Criminal Justice Lecture 4
ENTERING THE SYSTEM- The police
Historical perspective
Dispersed, small, rural population
Medieval ‘neighbourhood watch’- obligations and duties, local householders- Frank pledge
18th century the ‘police’ used more widely
Shifting perceptions of social control and population governance, industrialisation
Magistrates and street patrols ‘thief takers’
Bow street runners, Wapping river police 1798
1829- Sir Robert Peel (Home sectary) established Met police
Metropolitan area only, the main aim of ‘peelers’ was crime prevention
State controlled ‘force’ contested… a struggle for legitimacy
Policing in the Victorian era (1837-1901)
Social context- the ‘dangerous classes’
Crime prevention through moralisation of the working class
Urban, industrial environment- growth in ‘crime’ and ‘disorder’
Riots and political unrest- ruling classes ‘fearful’
Early policing focused on taverns, streets
Public order and social control in a broader sense than ‘crime fighting’
The perceived focus on the working class fuelled resistance to the police
Post War Policing
BANTON (1964) conducted first study into UK police (Scotland)
Small rural villages- low crime
Policing was mainly peace keeping
Police only one element in maintaining social order
Dependence on informal social controls
‘Consensual policing’- police simply reinforce moral boundaries
(Symbolic order)
Moral authority rather than legal powers
Can ‘have a word’ rather than formally enforce the law
CONFLICT AND CRITICISM
However, studies during the 1970s and 1980s revealed the existence of a different kind of policing
- ‘A claustrophobic workplace culture which pressured conformity to a hegemonic white,
male, heterosexual culture and condoned vituperative sexist and racist attitudes and
behaviour were going unchallenged and ethnic minority, women and gay officers were
tokenised and extremely vulnerable’
(McLaughlin 2007; 146)
, - Police organisational deviance- corruption, discriminate and partial law enforcement, racism,
sexism, homophobia
The organisation of the police
43 separate constabularies (123 prior to 1964 police act)
Divided into basic command units (BCUs)
Size varies considerably; MPS- 32,000; POWYS- 1,000
Rural/urban population differences
All constabularies have some functional responsibilities, same funding streams from govt.
Organised around a rank structure- constable, sergeant, inspector, super-intendant, assistant
chief constable, deputy chief constable, chief constable
All officers enter as a constable- legitimacy due to personal experience
Police as Crime Commissioners
Introduced in the police reform and social responsibility act 2011
PCC for each service is now directly elected by the public
Responsible for-
- appointing chief constable
- setting priorities
- representing community interests
- raising funds in their area
According to the Home office, benefits include-
- Public can hold police forces to account
- Greater public engagement in policing
- Greater public ownership of force performance
- Public have someone ‘on their side’ in fighting crime
BUT
- Have PCCs reduced independence of police and led to a system that enables greater levels of
political interference?
- The police are supposed to be non-partisan, impartial etc.
- Is this possible if they are governed by political appointment?
ENTERING THE SYSTEM- The police
Historical perspective
Dispersed, small, rural population
Medieval ‘neighbourhood watch’- obligations and duties, local householders- Frank pledge
18th century the ‘police’ used more widely
Shifting perceptions of social control and population governance, industrialisation
Magistrates and street patrols ‘thief takers’
Bow street runners, Wapping river police 1798
1829- Sir Robert Peel (Home sectary) established Met police
Metropolitan area only, the main aim of ‘peelers’ was crime prevention
State controlled ‘force’ contested… a struggle for legitimacy
Policing in the Victorian era (1837-1901)
Social context- the ‘dangerous classes’
Crime prevention through moralisation of the working class
Urban, industrial environment- growth in ‘crime’ and ‘disorder’
Riots and political unrest- ruling classes ‘fearful’
Early policing focused on taverns, streets
Public order and social control in a broader sense than ‘crime fighting’
The perceived focus on the working class fuelled resistance to the police
Post War Policing
BANTON (1964) conducted first study into UK police (Scotland)
Small rural villages- low crime
Policing was mainly peace keeping
Police only one element in maintaining social order
Dependence on informal social controls
‘Consensual policing’- police simply reinforce moral boundaries
(Symbolic order)
Moral authority rather than legal powers
Can ‘have a word’ rather than formally enforce the law
CONFLICT AND CRITICISM
However, studies during the 1970s and 1980s revealed the existence of a different kind of policing
- ‘A claustrophobic workplace culture which pressured conformity to a hegemonic white,
male, heterosexual culture and condoned vituperative sexist and racist attitudes and
behaviour were going unchallenged and ethnic minority, women and gay officers were
tokenised and extremely vulnerable’
(McLaughlin 2007; 146)
, - Police organisational deviance- corruption, discriminate and partial law enforcement, racism,
sexism, homophobia
The organisation of the police
43 separate constabularies (123 prior to 1964 police act)
Divided into basic command units (BCUs)
Size varies considerably; MPS- 32,000; POWYS- 1,000
Rural/urban population differences
All constabularies have some functional responsibilities, same funding streams from govt.
Organised around a rank structure- constable, sergeant, inspector, super-intendant, assistant
chief constable, deputy chief constable, chief constable
All officers enter as a constable- legitimacy due to personal experience
Police as Crime Commissioners
Introduced in the police reform and social responsibility act 2011
PCC for each service is now directly elected by the public
Responsible for-
- appointing chief constable
- setting priorities
- representing community interests
- raising funds in their area
According to the Home office, benefits include-
- Public can hold police forces to account
- Greater public engagement in policing
- Greater public ownership of force performance
- Public have someone ‘on their side’ in fighting crime
BUT
- Have PCCs reduced independence of police and led to a system that enables greater levels of
political interference?
- The police are supposed to be non-partisan, impartial etc.
- Is this possible if they are governed by political appointment?
