scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Dissertation

‘Civilizing Policing’? What can police-public consultation forums achieve for police reform, ‘democratic policing’, and police legitimacy?

25 Nov 2014-
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the potential of police-public consultation forums for reform, democratic policing, and legitimacy in Edinburgh, Scotland, and make an argument that they can make positive contributions in each of these areas.
Abstract: Considering police-public consultation forums as a device, or tactic, to ‘civilize’ policing, the possibilities and limitations of ‘civilizing policing’ using this method can be shown. Police-public consultation forums can ‘civilize’ policing – in the sense Loader and Walker (2007) use the term – by contributing to police reform, democratic policing, and police legitimacy. Using the case of Edinburgh, Scotland, the achievements of police-public consultation forums for reform, democratic policing, and legitimacy, are examined and an argument made that consultation forums can make positive contributions in each of these areas. However, the example of consultation forums also reveals significant conceptual and structural limitations to the ideas of reform, democracy, and legitimacy when applied to the police. These limitations are articulated using the social theory of Simmel, Weber, and Lukes: Simmel and Weber reveal the inflexibility and non-negotiable aspects of the police that defies reform and democratic ambitions; Lukes provides an important precautionary perspective on the ‘democraticness’ of democratic devices; and, comparing Lukes with the work of Weber provides a view on legitimacy that reveals advanced complexities to ‘police legitimacy’. In sum, police-public consultation forums contribute to ‘civilizing policing’, but it is also useful to reflect and consider the non-negotiable limits the ‘form’ of the police applies to possible positive change.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: GARLAND, 2001, p. 2, the authors argues that a modernidade tardia, esse distintivo padrão de relações sociais, econômicas e culturais, trouxe consigo um conjunto de riscos, inseguranças, and problemas de controle social that deram uma configuração específica às nossas respostas ao crime, ao garantir os altos custos das
Abstract: Nos últimos trinta trinta anos, houve profundas mudanças na forma como compreendemos o crime e a justiça criminal. O crime tornou-se um evento simbólico, um verdadeiro teste para a ordem social e para as políticas governamentais, um desafio para a sociedade civil, para a democracia e para os direitos humanos. Segundo David Garland, professor da Faculdade de Direito da New York University, um dos principais autores no campo da Sociologia da Punição e com artigo publicado na Revista de Sociologia e Política , número 13, na modernidade tardia houve uma verdadeira obsessão securitária, direcionando as políticas criminais para um maior rigor em relação às penas e maior intolerância com o criminoso. Há trinta anos, nos EUA e na Inglaterra essa tendência era insuspeita. O livro mostra que os dois países compartilham intrigantes similaridades em suas práticas criminais, a despeito da divisão racial, das desigualdades econômicas e da letalidade violenta que marcam fortemente o cenário americano. Segundo David Garland, encontram-se nos dois países os “mesmos tipos de riscos e inseguranças, a mesma percepção a respeito dos problemas de um controle social não-efetivo, as mesmas críticas da justiça criminal tradicional, e as mesmas ansiedades recorrentes sobre mudança e ordem sociais”1 (GARLAND, 2001, p. 2). O argumento principal da obra é o seguinte: a modernidade tardia, esse distintivo padrão de relações sociais, econômicas e culturais, trouxe consigo um conjunto de riscos, inseguranças e problemas de controle social que deram uma configuração específica às nossas respostas ao crime, ao garantir os altos custos das políticas criminais, o grau máximo de duração das penas e a excessivas taxas de encarceramento.

2,183 citations

Posted Content
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: The authors found that low income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to support limitations on the rights of citizens and media representatives to criticize the government, and low income Latinos are more likely to trust in U.S. government officials and to believe that "the government is run for the benefit of all" than were high income Latinos.
Abstract: According to system justification theory, people are motivated to preserve the belief that existing social arrangements are fair, legitimate, and justifiable (Jost & Banaji, 1994). The strongest form of this hypothesis, which draws on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, holds that people who are most disadvantaged by the status quo would have the greatest psychological need to reduce ideological dissonance and would therefore be most likely to support, defend, and justify existing social systems, authorities, and outcomes. Variations on this hypothesis were tested in four U.S. national survey studies. We found that: (a) low income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to support limitations on the rights of citizens and media representatives to criticize the government (b) low income Latinos were more likely to trust in U.S. government officials and to believe that "the government is run for the benefit of all" than were high income Latinos, (c) Southerners in the U.S. were more likely to endorse meritocratic belief systems than were Northerners and poor and Southern African Americans were more likely to subscribe to meritocratic ideologies than were African Americans who were more affluent and from the North, (d) low income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary, and (e) stronger endorsement of meritocratic ideology was associated with greater satisfaction with one's own economic situation. Taken together, these findings provide support for the dissonance-based argument that people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it. Implications for theories of system justification, cognitive dissonance, and social change are also discussed.

520 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In fact, the movement of certain non-cit... as discussed by the authors has been strenuously tightened across Europe and America since September 11th, 2001, since the attacks on the United States.
Abstract: As has been widely recognized and commented upon, border controls across Europe and America have been strenuously tightened since September 11th. In fact, of course, the movement of certain non-cit...

135 citations

Journal Article

130 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

91 citations

References
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1984
TL;DR: In this article, the status of science, technology, and the arts, the significance of technocracy, and how the flow of information is controlled in the Western world are discussed.
Abstract: Many definitions of postmodernism focus on its nature as the aftermath of the modern industrial age when technology developed. This book extends that analysis to postmodernism by looking at the status of science, technology, and the arts, the significance of technocracy, and the way the flow of information is controlled in the Western world.

10,912 citations


"‘Civilizing Policing’? What can pol..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Data has problems of relating to an absolute “truth” and there are those who talk about data as primarily ‘representations’ (Derrida, 1966; Lyotard, 1984)....

    [...]

  • ...Manning (2011) for instance, views community policing as unimpressive and of no real significance for a change in police theory or activity (p....

    [...]

Book
01 Jan 1946
TL;DR: A collection of Max Weber's key papers is presented in this article with a new preface by Professor Bryan S. Turner, who was one of the most prolific and influential sociologists of the twentieth century.
Abstract: Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the most prolific and influential sociologists of the twentieth century. This classic collection draws together his key papers. This edition contains a new preface by Professor Bryan S. Turner.

5,657 citations


"‘Civilizing Policing’? What can pol..." refers background in this paper

  • ...As Weber (1970) suggests there is something akin to a ‘rule’ of bureaucracy (p.231), as once created, the bureaucratic form takes on a level of autonomy in which the bureaucratic method encourages subsequent behaviour that is primarily compatible with its own purposes (as argued by Wender, 2008, in…...

    [...]

  • ...For Weber (1970) the aim of bureaucracy is to eliminate “from official business love, hatred, and all purely personal, irrational, and emotional elements which escape calculation” (p.216), but from Wender’s perspective (2008) this can be fundamentally inappropriate with policing....

    [...]

  • ...While Simmel discusses ‘forms’, Weber (1970; 1978a; 1978b) discusses the bureaucratic nature of modernity....

    [...]

Book
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: This paper found that people obey the law if they believe it's legitimate, not because they fear punishment, which is the conclusion of Tom Tyler's classic study, "People obey law primarily because they believe in respecting legitimate authority".
Abstract: People obey the law if they believe it's legitimate, not because they fear punishment--this is the startling conclusion of Tom Tyler's classic study. Tyler suggests that lawmakers and law enforcers would do much better to make legal systems worthy of respect than to try to instill fear of punishment. He finds that people obey law primarily because they believe in respecting legitimate authority. In his fascinating new afterword, Tyler brings his book up to date by reporting on new research into the relative importance of legal legitimacy and deterrence, and reflects on changes in his own thinking since his book was first published.

3,783 citations

Book
01 Jan 1950

3,749 citations


"‘Civilizing Policing’? What can pol..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Their relationship is characterised by a “social framework that transcends both members” (Simmel, 1950: 136) – both members are privy and conscious of the rules, roles, and rituals that ought to define a police-citizen encounter....

    [...]

  • ...(Simmel 1950: p.318) The purpose of accountability and transparency devices such as the consultation forums are intended as a substitution for trust....

    [...]

  • ...It is these templates, or ‘forms’, that Simmel (1950) argues should be the defining object of inquiry for “the science of society” (p.21-22)....

    [...]

  • ...Relationships within a ‘Dyad’ are often characterised by a third element, that works as an intruder or associate who acts as a “disturbance and distraction of pure and immediate reciprocity” (Simmel, 1950: p.136)....

    [...]

  • ...…into Simmel’s thinking on the irreducibly social nature of individualism, he suggests both ‘isolation’ and ‘freedom’ are particular social forms that masquerade as being defined by independence, which ironically, only find meaning in their dependence to other social elements (Simmel, 1950:119-122)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The critical spirit of the humanities has run out of steam as discussed by the authors and the critical spirit might not be aiming at the right target, which is a concern of ours as a whole.
Abstract: Wars. Somanywars.Wars outside andwars inside.Culturalwars, science wars, and wars against terrorism.Wars against poverty andwars against the poor. Wars against ignorance and wars out of ignorance. My question is simple: Should we be at war, too, we, the scholars, the intellectuals? Is it really our duty to add fresh ruins to fields of ruins? Is it really the task of the humanities to add deconstruction to destruction? More iconoclasm to iconoclasm?What has become of the critical spirit? Has it run out of steam? Quite simply, my worry is that it might not be aiming at the right target. To remain in the metaphorical atmosphere of the time, military experts constantly revise their strategic doctrines, their contingency plans, the size, direction, and technology of their projectiles, their smart bombs, theirmissiles; I wonder why we, we alone, would be saved from those sorts of revisions. It does not seem to me that we have been as quick, in academia, to prepare ourselves for new threats, new dangers, new tasks, new targets. Are wenot like thosemechanical toys that endlesslymake the samegesturewhen everything else has changed around them? Would it not be rather terrible if we were still training young kids—yes, young recruits, young cadets—for wars that are no longer possible, fighting enemies long gone, conquering territories that no longer exist, leaving them ill-equipped in the face of threats we had not anticipated, for whichwe are so thoroughlyunprepared? Generals have always been accused of being on the ready one war late— especially French generals, especially these days. Would it be so surprising,

3,608 citations


"‘Civilizing Policing’? What can pol..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Latour (2004) argues that while “good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, [and] that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth” (p....

    [...]

  • ...Latour (2004) argues that while “good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, [and] that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth” (p.227), nevertheless we should persist with a ‘stubborn’ empiricism but mindful of our limitations. Latour (2004) and Rorty (1999) find support from other authors who argue postmodern critiques have not necessarily delivered the knockout blow to social science’s value: Lather (1986) argues advocacy does not necessarily demerit research...

    [...]