Peelian Principles(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Peelian Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
11 comments
Some of the positives of this system of justice do still remain - Personally, I would still approach a UK police officer in the street to ask for help without fear[1], whereas I don't think I'd ever go and ask for help from a US cop except in the direst of circumstances (mainly because of their reputation, and that they are all armed).
That said, your criticisms of the current force are definitely valid ones, and I would like to see them addressed by a political movement to restore these principles in full to British policing.
[1] with a few exceptions - not armed officers at airports, or police officers at protests whether or not in riot gear.
That said, your criticisms of the current force are definitely valid ones, and I would like to see them addressed by a political movement to restore these principles in full to British policing.
[1] with a few exceptions - not armed officers at airports, or police officers at protests whether or not in riot gear.
> I don't think I'd ever go and ask for help from a US cop except in the direst of circumstances
Pretty silly. Most, if not all, cops I've encountered have been decent and helpful human beings.
The primary source of ongoing friction with cops usually has to do with racial tensions in inner cities, especially in LA.
Their being armed doesn't change anything, plenty of everyday non-police citizens walking around armed too. No reason for fear.
Pretty silly. Most, if not all, cops I've encountered have been decent and helpful human beings.
The primary source of ongoing friction with cops usually has to do with racial tensions in inner cities, especially in LA.
Their being armed doesn't change anything, plenty of everyday non-police citizens walking around armed too. No reason for fear.
> plenty of everyday non-police citizens walking around armed too.
This is not a reason not to be afraid. I'll spare you my big rant, though, as I probably won't convince you.
This is not a reason not to be afraid. I'll spare you my big rant, though, as I probably won't convince you.
I don't think things were necessarily that much better in the past - there is no Riot Act anymore (which was pretty draconian) and we haven't had tanks on the streets recently either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Clydeside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Clydeside
I'd draw people's attention, in particular, to this principle:
> Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.
This is in contrast to the US, where a cop's career prospects largely depend on his arrest record. To see where this has led, read Arrest-Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson.
(By the way, I don't actually live in the US, so if you want to tell me I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about I'll have no comeback.)
> Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.
This is in contrast to the US, where a cop's career prospects largely depend on his arrest record. To see where this has led, read Arrest-Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson.
(By the way, I don't actually live in the US, so if you want to tell me I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about I'll have no comeback.)
See also Campbell's law, and Goodhart's law.
It's only human. If your employment evaluation depends on a specific statistic (the number of arrests you made, lines of code written, number of pupils passing the test, etc.) then you'll try to keep that statistic on a favourable level; even if doing so fails the original intent behind it all.
It's only human. If your employment evaluation depends on a specific statistic (the number of arrests you made, lines of code written, number of pupils passing the test, etc.) then you'll try to keep that statistic on a favourable level; even if doing so fails the original intent behind it all.
Incentives incentivize things; who knew?
Thank-you, I've spent a pleasant morning researching and actually reading Carson's entire book in PDF.
Pretty much confirms what is pretty obvious. You don't want to be stopped, and if you get stopped, don't piss off guys that have lots more power than you do.
Pretty much confirms what is pretty obvious. You don't want to be stopped, and if you get stopped, don't piss off guys that have lots more power than you do.
In the US, Europe and elsewhere, the S.O.P. is "Might makes right" => "We're going to beat the shit out of you if we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do about it. Oh and we're going to rob (whatever personal property or money is on you) too.* "
* This happens not in a "3rd-world country," but in the U.S. of A.
* This happens not in a "3rd-world country," but in the U.S. of A.
Some areas of the US are more "3rd-world country" than the people care to acknowledge. Mostly due to the legacy of colonialism.
Economy based on manual labour for resource extraction or farming? Yup.
History of racial conflict from the time of slavery? Yup.
Poor rule of law linked to family and business corruption? Yup.
Excessively violent policing as a result of those factors? Yup.
Economy based on manual labour for resource extraction or farming? Yup.
History of racial conflict from the time of slavery? Yup.
Poor rule of law linked to family and business corruption? Yup.
Excessively violent policing as a result of those factors? Yup.
I dispute this claim. In the last two decades, the most high profile cases of police malfeasance are coming from LA and Seattle. These have nothing to do with colonialism, but with complete lack of oversight and responsibility.
Exactly. The pattern is:
1. cops do whatever they want 2. they become more and more emboldened 3. something awful happens to an "innocent" person 4. temporary measures are put in place 5. delay 10 6. goto 1
1. cops do whatever they want 2. they become more and more emboldened 3. something awful happens to an "innocent" person 4. temporary measures are put in place 5. delay 10 6. goto 1
Jello Biafra speaks of his possessions being seized in a police raid in the 80s, and the sheriff's office sold them off before he even went to trial - this was (is?) legal in his county.
One thing people need to remember is that in France, UK, Australia, Canada etc guns are illegal. That makes a big difference since police know that provided they don't invade someone's personal space they aren't at risk of dying. And as such they are able to resolve issues without needing to act with a defensive posture.
It may seem arbitrary but you will never think of a policeman as an ordinary citizen if they aren't willing to engage with you in a normal manner.
It may seem arbitrary but you will never think of a policeman as an ordinary citizen if they aren't willing to engage with you in a normal manner.
Guns are not illegal in Canada. Criminals have no problems getting guns either. They are starting to force all cops here to wear video cams to weed out idiots, it helps prevent US insanity like where a physics prof called 911 for an ambulance and a cop showed up to smash his face and arrest him instead http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/nyregion/professors-detail...
The only reason police need to fear a non-criminal gun owner is if the officer acts abusively. A criminal on the other hand could get a gun wether they are illegal in the area or not and might be more inclined to use it regardless of the police behavior. I doubt outlawing guns entirely makes a police officer's job safer it just allows free reign to harass law abiding citizens w/o serious risk.
Criminality is not an identity but a consequence of circumstances.
Put it another way, it could be you ...
Put it another way, it could be you ...
Some might argue that more abuses would occur because the police can operate without the fear of being shot back.
Well, they are restricted but not totally illegal. Even in the UK people can use shotguns. I'm not sure having guns really effects the Peelian stuff.
Shotguns and bolt-action rifles are licensed in the UK. So are black-powder weapons (mostly muzzle-loaders for re-enactment). Air guns are also allowed, in some categories without a license. More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_King...
Note that firearms licenses were pretty much non-existent in Sir Robert Peel's day, and as late as the mid 1980s it was possible to possess an AK-47 or similar (as long as the selector didn't permit burst firing). In spite of which, most police went (and preferred to go) unarmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_King...
Note that firearms licenses were pretty much non-existent in Sir Robert Peel's day, and as late as the mid 1980s it was possible to possess an AK-47 or similar (as long as the selector didn't permit burst firing). In spite of which, most police went (and preferred to go) unarmed.
The first thing authoritarian states do is take the guns.
That historically did not happen.
Fascism under Mussolini did create a law about guns. It did this many years after the PNF took power, and the law only states that you have to declare "substantial changes" in your ownership of weapons[0].
The same happened with nazi germany. There was a weapons law enacted in 1938, about five years after books had been burned, the gestapo had been installed and concentration camps for political opposition had been created.
This law deregulated the acquisition of firearms, which had been regulated since 1919[1].
[0] http://www.sanzioniamministrative.it/collegamenti/I%20Codici... [1] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=402...
Fascism under Mussolini did create a law about guns. It did this many years after the PNF took power, and the law only states that you have to declare "substantial changes" in your ownership of weapons[0].
The same happened with nazi germany. There was a weapons law enacted in 1938, about five years after books had been burned, the gestapo had been installed and concentration camps for political opposition had been created.
This law deregulated the acquisition of firearms, which had been regulated since 1919[1].
[0] http://www.sanzioniamministrative.it/collegamenti/I%20Codici... [1] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=402...
Presumably it's the first thing peaceful states do too.
Even if they state they intend to protect individual freedoms, there is no guarantee. Reality shows that all systems can be perverted and all rules reinterpreted to mean something else.
It's a book ideal that doesn't recognize reality: the fallibility and self-interests of individuals.
So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations?
The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even today the vast majority of British cops do not ever carry guns, and per a 2006 poll of members of the Police Federation, 82% of officers don't want to routinely carry guns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398
This demonstrates, if nothing else, that even after 170-180 years a high-minded book ideal can have a long term effect on an institution (even though we as a species seem to be extremely bad at keeping institutions on track on any time frame longer than a human working lifespan).
And, if I may editorialize a little, being aware that it is possible to constitute a police force along radically unfamiliar lines should free us from the tyranny of low expectations that leads us to assume that current abuses of police powers are inevitable and unexceptional.
We can do better, and we deserve better.
The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even today the vast majority of British cops do not ever carry guns, and per a 2006 poll of members of the Police Federation, 82% of officers don't want to routinely carry guns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398
This demonstrates, if nothing else, that even after 170-180 years a high-minded book ideal can have a long term effect on an institution (even though we as a species seem to be extremely bad at keeping institutions on track on any time frame longer than a human working lifespan).
And, if I may editorialize a little, being aware that it is possible to constitute a police force along radically unfamiliar lines should free us from the tyranny of low expectations that leads us to assume that current abuses of police powers are inevitable and unexceptional.
We can do better, and we deserve better.
Indeed, I think there's something a bit too fatalistic about the idea that the police must automatically be bad because the very nature of authority is corrupting. It's somewhat similar to genetically-deterministic evo-psych, or arguments that group X will behave in a certain way because of their privileges or sufferings. There might be a tendency toward that pattern of behaviour, but tendencies can be overcome. In social science there are rarely any iron rules of behaviour.
The real question is how we design robust institutional cultures that don't deteriorate over time, and adhere to the original mission goals. (And also how we free ourselves from the tyranny of low expectations, so that we can set good goals rather than accepting bad outcomes as inevitable.)
Note that Peel's Principles were in no small part to address the public order aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre
Prior to the huge wave of policing and justice reforms of the 1830s, in the UK not only were there no real organized police forces, but what policing there was relied on local bailiffs, freelance for-profit thief-takers (google "Jonathan Wilde" for an extraordinary example of just how wrong for-profit policing can go!), and in extremis, the army (who, at Peterloo, sent a cavalry charge into a large crowd who were demonstrating for electoral reform: many dead, many hundreds injured).
Some sort of reform was clearly necessary, and the drawbacks of a military style of public order enforcement was glaringly obvious: hence the attempt at re-inventing the entire concept of policing.
Note that Peel's Principles were in no small part to address the public order aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre
Prior to the huge wave of policing and justice reforms of the 1830s, in the UK not only were there no real organized police forces, but what policing there was relied on local bailiffs, freelance for-profit thief-takers (google "Jonathan Wilde" for an extraordinary example of just how wrong for-profit policing can go!), and in extremis, the army (who, at Peterloo, sent a cavalry charge into a large crowd who were demonstrating for electoral reform: many dead, many hundreds injured).
Some sort of reform was clearly necessary, and the drawbacks of a military style of public order enforcement was glaringly obvious: hence the attempt at re-inventing the entire concept of policing.
The only way is if police are held to account. That there is some sort of oversight committee, separate from the police force, that can fire officers.
For example, Mountain View PD has this female police officer that is just plain nutters in a dangerous way (aggressive and crazy with a gun).
For example, Mountain View PD has this female police officer that is just plain nutters in a dangerous way (aggressive and crazy with a gun).
Kinda ironic that you describe the problem as "military style of public order enforcement", since one of the hallmarks and necessities of the very reforms was the centralization of policing, and the imposition of various military-like organization on the police in an attempt to increase visibility, accountability, and legitimacy.
In fact, I don't think the question isn't so much how to design robust cultures that do not "deteriorate over time", but how to design systems that are amenable to reform despite "deterioration". Basically, I'm making the claim that that on the micro-level, that every day, or year to year life of an institution, negative effects will tend to out-weight positives. And I'm going to argue that from the standpoint of entropy. So in other words, sure, we want to create systems that are robust, as in they can maintain their culture at some set level, but it's even more important to ensure that we can "reset" the system at relatively low cost.
In fact, I don't think the question isn't so much how to design robust cultures that do not "deteriorate over time", but how to design systems that are amenable to reform despite "deterioration". Basically, I'm making the claim that that on the micro-level, that every day, or year to year life of an institution, negative effects will tend to out-weight positives. And I'm going to argue that from the standpoint of entropy. So in other words, sure, we want to create systems that are robust, as in they can maintain their culture at some set level, but it's even more important to ensure that we can "reset" the system at relatively low cost.
In your country, are the Fire service, Ambulance service, or Coast Guard, necessarily military? Because they were uniforms, have rank structures, operate heavy equipment, and are government employees.
(Yes, this is a trick question. In some countries these are paramilitary organizations and services -- or provided by private corporations. But in the UK, they're civilian government agencies that are explicitly non-military. It's possible to have a centralized, hierarchical uniformed state agency that isn't militaries and isn't there to point guns at the public. That's the point I'm trying to make here.)
Your secondary point about systems needing to be amenable to reform is a good one. Too much rigidity and inflexibility makes reform hard: but it may also help prevent corruption. Which aspect wins out probably has something to do with the type of people the organization recruits -- are they dedicated to public service, or are they attracted to a role where they get to carry a gun and wear a uniform and are feared by the public? My gut feeling is that authoritarian followers (per Altermayer) are a really bad fit for community policing ... but unfortunately uniformed armed services are attractive to such personality types.
(Yes, this is a trick question. In some countries these are paramilitary organizations and services -- or provided by private corporations. But in the UK, they're civilian government agencies that are explicitly non-military. It's possible to have a centralized, hierarchical uniformed state agency that isn't militaries and isn't there to point guns at the public. That's the point I'm trying to make here.)
Your secondary point about systems needing to be amenable to reform is a good one. Too much rigidity and inflexibility makes reform hard: but it may also help prevent corruption. Which aspect wins out probably has something to do with the type of people the organization recruits -- are they dedicated to public service, or are they attracted to a role where they get to carry a gun and wear a uniform and are feared by the public? My gut feeling is that authoritarian followers (per Altermayer) are a really bad fit for community policing ... but unfortunately uniformed armed services are attractive to such personality types.
I readily accept your first point. I guess I messed up my delivery of the first point. It wasn't meant so much as a rebuttal or counterpoint, but something of a "random aside". The point wasn't that they "militarized" the police, especially in the way militarized is often used today in the context of American law enforcement (with the implications of increased use of aggressive force), but rather that its kinda funny that their solution to trying to back off on the level of violence was to impose aspects of military like control.
Of course, in the long view it's pretty obvious why that happened. Consider why modern western militaries are structured and organized the way they are. The state has a monopoly on force, which requires not just the owning the army, but to be able to control the application of force down to the level of individual soldier. Obviously the control can never be perfect, but I think its pretty clear that it typically works well enough.
I guess my point is that especially in the context of the 19th century, militarization has two orthogonal aspects, the first being the nature and quantity of force to apply, and the second being control of force, and that when faced with the problem of overly aggressive police action, they sought to apply control by applying aspects of military organization - aspects which the military could claim to "own" first, just because they were only groups around with that type of organization at that time.
Of course, in the long view it's pretty obvious why that happened. Consider why modern western militaries are structured and organized the way they are. The state has a monopoly on force, which requires not just the owning the army, but to be able to control the application of force down to the level of individual soldier. Obviously the control can never be perfect, but I think its pretty clear that it typically works well enough.
I guess my point is that especially in the context of the 19th century, militarization has two orthogonal aspects, the first being the nature and quantity of force to apply, and the second being control of force, and that when faced with the problem of overly aggressive police action, they sought to apply control by applying aspects of military organization - aspects which the military could claim to "own" first, just because they were only groups around with that type of organization at that time.
How many police officers have you interacted with?
I like that you called them ideals.
A lot of what I consider weirder political thought seems to come from treating some set of principles as inviolate. It's harder to make that mistake of thought with an ideal.
(and any system involving more than 1 human seems likely enough to require compromise somewhere)
A lot of what I consider weirder political thought seems to come from treating some set of principles as inviolate. It's harder to make that mistake of thought with an ideal.
(and any system involving more than 1 human seems likely enough to require compromise somewhere)
Yeah, it's usually the inexperienced and the privileged that take on a meritocratic, neat-and-simple worldview. It's the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand.
"Shit happens" isn't a bumper sticker for no reason.
"Shit happens" isn't a bumper sticker for no reason.
Because it's divorced from reality for one.
UK police officers don't want to carry guns because they really don't need to. The most likely threat they are going to face is from a youth carrying a knife (gangs are an issue in outer London boroughs). And since police officers are wearing protective vests a knife attack isn't going to be hitting major organs.
If you notice though, everywhere, including the UK, now has vans full of armed SWAT-type cops, ready to roll at a moments notice.
Un-armed my foot! (pun intended)
Un-armed my foot! (pun intended)
Armed response vehicles do exist in the major cities in the UK, although the number of incidents in which they are used is declining. In England and Wales for the year ending March 2012, the police discharged firearms at a total of five incidents [1]. That's for a population of 56 million.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-...
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-...
Abuse of authority only comes from the public sector (aka as government). In the private sector you get a complaint and you're fired.
Private defense and private security is the future.
Private defense and private security is the future.
Let's link that to HackerNews: How could we revisit those rules at the age of Internet?
No more anonymous downvotes and flagging, for one?
> Every police officer should be issued an identification number, to assure accountability for his actions.
> Every police officer should be issued an identification number, to assure accountability for his actions.
In social contract theory, the entire government apparatus is supposedly dependent on the consent of the governed.
> and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by
Hmm.
Hmm.
Wow, this is exactly what we need in Turkey, where there is deep political conflict going on. Recently, there have been ongoing protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Turkey). There is a long history of police brutality in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality#Turkey), but at least recently we had thought that the police was largely supportive of the current political party (AKP), as key positions were manned largely by AKP supporters, placed there by the government.
Now, the government is having a conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_corruption_scandal_in_Turk...) with the Gulen Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement), which they used to be buddy-buddy with, and now no one seems to trust the police anymore, not even the government themselves. The government has been sacking police chiefs and reassigning commanders all over the country, in an attempt to break up any Gulen supporters, and to seize power over the police again.
Looking at the Peelian principles, they've failed 1 many times before by taping over helmet identification numbers (http://www.ataturk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/same-story...) and they've also failed 3 many times by engaging in cronyist tactics to avoid prosecution and accountability, even with evidence.
Looking over the principles of policing, they've failed #2 since there has been widespread condemnation of police brutality, and the force is still there. They failed #4 when riot police attacked a camp of sleeping peaceful protesters at 4am with tear gas and batons. They failed #5, since the police chiefs are appointed by the current political party, and thus are not impartial. #6 is the same as #4. #8 goes along with #5, and also when police have been seen attacking people of specific political leanings, or refusing to carry out orders to arrest people of their own political leanings.
My two main observations from all this are: First, like the judiciary, I believe the police force should also be completely isolated from the executive branch in terms of receiving orders and in terms of placement, hiring and firing of personnel. This prevents them becoming cronies of the current political power, and follows separation of powers.
Second, I believe that the police should be paid at least average salary (way above poverty level) and be required to have at least average education (not merely primary school education). Otherwise, it becomes difficult to have the sorts of people who can meditate on concepts like cronyism, whistleblowing, consent of the governed, blindly following orders, etc. It becomes easier to have the sorts of people who are poor and likely to accept bribes, politically fired up and filled with hatred, power tripping.
Now, the government is having a conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_corruption_scandal_in_Turk...) with the Gulen Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement), which they used to be buddy-buddy with, and now no one seems to trust the police anymore, not even the government themselves. The government has been sacking police chiefs and reassigning commanders all over the country, in an attempt to break up any Gulen supporters, and to seize power over the police again.
Looking at the Peelian principles, they've failed 1 many times before by taping over helmet identification numbers (http://www.ataturk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/same-story...) and they've also failed 3 many times by engaging in cronyist tactics to avoid prosecution and accountability, even with evidence.
Looking over the principles of policing, they've failed #2 since there has been widespread condemnation of police brutality, and the force is still there. They failed #4 when riot police attacked a camp of sleeping peaceful protesters at 4am with tear gas and batons. They failed #5, since the police chiefs are appointed by the current political party, and thus are not impartial. #6 is the same as #4. #8 goes along with #5, and also when police have been seen attacking people of specific political leanings, or refusing to carry out orders to arrest people of their own political leanings.
My two main observations from all this are: First, like the judiciary, I believe the police force should also be completely isolated from the executive branch in terms of receiving orders and in terms of placement, hiring and firing of personnel. This prevents them becoming cronies of the current political power, and follows separation of powers.
Second, I believe that the police should be paid at least average salary (way above poverty level) and be required to have at least average education (not merely primary school education). Otherwise, it becomes difficult to have the sorts of people who can meditate on concepts like cronyism, whistleblowing, consent of the governed, blindly following orders, etc. It becomes easier to have the sorts of people who are poor and likely to accept bribes, politically fired up and filled with hatred, power tripping.
That is very interesting. I had no idea.
The officers do still wear the numbers but they are routinely covered up to hide their identities, especially when they are dealing with a demonstration.
The police have arrest targets just like everywhere else now, the headline figures are still types of crime per 100k of population but they have other targets within the organisation that are just like everywhere else.
"The police are the public and the public are the police." - What trust there was in the police force has been declining since the break up of the miner protests in the 80's. The unnecessary aggression and brutality of the police force keeps happening and with each violent act they are seen more and more as a gang rather than as other citizens doing what any other citizen can do.
My general feeling is that the police is more and more being used in the UK as a political vehicle to maintain power against an ever annoyed public, its not by consent when they break up a peaceful protest because the government passed laws that said all protests must be registered and agreed to. It might one day have been like that but its not based on these principles today.