Police error can have dire consequences. Consider the Hillsborough Disaster in the UK in 1989, where errors in police crowd management lead to almost 100 people being crushed to death. The damage of police error can also have extensive sociological consequences. For example, in the USA there have been a rash of highly publicized police killings of black men in questionable circumstances. Not only do many of these incidents appear to have been severe miscarriages of justice, they also undermine the equality of American society. Police accountability is therefore a highly important issue. On the other hand, it is important to acknowledge that the police must often reconcile political and social platitudes with unspoken moral conventions and unspeakable incentives. This post shall therefore explore whether the legal accountability of the police can reasonably differ from that of every-day citizens. In answering this question there are a number of important issues to examine, including: the needs and desires of the public, the culpability of police actors, and the degree to which police actions are the responsibility of society.
The public is invested in police accountability in at least two significant ways. First, if someone is harmed or killed illegitimately by the police, they, their loved ones, and their community will desire that those responsible for harming them are properly held to account. Essentially victims just want the police to be held accountable as members of the public. The dynamic of police perpetrator and victim is primarily distinguished by the fact that the police hold a privileged position as insiders in regards to the justice system, both in regards to knowledge of the system and insider connections. However, and particularly if a case is widely publicized, cases can also become symbolic representations of the relation between the police and marginalized groups. Consider the shooting of Mark Duggan that triggered the 2011 riots in London. To many members of the public, the ensuing investigation into Mark Duggan’s death became symbolic of larger trends.
The second reason why the public is invested in police accountability is because the public wants to know that the police know that they will be held to account, thereby ensuring that the police consistently act justly and within the bounds of the law.* In other words, the public want the justice system to deter police brutality in the same way that it deters criminals in general.** Let us therefore turn to another issue: do police action differ from that of regular citizens?
In the previous two paragraphs I have reviewed reasons why the public have a particular stake in the ways in which the police are held to account. From a justice perspective it may seem that such factors are irrelevant. After all, is it not a cornerstone of justice that it at least aspire to be impartial, which includes impartiality regarding profession? On the other hand, with power comes responsibility, so the preceding points could be used to argue that becoming a police officer entails accepting a legal responsibility for the fact that ones actions can have significant repercussions beyond that of normal citizens. However, the logic of this reasoning can also be reversed. Police officers are consistently placed in circumstances where they must quickly make decisions with limited information. They are also placed in situations where they must cope with issues that are not of their own making. Consider all the factors that play into police race relations. The relationship between the police and disadvantaged minorities is consistently poor world-wide. Minorities are usually stopped and arrested more and experience greater levels of police brutality, among other issues. However, this usually takes place in an environment where these minorities are generally disadvantaged and less respected in the broader society, and where the crime control agenda is focused on blue-collar crime. In other words, society is set up in such a way that it is unsurprising that the police tend to have poor relationships with minorities.
This brings me to the final topic I wanted to explore regarding police accountability, which is the degree to which the actions of police officers should be considered the responsibility of society. Let me first clarify exactly what I mean. It is regularly the case that society pays for police error through taxes in that publicly funded police forces often handle the legal fees of their officers. That this is the allowed seems to indicate implicit acceptance that A) police work itself is at the edge of the law, and B) since police work is done in service to the public the public should bear some of the risks of police work. Let me expand on point A. When a force pays the legal fees of one of its officers, it is essentially stating that the officer was acting as an extension of itself. If an officer robbed a bank while on duty, it is unlikely that his legal fees would be handled for him. If he harmed a civilian while breaking up a bar-fight, there is a reasonable chance that the force would pay any resulting legal fees because his actions potentially fell within the boundary of reasonable police action. The boundary of reasonable police action is a grey area, and it is often unclear when an officer has gone too far. However, when a police officer is found guilty, it is they (and potentially their police force) who are still ultimately held responsible – they are sentenced and punished. The question I am specifically asking is whether society ought also be held responsible. Let us return to the question, then, of whether police errors should be considered societal errors.
I have already explored two ways in which the failures of the police are not entirely their own. First, the system within which they operate is mostly not of their own making. Second, police action takes place at the edge of the law – it is not necessarily clear when it crosses the line. A third issue is that of moral luck. It seems probable, to give an example, that police officers are not significantly more biased against minorities than the general public. However, they appear to be more biased because they are consistently required to make decisions on which such biases have an impact. Assuming this thesis is true, systematic discrimination by the police may be representative of broader social views. The question, then, is whether these issues have any bearing on police accountability. Based on the preceding review it is my inclination to say that police officers should not have their responsibility increased or lessened, but that society should somehow have its responsibility increased. How this could be achieved is a challenging question. Some options could include governments being held accountable by judges for systematic police error, or the development of feedback mechanisms whereby the relationship between systematic police error and policy is explored.
* Whether police adhering strictly to law actually makes police-public interactions predictable is a surprisingly complicated issue. To explore this issue further, I recommend Harold Pepinsky’s Better Living through Police Discretion.
** The relationship between criminal justice and deterrence is not straightforward. Not all deterrence methods are created equal. The points listed in this article provide a good summary that aligns with my understanding of the research.
Comments