose of identifying officers which have a recurring performance problems. Such officers are then subjected to formal interventions to correct their performance problems. EIS has been made mandatory by the Commission on the Accreditation Agencies (Walker 2007). Another development has been the phenomenal growth of external oversight agencies. These agencies and civil rights activists have demanded external procedures for addressing complaints against the police. These three developments, he says, reflect an increasing public concern about police accountability. This has spurred the development of police accountability policies and procedures. The author has examined certain accountability procedures which are intended to reduce misconduct involving the misuse of discretion, through policy directives, improved supervision or disciplinary action. Such agency policies are essential to control the use of police authority. The first accountability procedure which involves the control of police discretion is administrative rulemaking. This makes a very important part of modern police management. This mainly involves three aspects: formulating written policies specifying approved and forbidden actions; compulsory filing of written reports on specific actions by police personnel; and review of these officer reports. Administrative rulemaking is most conspicuous today in the field of police use of deadly force. Apart from this, it has included the use of non-lethal force, vehicular pursuits, domestic violence incidents, the deployment of canines, and such other actions which may affect the public adversely (Walker 2007). Such accountability procedures like administrative rulemaking have been very effective in reducing incidents which make the police violence much more conspicuous than any other government agency. That is the reason accountability procedures in case of police are more of a special case and are much more than making the individuals responsible. The accountability needs to be enforced and overlooked by several mechanisms. Such administrative rulemaking has resulted in the elimination of many police malpractices. For example, following the adoption of a restrictive deadly force policy, shootings of unarmed and non-assaultive persons in the Memphis Police Departmental area was completely eliminated. Also, a significant reduction was seen in cases of racial disparity in shooting and killing of persons. Police departments have formulated policies with regard to the use of less lethal force. The evidence suggests that written policies are able to reduce the use of force and adverse consequences as a result of such use of force. Such policies have reduced, to a great extent, the abuses of police authority. They're able to restrict the exercise of police officer discretion leading to undesirable outcomes. According to Janet Chan, traditional policing put more emphasis on arrests and charges, fast cars and random patrol. There was an "us vs them" mentality prevalent between police and the public. But the new vision of policing is more about being accountable to the community and establishing a partnership with the community in policing. She suggests that traditional policing methods are being replaced by a new approach to policing which emphasizes innovation, change, problem solving and openness and accountability (Chan 1995). Police, in order to be competitive and to attract the resources necessary to fulfil their role of the future, must become outward-looking, increasingly sensitive to developments and trends in their environment, responsive and resilient to change, innovative and creative in their approach to problem solving and idea generation, and more open and accountable to the community and Government (Northern Territory Police 1991, p.32, Chan 1995). Chan says that in Australia, there has been a shift from traditional policing to a new form of community policing which encourages partnership relationship between community and the police. It has been shown that "police work is geared to a local level of accountability" (Chan 1995). Police accountability in the United Kingdom According to Mawbey and Wright, the police in the United Kingdom are not a single entity, but rather is an amalgamation of many police forces. Police accountability was a very political issue earlier, but it is now focused more toward police performance and effectiveness (Mawbey and Wright, 2005). Police accountability has been found to be very significant for the following reasons: 1. Paradox of police governance: This implies that the need to balance the undue use of coercive power by the police and their effectiveness. This is a human rights issue. 2. Policing is political: This is another human rights issue. Policing is an exercise of power. This makes it political. 3. Financial accountability: the police need to be held accountable for their use of public resources. The total expenditures of the police in U. K. runs two more than 12 billion and 2004 -05 (Mawbey and Wright, 2005). 4. Police legitimacy: accountability contributes to the legitimacy of the police. This is important in gaining the cooperation and trust of the citizens which are being policed. At present the police force in UK comprises 43 forces in England and Wales - of which 10 are combined and 31 County - 8 in Scotland, and one in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the local police force consists of three magistrates, nine local councillors, and five independent members that oversee each local force. They ensure that the community gets the best value from their police force. In Ireland, the police force is overlooked by the Northern Ireland Policing board. And in Scotland, each police force is supervised by the Local authority. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) was established in 1856 and overlooks and inspects all police forces in England and Wales. It consists of six inspectors, plus a chief inspector, plus an inspector who acts as the commandant of National Police Training College at Bramshill. For the purpose of inspection the country is divided into four areas, each with an inspector. Its main purpose is to certify efficiency, to determine how complaints against the police are handled, and lastly as advisers to the home office and to chief constables (Walker 2007). The main aim of the police force in U. K. as given in its statement of purpose is "to help secure a safe and just society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced"(Walker 2007). Thus, its aims are to promote safety and reduced disorder, reduce crime and the fear of crime, and contribute to delivering justice in ways which secure and maintain public confidence in the rule of law. The Tripartite system distributes responsibility between home office, and the local police authority and the chief constable of the force. This system provides accountability to parliament to the Home Secretary. "In addition to the tripartite structure of police accountability and its associated legislation the police are subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)" (Mawbey and Wright, 2005). This has laid down certain police procedures which are required to be followed by the police in matters of stop and search; entry, search and seizure; arrest, detention and questioning of suspects (Mawbey and Wright, 2005). Any breach of these codes lead to a disciplinary offence and can be used against the police case, and result in failure in convictions. Such breaches are admissible as evidence in civil and criminal proceedings against the police. The tripartite structure and the existing legislation are overlooked and enforced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). Since 1988 the police in England and Wales are scrutinized by an Audit Commission. This commission helps to monitor and promote the economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management of the police funding and budget (Mawbey and Wright, 2005). From Apr 2000, a Best Value programme has been instituted to make the local police authorities deliver best services by the most efficient and economic means. There are certain indicators provided by this programme which are statutorily required to be followed by the authorities in order to deliver the best value services. A Police Standards Unit has been established within the home office since 2002. This unit identifies good policing practices and finds means to spread these practices. It has been given an interventionist role as well. It can intervene in cases wherever it feels that remedial actions are required. It works closely with HMIC in this respect. A Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) was established by the Home office in Apr 2004. This framework provides PPAF measures against which police performance is measured. It also forms a basis of effective performance measurement. This Framework makes the police forces accountable for their performance and, at the same time, provides a means to compare the performance of different forces against each other. This framework includes measures that measure satisfaction and overall trust and confidence on the police. This has helped to enhance the scrutiny of the police forces by the media and the public. The financial accountability is being applied in the form of Financial Management Initiative (FMI). The funds are distributed by the home office, and the local police authority and the chief constable are given the freedom to manage it according to their needs. In this manner, local accountability has been increased within the police organization. Organisational Accountability is enhanced by a hierarchical rank structure, which produces a disciplined and answerable force. Officers are punished for discreditable conduct through various powers provided to their senior ranks. There are also disciplinary boards instituted to oversee and control disciplinary problems in the forces. An Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been established to investigate complaints against police officers. The National Crime Squad (NCS) was established in 1997 and is held accountable to Home Secretary and the National Crime Squad Authority. Another organization, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, was established in 2006. This Agency is accountable to the Parliament for its performance through the Home Secretary and three ministers. (Mawbey and Wright, 2005) The police forces in the United Kingdom are held accountable for their actions through a complex system of rules and safeguards. Such extensive safeguards, in the form of agencies and laws, are not evidenced in case of any other governmental discretionary authority. The case of the police is special in the control of discretion and powers. Conclusion and Recommendations We have seen that police accountability has gained a lot of attention in recent years. This has been a result of a number of developments, the most important of which is increased concern for human rights among the public and lawmakers. Police are held accountable for their actions through a variety of supervisory apparatus. It has been very successful in increasing the trust of the citizens on the police forces and eliminating to a large extent the police abuse of powers and authority. Community policing, which involves the police and public in a dialogue to discuss styles of policing, is being increasingly adopted by the police authorities. It is a better means of increasing police accountability. Agencies like National Reassurance Policing Programme (NRPP) go to a large extent to reassure the public about the ability of the police to reduce crime and order and thus instil trust. This police/public media relations help to increase police accountability to a great extent. Another good initiative is that of consultation and monitoring by the public through consultative committees, lay inspections, public surveys, media scrutiny, and pressure groups etc. The police can further improve accountability by remaining open to constructive criticism, welcome scrutiny by the public and remain open to ideas from the public. This will go a long way in securing the confidence of the public. References "Accountability I: The Present Position." Chapter 05. [Online]www.belfast.org.uk/report/chapter05.pdf Chan, Janet. (1995). "Police Accountability In A Multicultural Society." Multiculturism and Law 1995. Australian Institute of Criminology. [Online]www.aic.gov.au/conferences/multiculturalism/chan.html Mawby, Rob & Wright, Alan. 2005. "Police Accountability in the United Kingdom." Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. January 2005. [Online]www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/police/res_mat/police_accountability_in_uk.pd OSCE and Council of Europe. (2002). "Co-operation programme to strengthen the rule of law." Council of Europe and OSCE Joint Final Report On Police Accountability in Serbia. 10 Sep, 2002. [Online]www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/judicialprofessions/lisbon/rapports/Rapport-Allaix_en.pdf Walker, Samuel. (2007)."Police Accountability: Current Issues and Research Needs." National Institute of Justice (NIJ). May 2007. [Online]www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/218583.pdf Walker, Clive. 2007. "The Home Office and Policing." March 2007. [Online]http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/teaching/law6cw/police/pol-ho.htm Read More