POLICING THE CRISIS: ‘RACE’, ‘RIOTS’ AND THE REGULATION OF STOP AND SEARCH

MICHAEL SHINER & REBEKAH DELSOL

REFERENCESLea, J. (2000) ‘The Macpherson Report and the Question of Institutional Racism’, The Howard Journal, 39(3): 219-233

Sanders, A., and Young, R. (2006) Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press

Reiner, R (2000) The Politics of the Police, Oxford University Press

Shiner, M. (2010) ‘Post-Lawrence Policing in England and Wales: Guilt, Innocence and the Defence of Organisational Ego’, British Journal of Criminology, 50(5): 935-953

Shiner, M. (2011) Organisational Strategies for Change and Regulation, presented to Roundtable on Current Debates, Research Agendas and Strategies to Address Racial Disparities in Police-initiated Stops in the UK and USA, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York.www.jjay.cuny.edu/centers/race_crime_justice/4788.php#conferencepapers

STUART HALL et al’s CRISIS

“This book started out with ‘mugging’, but it has ended in a different place… we start with ‘mugging’, but we end with the way society is ‘policing its crisis”

(1978: pi, ix).

OUR CRISIS

A 'SORT OF REVENGE' AGAINST THE POLICE

85% of respondents to Reading the Riots study said policing was an "important" or "very important" factor in why the riots happened

Again and again, rioters from different parts of the country described the police as a "gang“

Shooting of Mark Duggan resonates with more mundane, routine abuse of police powers

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/riots-revenge-against-police

POLICING AND THE LEGITIMATE USE OF FORCE

“The only reason to maintain police in modern society is to make available a group of persons with a virtually unrestricted right to use violent and, when necessary, lethal means to bring certain types of situations under control. That fact is as fundamentally offensive to core values of modern society as it is unchangeable. To reconcile itself to its police, modern society must wrap it in concealments and circumlocutions that sponsor the appearance that the police are either something other than what they are or are principally engaged in doing something else… To the extent that these circumlocutions worked, they worked by wrapping police in aspirations and values that are extremely powerful and unquestionably good”

Klockars, C.B. (1988) ‘The Rhetoric of Community Policing’, in J.R. Greene and S. Mastrofski (eds) Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality?, Praeger, reprinted in T. Newburn (2005) Policing: Key Readings, Willan

DEMOCRACY AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

Defining feature of a democratic society is a police force that:

Is subject to the rule of law

Can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and carefully controlled circumstances; and

Is publicly accountable.

Marx, G.T. (2001) Police and Democracy, in M. Amir and S. Einstein (eds) Policing, Security and Democracy, Office of International Criminal Justice

Heavy-handed policing is divisive, counter-productive and criminogenic

Bradford, B. (2011) Assessing the Impact of Police-initiated Stop Powers on Individuals and Communities: the UK Picture www.jjay.cuny.edu/centers/race_crime_justice/4788.php

REGULATION OF STOP AND SEARCH

Conflict and consensus models

Complaints procedure

Scarman and policing by consent

Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 Procedural safeguards Reasonable suspicion Internal supervision and monitoring External accountability

REASONABLE SUSPICIONWWW.HOMEOFFICE.GOV.UK/PUBLICATIONS/POLICE/OPERATIONAL-POLICING/PACE-CODES/PACE-CODE-A?VIEW=BINARY

Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information, and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind…Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors. It must rely on intelligence or information about, or some specific behaviour by, the person concerned. For example, other than in a witness description of a suspect, a person’s race, age, appearance, or the fact that the person is known to have a previous conviction, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other, or in combination with any other factor, as the reason for searching that person. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity. A person’s religion cannot be considered as reasonable grounds for suspicion and should never be considered as a reason to stop or stop and search an individual.

INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY

THE LIMITS OF REGULATIONDiscretion and complaints

Impact of PACE rules on police practices

Much is ritualistic and presentational, affecting little of substance (Reiner, 2010)

Reasonable suspicion remains a vague and elusive concept (Sanders and Young 2000)

Senior officers required to give account for their decisions but under no legal requirement to take account of any critical response (Reiner, 2010).

Consultative forums often lack independence and are little more than ‘talking shops’ (Lea, 2000)

THE FAILINGS OF REGULATION

Since the introduction of PACE Massive increase in use of stop and search Reduction in the arrest rate Growth of exceptional powers Ongoing problem of disproportionality

Lawrence Inquiry - institutional racism is apparent in disproportionate use of stop and search against black people

“…there remains, in our judgment, a clear core conclusion of racist stereotyping.”

WHAT’S CHANGED?

“The blunt reality, more than a decade after Macpherson and several years after the reforms were implemented, is that aggregate- measured levels of disproportionality for grounds-based searches have not improved. Moreover compared to the later 1990s, the situation has become worse for black and Asian people. The relative chances of people in these groups being searched, compared to whites have apparently increased.”

Miller, J. (2010) ‘Stop and Search in England and Wales: A Reformed Tactic or Business as Usual? British Journal of Criminology, 50(5): 954-974.

NUMBER OF S.60 SEARCHES PER 1,000 POPULATION – ENGLAND & WALES

www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/ethnic-profiling-in-uk-law-enforcement/the-report/young-people-and-section-60/section-60-stop-and-search-powers.html

SECTION 60 ARRESTS ETC.

Total searches (n)

Persons found carrying weapons etc. (%)

Arrests - weapons (%)

Arrests -other (%)

Arrests – total (%)

2000/01 11,330 3.2 2.7 3.6 6.4

2001/02 18,900 7.2 1.1 2.6 3.6

2002/03 44,400 3.5 0.8 4.8 5.6

2003/04 40,400 1.4 0.7 3.1 3.8

2004/05 41,600 0.7 0.6 2.3 2.9

2005/06 36,300 1.5 0.5 4.2 4.7

2006/07 44,700 1.6 0.6 3.1 3.6

2007/08 53,319 1.4 0.6 3.3 3.9

2008/09 150,172 0.8 0.4 2.5 2.9

2009/10 118,446 0.7 0.3 2.1 2.4

Povey, D. et al., (2011) Police Powers and Procedures England and Wales 2009/10, London: Home Office

BARRIERS TO CHANGE

Structural inequality

Organisational barriers - reform resistance and the psychology of denial

The politics of denial

DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFENDSHINER, 2010

Lawrence inquiry as collective trauma

Psychological defencesDenial, projection, splitting and fantasies

IntellectualisationRegressionDisplacement

Patterns of resistanceFormal adherenceAbsorptionAdaptionSubversion

Police cannot be relied upon to self-regulate, but likely to resist external regulation

Intelligence

POLITICAL DENIAL

“…the ‘Next Steps’ process developed by the National Policing Improvement Agency… helps the police to understand the way in which they use stop and search and how the population of an area and the apparent levels of disproportionality might in some circumstances not present a true picture. The early feedback on ‘Next Steps’ is positive, and we hope to be able to expand it to other areas shortly” (Nick Herbert, Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice)

“Nobody in the minority ethnic communities believes that the complex arguments which are sometimes used to explain the figures as to stop and search are valid…It is pointless for the police service to try to justify the disparity in these figures purely or mainly in terms of the other factors which are identified” (Macpherson, 1999: 45.8-45.10)

PROMOTING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

Dealing with the central paradox

Performance management

Community consultation

Anticipate resistance and responses to it Organisational change is anxiety inducing Carrots and sticks Working with defences (e.g. Critical Encounters) Working around defences (principles and pragmatics)

APPEALING TO ORGANISATIONAL PRIORITIES AND SELF-INTEREST

“If people perceive the police to be procedurally fair and if they trust their motives in behaving the way that they do, all current evidence suggest they are not only more likely to actively cooperate by reporting crime, cooperating in investigations, providing witness evidence, even intervening in situations of low-level deviance and incivility. They are also more likely to defer to officer’s instructions and obey the laws that the police in many ways still embody. In the long run, the fight against crime might be more efficiently, more cost-effectively, and certainly more ethically served by treating the public with fairness, dignity, and respect than by instigating another ‘crack-down’ on crime”.

Jackson, J., and Bradford, B. (2010) ‘What is Trust and Confidence in the Police?’, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(3): 241-248.

RESPONSIVE REGULATION

Source: Ayres and Braithwaite, 1992

BACKLASH• Denial of Institutional Racism:“Anybody who had read the Macpherson report would recognise an

institution that was treating people in a very monochrome way. I don’t necessarily believe there was anything racist about the activities of the Metropolitan police in relation to the Lawrences. …That is what has changed.” Sir Ian Blair (April 2009)

“does this mean that I believe that the Met, or any force for that matter, should be pilloried with the single blanket accusation of being institutionally racist? I don't think so. That would imply that nothing has changed.” Sir Trevor Philips (January 2009)

• Continued justifications around disproportionality and use of exceptional powers

• Abolition of national requirement to record stop and account and reductions to stop and search recording

STOPWATCH - WHO ARE WE?

23

STOPWATCH’S OBJECTIVES:

1) Reintroduction of full recording and extension of measures to ensure police accountability and transparency in their use of stop-searches.

2) Substantial reductions in the use of stop-searches and elimination of ethnic disproportionality.

3) Challenge the use of stop-searches, which do not require ‘reasonable suspicion.’

5) Investigate and advocate alternatives to stop-searches, and support the police in implementing them.

6) Empower impacted communities and help them to make their voices heard.

24

STOPWATCH PHILOSOPHY

Politics of “race”“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you

have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” (Aboriginal activist group / Lila Watson)

Mainstreaming a minority experience – “Not in Our Name!”

Helping to ensure impacted communities have a voice in public debate

Combining the strengths of conflict and consensus approaches

Political advocacy Voices of experience Legal challenges Awareness raising Awareness raising Know your rightsResearch and policy Social media Individual complaintsGood practice Empowering youth

26

STOPWATCH’S MODEL

27

WHAT HAVE WE DONE?

• Research and data analysis

• Disseminated information to the public and policy makers

• Developing media stories, writing blogs and commentary

• Speaking at meetings, seminars, lectures, etc.

• Meetings with politicians, policy-makers, police, the national equality body etc.

• Hosting community events to provide a constructive and open avenue for people to engage in debate and help shape policies

• Film: “Profiles of the profiled”

• Identifying, supporting and tracking good practice

28

STOP AND SEARCH BACK ON THE AGENDA

WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED....

30

• National voice on stop and search

• Major media coverage

• Political advocacy, relationships with key policy makers

• 18 questions in Parliament, 3 meetings• Dropping clause introducing ethnic profiling into PACE

• Holding police and public bodies to account eg. MPS, EHRC

• MPS to keep recording stop and account• Two legal challenges • Reduction in the numbers of section 60, schedule 7• Reduction in length of time keep DNA & Fingerprint

retention from indefinitely to 6 months• Home Office to now regularly publish Schedule 7 stats • Calls for review of exceptional powers

CHALLENGES

• Hostile government with little concern for racial equality

• Public cuts – police, regulatory organisations and NGOs

• Police resistance/ half-hearted reform

• “Rubber-stamping” exercises

AND NEXT STEPS…• Elected commissioner campaign

• Innovative ways of using the data

• Using film and new media

• Humanising impact of stop and search

31

WWW.STOP-WATCH.ORG

TWITTER: @STOPWATCHUK

FACEBOOK: STOP-WATCH

SUPPORT AND FOLLOW STOPWATCH:

32

WHAT NOW?

Window of opportunity“Riots” etc.Police and crime commissioners

Public criminology

What can we do?