Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can create alerts and save clips, playlists, and searches.
SPEAKER: What we're going to lookat is how policing has changed the way it's organized,and a number of its practices in response to social changeswhich have come around since the 1970s, 1980s.So these are changes related to the conditionsof globalized late modernity.So in relation to globalization, to some degree.
SPEAKER [continued]: So the sense that policing has changed to some degree,because social structures have changed.So it's adapted to that.But the changes are also related to changing governmental ideasabout policing and crime control.So you know there's a change discursive structure there.A changed way of thinking about how policing should be done.
SPEAKER [continued]: And obviously the social structure and discursivestructure are linked, so these two kind of changed together.I'm going to focus specifically on this country,but similar changes are in a lot of Western nations.So we're going to look at how policing has shiftedand pluralized, both within policingand also outside of policing.That will become apparent as we go through.
SPEAKER [continued]: And we're going to consider, particularly in your classes,hopefully, consider some important questions about howthe state has, to some degree changedthe way it governs in general.The argument is, and we'll go through these arguments,is that the relationship between the state and policinghas become uncoupled to some degree.And that has worrying possibilities
SPEAKER [continued]: that we'll visit at the end.So we'll look at some of these changes,we'll look at the winds of change,what's led to these things moving, just very quickly.And then we'll spend a lot of timelooking at the expansion and the pluralization of policing.So in two respects, how the leaking,how the professional police functionhas leaked outside of the police into other agencies.
SPEAKER [continued]: And we'll also look at how withinthe professional policing, how things have changed as well.And we'll consider whether it really is a new era,or whether we're revisiting the past, and what's new,and what's not within these changes.Firstly, changes in late modern policing.And this is just a quote here, and Ithink it just helps us contextualizethe criminological debates from David Bayley and Clifford
SPEAKER [continued]: Sheering.I mean, very renowned policing scholars.So like I said, I mean this is in '90, '96,and we're going back a few years.But they said in this article thatmodern democratic countries, like the United States,Britain, and Canada, have reached a watershedin the evolution of their systems of crimecontrol and law enforcement.Future generations will look back on our era as a time
SPEAKER [continued]: when one system of policing ended,and another took its place.So their saying this in the mid 1990s.So what are the changes they describe?They involve really, a relinquishingof a significant amount, or type,of police functions from the statein the professional place, into non-state agencies.
SPEAKER [continued]: It's what they're talking about.So once, as you know, because you'velooked at the history of the police, once the stateemployed and controlled its police.But now a lot of policing takes place outside of that.And these changes they talk aboutare tied into late modern social conditions.And they're related to broad changes in government.So those of you that do SC304 with me,
SPEAKER [continued]: we've looked at how criminal justice has becomemuch more risk based than based in a culture of control,if you like.And there are similar patterns, similar relationships.So we can conceptualize these changesfor concepts of responsibilization,how the public and non-police agencies have becomeresponsible for crime control.And also privatization.
SPEAKER [continued]: So a lot of crime control is now carried outby private agencies.And if we look at Bayley and Sheering the same,well this is a new thing happening in the 1990s.Something else Bayley and Sheering sayis, well because of these changes, the policethemselves are kind of losing their notion of whatthey should be doing.So you know they've kind of lost what their mission is.
SPEAKER [continued]: So it led to new ways in which the police try and renewtheir role and mission, as they're losing partsof their role, effectively.Secondly, and this isn't discussedby Bayley or Sheering, but it's a big changeand it's something criminologistsare writing about more recently.But policing has also become much more transnational.So it goes on beyond the state, in that sense,
SPEAKER [continued]: or outside of the state.And it's really about transnational interestrather than national interest.I'll go through all these in a minute.Useful while conceptualizing this,and this is just a book chapter by Neal Walker.And he says well, essentially a useful wayand kind of conceptual way of understanding these changes.
SPEAKER [continued]: And it's thinking about how state power alterswith these changes.So state power and crime control,according to Walker, and certainly this happens,is relinquished outwards.And what he means by that is, outwardsto commercial and private markets in policing,in policing in privatization.State power leaks out to private agencies.
SPEAKER [continued]: Downwards into responsibilized public, local authorities,and municipal agencies.So part of police roles have leaked out that way.Also upwards, and that's into transnational policingagencies.So effectively the idea is, the state is losingelements of control over this.Walker says, the state doesn't just give these things out,
SPEAKER [continued]: but it regulates what's happening,rather than more directly controls it.Think about how the initial professional policein this country were formed.It's a very bureaucratic system where the statehad a tight control over it.So Walker argues the state's steering rather thanrowing in this respect, he uses somebody else,
SPEAKER [continued]: some other theorists to talk about that.So effectively people are saying,well the state regulates rather than directly administerspolicing now.Because of these changes, the viewof the police as uniformed officers, catching crooks,has weakened to some degree.So now criminologists, and governments, and also
SPEAKER [continued]: senior players, talk about the extended policingfamily, or plural policing.And it's a conceptual way of tryingto understand how policing is in the 21st century.So a plural police force involves not onlyprofessional police, but security guards, bouncers,local authorities, CCTV, architecture, park keepers,the public, PCSOs, and many, many more.
SPEAKER [continued]: So it's a conceptual way of lookingat things, which takes into account these changes.Johnson and Sheering, it's the same Sheeringas Bayley and Sheering, Clifford Sheering.They prefer to use the term governance of securityto understand what's going on, rather than policing.Because when we think about policing,we think of uniformed officers.So if we want to explore police like functions,
SPEAKER [continued]: conceptually it's useful to talk about the governanceof security.And what they say is, we no longer, in a simple way,enter into a contract with the statewhere we, as we did in modernity, wherewe agree to uphold certain levels of civility.Rather, we cross into various different security zones
SPEAKER [continued]: where there are different expectations of us.And again, those of you doing 304, one of the readingswas Sheering and Stanning.This is Clifford Sheering again.Where they talk about how, because of privatizationof crime control, within nations thereare different kinds of security nodes,what I call feudal nodes.
SPEAKER [continued]: So you know the standards, the expectations of our behavior,is different in a shopping centerto what it is in a nightclub, to what is in a university.Where as if there was a single kind of police force,the expectations would be the same.There are these kind of nodes of different elements of securitynow.Effectively because policing has, to some degree
SPEAKER [continued]: broken away from the centralized state.In addition to these changes, policinghas become much more preemptive, as well,like criminal justice in general in Western nations.So professional policing is becoming forward lookingand risk focused.What Lucia Zedner would call a precrime police
SPEAKER [continued]: force who attempt to stop crimes before they happen,and it's related to this kind of risk focus,and I'll return to that.So I mean it's just an overview of some of these changes,and I will come back to them in more detail.What are the winds of change?What are the reasons for these changes?As I said, there are similar factorsthat cause these or facilitate these changes,
SPEAKER [continued]: or facilitate changes in criminal justice more general.And these are primarily, firstly,a realization from the 1970s onwards.Well, firstly they realized that crime justkept going up from the 1950s up to the mid 1990s,about the time their talking about changes in policing.
SPEAKER [continued]: Crime just kept going up, I mean it's been going down now.In addition to crime going up a lot,looking at police recorded figures,victim surveys come along and we realizethere's a lot of crime the police didn't even know about.So there's a realization through criminologists doing research,that there's a huge, dark figure of crime.So the notion was that the traditional criminal justice
SPEAKER [continued]: system, the police, courts, and prisons,just couldn't go it alone to control crime.It kept going up, there's more of it than we thought.It almost looked as if the criminal justice systemwas a failure in that sense.So there's a realization that the police can't go alone.They need help.So let's co-opt help from other agencies, from the public,from private security.
SPEAKER [continued]: Secondly, if you read Rob Reiner as politics of the police,which is a great general book.It will help you with the whole module.Reiner says, well there was a crisis of police legitimacy,beginning really with, I mean I'msure Dick Hobbs has talked to you about this.But within some communities, there'salways been a problem with police legitimacy.
SPEAKER [continued]: Up till about the 1950s, there was increasingsupport for the police.And then it begins to drop off again.And of course, it's the notion wherethe police can't do their job without the public helpingthem.So if the police aren't legitimate in the eyesof the public, they can't to their job properly.So why was there this crisis of legitimacy?
SPEAKER [continued]: Well it's partly because there was increasing crime,and the police were seen as unable to contain it.But also the thing Reiner goes into detail about,is they're always publicized through the media.Lots of publicized stuff about policing incompetence, policecorruption, police racism.And it leads the police to try and renew their legitimacy.You know, they're looking around,
SPEAKER [continued]: well what can we do to try to make us look betterin the eyes of the public.Particularly in communities hit by the industrialization,so from the 1970s and 1980s.Our post-industrial communities of hard employment,very anti-police, the exact areaswhere we get riots in 2011.I mean clearly the police haven't reallyrenewed their legitimacy very well in those areas.
SPEAKER [continued]: But it leads them to search, to try and do new things.In relation to this, there's a broader,and it comes around with neoliberal governments,and they're link to kind of actuarial ism.Real increased expectations on public servicesto deliver, and to deliver in a cost effective way.
SPEAKER [continued]: So it's linked to new public management systems.So this pushes the police, actually,to focus more centrally on crime control.And again, as you know from lookingat some of the initial psychological studiesof policing, like Banton for example.A lot of what the police do, most of what the police doisn't actually catching crooks, in that sense.A lot of it's peace work, social work.
SPEAKER [continued]: But with new public management systems,the police are pushed more to make arrestseffectively, or prevent crime.So this again pushes the way in which policing is done.Less social work, more arrests, in that sense.And in fact, the more traditional social work tasks
SPEAKER [continued]: are passed out to these upper agencies, like PCSOs,for example.Police and community support officers who can arrest people.Their work is social work, so it's almost like, wellthat aspect of policing work is taken and passedto them, in that sense.So it leaves the police effectivelyto focus on real policing issues, if you like.And this has been really kicked into touch today.
SPEAKER [continued]: So the Met police, for example, noware losing a third of their budget.Yet the public still want to see police on the streets.They still want arrests happening.And the Met don't want to take the police off the street,so there's a real kind of issue there.So if there's 1/3 funding taken away,how do we still have police arresting people?How do we still have as many police on the street?
SPEAKER [continued]: That's something the public is already concerned about,the number of police on the streets.Also, renewed risk and reassurance focus.I say renewed because part of the initial impetusfor professional police in this countryin the early 19th century was actuallya risk based, risk and reassurance based philosophy
SPEAKER [continued]: that people talked about.But that was lost sometime across history,so there's been a renewed focus on that.And you know the idea of this is that itimproves public perceptions of the police.If the police reassure people, alley public insecurity,there will be much more support for them.And to address again, this is Reiner's tone, the reassurancegap, what he calls the reassurance gap.
SPEAKER [continued]: And this is a result of the public thinking crime keepsgoing up.As we know, since '90, '95, it goes down,but most of the public thinks it goes up.And also, most of the public think there are less policeon the streets all the time, when actually I'llshow you some numbers in a minute, that's probablynot the case.So to some degree, policing becomes symbolic.It's about reassuring the public,
SPEAKER [continued]: well there are still police.Crime isn't rising.We are doing something about it.So they don't necessarily need to do anythingdifferent, as such, because it's misapprehension of the public,about crime going up, and less police on the street.But they need to change the way in which they're seenby the public in that sense.
SPEAKER [continued]: And also in line with this, as I said Bayley and Sheering said,well the police lost their traditional identityas part of their role changed.And their new mission becomes increasinglyto preempt crime, and reassure the public.That becomes the new focused role of the police,in that sense.
SPEAKER [continued]: And what that means, is that policing todayis kind of broken with a reactive model of policing.I mean that happened across the 1950s.When the police got cars, telephones,they become much more reactive.A crime happens to us, we phone them up,they come speeding around in carsto deal with the aftermath of the crime, effectively.Whereas Pills initial vision was to have them around,
SPEAKER [continued]: and to have them as a kind of preventative force.That's why they wear these uniforms that stick out,so people would see them.And that would make us think twice about crime.But that kind of declines in the 1950s,with telephones and cars and radios.But these recent changes have pulled the police backinto a much more reassurance and risk focus, where they'rearound more, and they try to prevent things,
SPEAKER [continued]: rather than responding to wrongs done.Wrongs that have been done.The other big wind and wind of changeis transnational crime and security threats.I mean, clearly linked to globalization.So in the 1990s, we get the feel oftransnational organized crime.
SPEAKER [continued]: Whether that's real or whether that's social constructs,I'm sure Dick Hobbs has talked about that.A lot of his work's about that.But in the 1990s, we get this ideaof transnational organized crime.Crime across borders.And the other transnational fear is, since 9/11, obviously,terrorist attacks.Terrorism is seen as transnational.
SPEAKER [continued]: And the way in which, something like terrorism,a response from a police force would be useless.So if a terrorist attack happens, and the policetry and go and arrest people after it's happened,that's a failure.They've got to stop it before it happens.So policing terrorism and transnational crimeis all about preemption.It's about stopping things before they've happened.
SPEAKER [continued]: And actually, there's always, wellthere's been counter terrorism police for a good 100 years.But there's just much more of it now,and there's much more transnational policein relation to transnational organized crime.OK, I'll come back to all of these.Let's look at it, in a bit more detail, what these changes are.So as I said there are two types of changes.The leaking of professional police functions
SPEAKER [continued]: into non-police agencies, and then there'schanges within professional policing.So let's look at how part of policing functions leaked.So firstly, civilianization.I mean very simply, more and more civilianswork for the police.The police employ them much more.So according to Adam Crawford, 1/3
SPEAKER [continued]: of police strength in the UK is civilian employees.I mean they're mostly in administrative jobs.Whereas the police officers themselveswould do their own administration,now there's more civilians in there to do that for them.All their front of house, front office typeof people who meet you if you're going to the police station.And again, the idea is to free upthe police from bureaucratic work,
SPEAKER [continued]: so they can be out doing more crime fighting stuff.But also, more complex inside jobs.So the police increasingly employ civiliansas intelligence analysts, crime mappers, that kind of thing.Or IT experts, seasons of crime officers,so the people that go and take fingerprints after the crimeshappened.There civilianized now.
SPEAKER [continued]: And I mean, once it would have been the police that did that.Also big growth in what I call quasi-police.So it's another aspect of civilianization.I mean, the big example of this is PCSOs,Police Community Support Officers.They wear police-like uniforms, but they can't arrest people.They're kind of half civilians, half not civilians,
SPEAKER [continued]: to some degree.And they engage in these more routine policing practices.Social work type of policing, talkingto people, reassuring people, in that sense.The whole idea is that they are veryaccessible to the local public, and perhaps a bit moreapproachable than police officers.I'll talk much more about them in a moment,because they're part of the neighborhood policing program.
SPEAKER [continued]: There's quite a number of them.So between 2007 to 2012, there have been a stable number,around 15,000 PCSOs in this country.Responsibilized public.So this is the seeding of some police functions simplyto the public themselves, not people who're very important.
SPEAKER [continued]: And it's much clearer they represent the neighborhoodwatch.Neighborhoods themselves watching around neighborhoods,rather than the police.But they do work with the police,so their advised by the police, guided by the police,so the police become kind of advisors in a wayto the public.Other examples of this, Crime Stoppers, benefit fraud,the public are encouraged to be responsible for stopping
SPEAKER [continued]: these crimes.We could perhaps include special constables in this category.So they're unpaid, volunteer police,but they are nothing new.And they tend to be around.Well in 2008, 2009, they were justunder 15,000 so about the same numbers as PCSOs.They volunteer small amounts of time to work as police.
SPEAKER [continued]: Then there is municipal policing.So this has expanded massively as well.So these quasi-police agencies are employed by local councilsto secure municipal areas.And there are a bunch of new versions of this.There's the parks constabulary in London.They may be in other cities as well, I'm not sure.But they are effectively like a PCSO for parks.
SPEAKER [continued]: They wear uniforms, and they patrol the parks to stoptrouble happening there.In relation to this, municipal partnerships.So these are police local authority partnerships.Whereby the police work with multi-agency partnershipsin local government.And these are things like anti-social behaviorpartnerships, hate crime partnerships.
SPEAKER [continued]: And effectively, the police or local authoritieswork with the police, social services, schools,voluntary agencies, and health agenciesto stop these things happening.And it's to create local security for people.And again things like hate crime partnerships, partly that'sabout trying to reassure people that hate crimeswill be dealt with.A big thorn in the side of minority ethnic groups.
SPEAKER [continued]: Relationship to the police, that the police never cared.Or they perceived that the policedidn't care about hate crime.So local authorities set these up with the policeto work on things like hate crime, anti-social behavior.Although I would say most of these thingsare now being shut down, because of austerity cuts.You know, the first thing is the guardand local authorities have their budgets.
SPEAKER [continued]: So all across London, hate crime partnerships have justgone, now.Or they may exist in skeleton form,but I know people that are working in those agencies thatnow don't have jobs.So these things spring and then fall off again.Policing for architecture.So situational crime prevention.
SPEAKER [continued]: I mean, it's become a huge part of policing now,to design architecture, to design outcrime in its ability.And it's linked with police, I meanit's often called embedded policing,but it's really about designing the architectureto prevent crime.And it's been just a huge, huge expansionof that since the 1980s.You can include CCTV in that.And we can see that expanding massively.
SPEAKER [continued]: Another big leak, if you like, of professional policingis into private policing as well.So security guards, bouncers, security companies.And these are now everywhere.So schools, university, town centers, shopping centers,pubs, clubs, cinemas, train stations, ledger centers, Imean everywhere.Private security are there, and there's
SPEAKER [continued]: been a huge increase in that.I'm not saying they didn't exist before, but a massive increase.I just got some numbers here, they're a bit out of date.I couldn't find the an accurate measure,but I mean it does give us some ideaof the expansion of security guardsfrom the 1950s up to 2001.I mean a trebling pretty much.
SPEAKER [continued]: I can only imagine that number is much bigger now.Now, governments, policing governmentswork directly with some big, big security companies,like Group Four.It's all in the news at the moment,so we don't know whether they'll be workingwith them in another few years, because it'sbeen all kind of problems.But security companies now run prisons, build prisons,migrant detention centers they run and build,
SPEAKER [continued]: they transport prisoners from prisons to courts,and back into cells, sort of become the peoplewho transport them around.I mean the police used to do that, transport peopleto courts, but they don't now.And even things like electronic trackingare run by these private companies.So what used to be very much the role of the police
SPEAKER [continued]: isn't, in that sense.Private securities also expanded into crime technology, so crimemapping, consultancy, and even crime investigation, actually.And again, private security is not really about prosecutions,it's about prevention largely.It's about trying to stop things before they happen.Or it's about releasing the police from non-central police
SPEAKER [continued]: work.So transporting prisoners around, for example.And lastly a massive expansion in regulatory policing.So there are people we usually call inspectors.Who investigate if government legislation is being followed.So health and safety officers, environmental health officers,benefit fraud inspectors, huge numbers of these.
SPEAKER [continued]: And even some kind of NGOs have become kind of quasi-police.The RSPCA, Royal Society for the Preventionof Cruelty to Animals.They have become more police like, in a way.They can arrest people, they can seize things.This is quite a new thing added to their role.Once they had to transfer that over to the police,and the police would make the arrests.But they can do it themselves now.
SPEAKER [continued]: So in that sense even the power of arrestis being passed out to these other agencies.And the numbers of these have mushroomed since the 1980s.It's part of what John Braithwaite callsthe new regulatory state.Lots and lots and lots of regulations, as we say.I mean health and safety was the prime example of that.More and more, more regulation.
SPEAKER [continued]: So you need people to enforce it.Also included in this old quasi-policeare [INAUDIBLE] customs.For example they've been around for hundreds of years.But again, they've been given more powers recently,so they can arrest people, they can detain people as well.Lots of new powers have been given to them.
SPEAKER [continued]: And that's a result of the fear of migrant other.Customs, or the border agents as they're now calledhave been given these increased powers.Police like powers.So that kind of change is going on outside policing.And you can see policing is losing some of its remitand arguably the state is losing an element of how
SPEAKER [continued]: it controls these things.Private companies engaged in policing.But there have also been changes within actual policing itself.So one thing is, just a huge expansion of simply the numbersof police officers.Although it's fallen since 2010.Very recently the numbers have fallen, because
SPEAKER [continued]: of a freeze on recruitment.But I mean, just look at the numbers.In 1951, 84,000 police officers.166,000 in 2001, and it's dropped a bit now.Although so, although in 2014 is just under well 130,000.Just under 130,000 police officers.
SPEAKER [continued]: There are 213,000 police workers.So their PCSOs, civilian staff, and traffic wardens.So although the actual number of officershas dropped off these last few years,if we include the civilians and the quasi-police within that,that number would be 213,000.
SPEAKER [continued]: But for years, more and more and more police were employed.Public tend to think there were less,because they're flying around in cars and things,rather than being on the streets.But it's a change, there are just more of them.There has also been an increasing specializationof police work.
SPEAKER [continued]: The police are no longer all around.For a long time we've had detectives.They are kind of specialized police.But increasingly the police are specialized.And it tends to be that the specialized police agencies arevery centralized, actually.So you could say the government has more control over them,because they're centralized.So just for example, there's the national NCIS, the NationalCriminal Intelligence Service, established in 1992.
SPEAKER [continued]: And this was to investigate serious organized crime.But almost totally civilianized.They employed civilians.I mean, data miners mostly, people looking at dataand trying to sift through it.I mean the NCIS incorporated the National Football IntelligenceServices which was about football hooliganism,and the art of antiques squad, the drugs intelligence service,
SPEAKER [continued]: incorporated these previously separate detective agenciesunder one roof.NCIS was replaced in 2005 by SOCA, the Serious OrganizedCrime Agency.That had 4,200 staff, and it took a load of peoplefrom NCIS.But again, this was almost totally civilianized.So they got a centralized FBI in a way,
SPEAKER [continued]: but they're not police officers, they'recivilians that work for these.And actually, SOCA is now defunct as well,and it's being replaced by the National Crime Agencythis year.And part of the reason it's changedand SOCA has been closed down and replacedby this new agency, is because the police were saying,
SPEAKER [continued]: well the central agencies aren't working with us.There are all these civilians workingin these central agencies, but they're notcommunicating with us.We don't know what they're doing.They don't know what we're doing.The National Crime Agency, the new version of this,has police officers working within it.We can see there, in a sense, how the police lostcontrol of even investigation into serious crime,
SPEAKER [continued]: in that sense.And you know, the idea is now it has pulled back round to them.Another big centralized agency, and I'lltalk much more about this in a couple of weeks is SO15.so it's the Central Counterterrorism Command.And again, that's a centralized agency.And it grows out of the special branch.But just to say, the size of that doubled since 2001.
SPEAKER [continued]: So increasing resources being put into itfor obvious reasons because of 9/11.Another big change within policingis trans-nationalization.So spurred on by globalization, the ideathat national boundaries can't contain crime,and crimes have to be policed across borders.Transnational policing is mostly concerned with policing
SPEAKER [continued]: illegal migration, international terrorism, smuggling,trafficking, and the internet.I mean a couple of good things to read.Ben Bowling's article in the recent bookby Bowling and Sheptycki.We don't have that much time, but let's justlook a bit at this, because it's important.I mean it's a big, big kind of shift.Some quite worrying possibilities
SPEAKER [continued]: with the trans-nationalization of policing.It's not totally new, we can trace transnational policingin the UK back to 19th century, when police across Europeconjoined forces to tackle anarchist terrorism.So it goes back a long way.So at that time, the UK special branchwas cooperating with other police
SPEAKER [continued]: forces in other European countries,and Trans-European threat.But the coordination was largely informal,and it was quite slow.And as we get new technology, computers, telephones,it makes that coordination much easier.So more recently, we've seen the formal developmentof Trans-European policing in Europol.
SPEAKER [continued]: European police force.This comes around as part of the Maastricht Treaty,to develop a common European security policy.To create fortress Europe, if you like.And Ian Loader calls Europol FBI for Europe.It's what he says.And what he suggests is that originally Europol was set up
SPEAKER [continued]: to tackle drug trafficking.That was its initial aim.But since then, it has spread.Its roles have spread to do other things, particularlyfocused on terrorism these days.Loader actually suggests that the threat whichis attempting to deal with Europolis a construction of Europol.
SPEAKER [continued]: So transnational organized crime is partlyconstructed by the agency itself.And obviously the agent, if it constructs that,it gives itself a role to some degree.I mean he's not saying transnational organized crimedoesn't exist, but they construct a particular imageof that, which they then suggest that they are fighting.And you could see it as them really giving themselvesa role in the mission, by construction the faux devil
SPEAKER [continued]: which they then deal with.Ian Loader says this is worrying,because where we have a number of different countries cometogether with transnational policing, whois overseeing that?Who do we blame if something goes wrong?I mean, with all these different agencies involved.So Loader says well, actually, who are these people?
SPEAKER [continued]: We don't really know, a lot of is secretive.So we don't know who they are.We don't know who they're accountable to.I mean, with a national police force,we have the Independent Police Complaints Commission.Whether that's got teeth or not is arguable,but there is somewhere we can go to find who is accountable,and to put people to account.But when it goes on above states, above nations
SPEAKER [continued]: we don't know who is accountable.Who makes them remit, even?I mean they do, themselves, effectively.So Loader calls this governments without government.There isn't a single government controlling these,but they're governing security in that sense.They reach decisions behind closed doors,they're not elected, they're kind of invisible to scrutinyas well.
SPEAKER [continued]: They say, well if we told you about what we were doing,that we give the game away.So a lot of this stuff goes on beneath a veil of secrecy.It's shrouded in mystery.We look much more at it than we look at policing terrorism.But it's worrying because we don't reallyknow what they're doing.What Loader also argues, he said, well the peoplethat work for Europol have a vested interest
SPEAKER [continued]: in keeping the monster alive.If they succeeded in getting rid of transnational organizedcrime, then they are out of a job.So there's no interest ever really to fulfill their rolein that sense.And they dramatize these threats, he argues,to give themselves a role in that sense.Broader than that, we also have Interpol, International Police
SPEAKER [continued]: Force.That's the whole globe rather than just Europe.And the result of global security fears and againparticularly terrorism.So Europol, what it does is enablesthe communication of 187 different policeforces across the world.Holds a global database of offenders,and it coordinates international responses.
SPEAKER [continued]: And a lot of is about sharing information and passingon information between these police forces.It trains transnational police officers as well.Just think back, so you looked at police culture.We know from traditional, classical sociological studiesof police culture that police develop a specific type
SPEAKER [continued]: of subculture in relation to the specific role that they have.So traditionally police officers are out on the street,people are lying to them, people want to attack them.Any other suspicious macho police culture.Jane Sheptycki says, well what happensto police culture when there engaged
SPEAKER [continued]: in transnational policing?Because they're not out on the streets, transnational police.They're sat at computers, largely.So how is their culture changed?And he says, well it fundamentallychanges what police culture is.And one problem with that is that itremoves the transnational police awayfrom the traditional police, because they havea completely different culture.And I mean, that's part of the problem of SOCA,
SPEAKER [continued]: the Serious Organized Crime Agency.That it became very divorced from actual policingin that sense.So Sheptycki says, well really, the jobof transnational policing is about technology.It's about data mining, you know sitting at computers.So the conditions of the job are verydifferent from traditional policing.And this leads to a different type of police culture.
SPEAKER [continued]: Really what they're doing is finding things leaking peopleout.They don't arrest people by collecting information.And Sheptycki says, well there.He comes up with an ideal type of fourdifferent subcultural responses.Read it, it's quite a complicated article.But one of the subcultural responses, he says,is technocrats.
SPEAKER [continued]: So people working in transnational policingbecome technocrats.And what that means is that their subcultureis about being very efficient dataminers by getting lots of data about lots of people,sifting through it well.So they become all intrusive.And Sheptycki is suggesting, actually,that transnational culture leads to a big brother type
SPEAKER [continued]: thing, where they just want to collect more, more,and more information.That becomes their mission in a way.And it's the thing that we're all scared of,that the government knows everything about us.But this becomes a fundamental partof transitional police culture.OK, last major change is this risk and re-assurance focus.
SPEAKER [continued]: And I've just for clarity taken titlesfrom Nick Tilley's work in the handbook of policing.And he says the best way to think about the riskand re-assurance focus of the policeis through thinking about problem oriented policing,intelligence lead policing, and neighborhood policing.And this is the idea, is the police do much, much more
SPEAKER [continued]: of this, rather than just phoning them upand them coming around arresting people after crimes happen.They preempt stuff and reassure peopleby using these different methods.So problem oriented policing is basicallythe police trying to plan what crimes to deal with,rather than responding to them once they have happened.Basically, they get their intelligence about local crime
SPEAKER [continued]: problems from talking to the community,or from creating crime maps about things.Looking at where crimes happen.And what they attempt to do, and thisis why it's a kind of reassurance thing,is to get rid of the most worrying types of crime.Crimes that really worry people.So that doesn't include fraud and things like that.Don't really care about that, but signal crimes.Things that stick in people's minds as the most worrying.
SPEAKER [continued]: And it's largely street crime in that sense.So what they do is try to find outwhere stuff is going to happen, or where stuff usuallyhappens, and try to prevent it from happening in the future.So they look to repeat victims.When somebody gets burgled, it's much more likelythey'll be burgled again in the near future.Because burglars know that people have insurance,
SPEAKER [continued]: and they'll replace all of their stuff.So they just got back a few weeks later,and get all the new stuff again.Folks on crime hot spots, and particular areaswhere there is lot of crime.So you know they'll put their resources into that areato try to stop it happening.They'll pick on prolific offenders,or prolific families of offenders, or hot products,or things commonly targeted, commonly smashed up.
SPEAKER [continued]: And usually what they do is instigate situational crimeprevention measures within that.So it might be culture to town sit on a Saturday night, thathas loads of disorder going on, so what would they do?Well, they put more CCTV up to try and prevent it.Or there's always windows and things being smashed,so they advise local shops to use toughened safetyglass so they don't get their windows smashed.
SPEAKER [continued]: That stops the stuff happening in the first place.And it's intertwined, I mean sometimes youcan't separate these two things of intelligence lead policing.It's about getting intelligence about wherethings are going to happen, and doing something about it.Getting upstream of the problem.Intelligence led policing is largely, almost solely,about crime mapping.
SPEAKER [continued]: So that's the intelligence.It's the map of previous offending.And then from that, the police will look at crime maps,or they'll have civilians making the crime maps for them,and then showing them to the police.And then target particular offenders, or crime patterns,or particular hot-spots.And again they'll engage in preventative measures
SPEAKER [continued]: in those localities.Often the situational crime prevention methods.Usually target hardening, toughened glass, etc.Or put up CCTV, or put stronger locks on doors.And then the other kind of modern approachthat Tilley talks about is community neighborhoodpolicing.And it's actually a paradoxical development.
SPEAKER [continued]: So in 2008, a neighborhood policewas rolled out across the whole of this country.Something very local to focus on neighborhoods.So you've got paradoxical developmentsgoing on in policing.In some sense it's becoming more transnational,but in some sense it's become more local.So you know, it's moving in quite different directionsin that sense.
SPEAKER [continued]: A neighborhood policing is about working with communitiesto prevent crime and prevent fear of crime.It's about the police or PCSOs being around,being familiar faces.With the notion that if communitiessee them being around, they'll be less fearful.So it's part partnership work and it's part
SPEAKER [continued]: responsibilization in that sense.And the whole aim of community and neighborhood policingis that because the police and police community supportofficers are around, they talk to the local people,the local people tell them their fears.So local people say God, every Saturday night these kids arehanging around being abusive.So effectively, it's another way of getting intelligence,
SPEAKER [continued]: but from the community.Directly from the community.And the idea is that the community police are familiar,approachable, so they will develop that communityintelligence if you like.And really when it was rolled out across the UK in 2008,the primary aim of it was to bridge this reassurance gap.
SPEAKER [continued]: To make people feel safer.So in some senses it's about getting intelligence,so the police can get upstream of things.But in another sense it's simply about beingaround so local communities feel happier.I mean all the home office studies that have been doneseem to suggest that neighborhood policing doesn'tactually prevent crime, but it makes peoplethink there's less crime.
SPEAKER [continued]: And although neighborhood police is obviously massively local,and again, we'll look at it much morenext week, because one of the particular kind of emphasiswith neighborhood policing was to put neighborhood policein minority, ethnic communities, wherethere was this real breach, in terms of police legitimacy.
SPEAKER [continued]: Although neighborhood policing is very local,it's also kind of transnationals.So again, we'll look at it in a couple of weeks,but counter-terrorism policing in this countryinvolves neighborhood policing.So there's an idea of linking these things up,or Triden for example, was introducing London to dealwith black on black gun crime.I mean, part of that's carried out by the neighborhood police,
SPEAKER [continued]: but part of it is carried out by transnational police whoare working with the Jamaican police, for example.So the idea is that the very localwas linked up with a very transnational.And again as we know, things like 7:7 in this country.I mean, we could call it global terrorism,but it was carried out by local British people.So you know these things were once transnational
SPEAKER [continued]: and at once local.So often neighborhood policing iskind of linked up with transnational policing,particularly to do with terrorism.So what are its aims?Here are its aims.I'm now taking this from home office documents.You can see it's home office delivery mechanism.So neighborhood police aim to increasepolice visibility, conjoin with the community,
SPEAKER [continued]: so the community become more involved with the neighborhoodpolice, to identify local priorities.So effectively neighborhood policeare working directly for the local community.And then they engage in collaborative problem solving,with partners and the public.You can see here how this very much talks of a pluralized kindof philosophy.So partners that may be local authority, schools,
SPEAKER [continued]: and the public.So it's not that the neighborhood policeget the community intelligence and do something about it,they work with the community and local authoritiesto do something about it.So you know it has plural aims in mind, very muchthe neighborhood policing program.So much more about that next week.
SPEAKER [continued]: So are we in this new era?There are all these changes going on.It's a bit list like, what I've just said.But it's just a way of illustrating,if we think of the police just as peoplein uniforms and police cars, that'sjust a tiny, tiny part of contemporary policing.So it's useful to think of these policing extended families,useful to think through a kind of frame of pluralization
SPEAKER [continued]: in that sense.But is it so new?So we can see that police functions are somehowleaking to non-state agencies and agents.And we could say, well the state is losing control with control,to some degree.Although, you know the argument isthat it highly regulates these things, which of course itdoes.But how policing itself is done has changed.
SPEAKER [continued]: So I mean, it's a bit pithy but wecould say that policing used to focus on deviants, controland order, and now it focuses on risk, surveillance,and security.So it's very much about the governance and security.Things have changed.And the main way in which it does thatis through preempting things.But is it as new as Bayley and Sheering were talking about?I mean, are we witnessing an actual fundamental change
SPEAKER [continued]: in how policing is organized and done?Or are we witnessing criminologistswaking up to a broader way of looking at policing.You know, is it a real thing or discursive thing?Are these changes new, or are they simply replacingsome older mechanism, something that was lost in the past?Is it a return to classical notions of policing actually?Neighborhood policing looks like that,
SPEAKER [continued]: looks very appealing right?It looks like the original kind of notion of whatthe new police should be.So is it just a return to all the stuff that was lost?And as you can imagine there's a debate about this.Different criminologists saying different things.So we'll look at very quickly someof these things they're saying.So Jones and Newburn they're actually saying it's
SPEAKER [continued]: not radical.And they are in conversation with Bayley and Sheering here.They say, well Bayley and Sheering, they're wrong.There's no radical break with the past,it's not a radical change.There is change, but there's also a lot of continuity.And what Jones and Newburn say, actually,is what is remarkable is how little the actual police have
SPEAKER [continued]: actually changed since 1839.They actually still look pretty much the same,they largely still do similar things.And what they argue is that the professional police neverhad a monopoly at all of policing in its broader sense.We're looking at that in an odd way from this point in history.What they say is actually, many of these quasi-police and
SPEAKER [continued]: municipal police are just replacingwhat was lost from the past.They replace what they called the secondary agentsof social control.So now in London, there's a park's constabulary.But in the 1950s and 60s, you had a parkkeep that lived on the park.And he would have effectively been,or she would have been, the social control
SPEAKER [continued]: agent in the park.But now the park's constabulary, because all that stuffhas been privatized now, you don't have park keepers.Same thing with having police in schools.I mean caretakers used to live in schools, but they don't now.So those secondary agents controlhave actually moved out.And you can even talk about things,I mean coaches to train station at night.There's a security company there walking around
SPEAKER [continued]: to make us feel safe for coaches to train stations.But 20-30 years ago, you'd have hadpeople who worked for British Rail walkingaround the station.So you could say, and this is what Jones and Newburnare saying, was actually, all these private agencies are justreplacing secondary control agents thatwere pulled away, really with thatcher-ismand their liberalism.
SPEAKER [continued]: Which is all that cost effectiveness.And so you know if income is contracted out,and you don't have caretakers at schools.You don't have park keepers living in parks anymore.So the private is just replacing those.And what they say is the trends actually representan increasing formalization, and increasing control
SPEAKER [continued]: of the state.So it's now really formalizing what the park keeper is,whereas before the park keeper would justhave informally done stuff.Now we have a parks constabulary, which is reallykind of regulated by the state.Whereas the park keeper would havebeen much more autonomous in that sense, because his jobwasn't as a policeman.It was to keep the park, but he wouldhave done that as a secondary aspect of his work.
SPEAKER [continued]: So that is effectively the same as statesgetting more control of control rather than less.So It's quite a different.It's quite a different argument of whatthese others are making.Martin Innes has also written about this.So he's, I mean, he's particularlyinterested in neighborhood policing.He says well, re-assurance policing and neighborhood
SPEAKER [continued]: policing are actually a return to the past.It's not a future thing.It's moving back to this Peelian visionof having a highly visible uniformed officer around.Which in one sense, prevents thingslike a risk based system, and that's Pills image of it.But in another sense, connects the police closer to the publicas well, in that sense.
SPEAKER [continued]: So Innes is saying it's not a break with the past,it's a return to the past.Similarly, and lastly, Lucia Zedner, she agrees with Innes.She's saying, well we're just going backaccording to how things were.And she actually points out the professional police,as the thing itself has only been with us since the 1850s.
SPEAKER [continued]: Before this plural policing, all these different agencieswas the norm.So what is distinctive is the formationof the professional police.That is the distinctive thing.Rather than any of these other changes.You know plural policing went on before, and is going on now.That was a short moment when we had professionalize policingwhich dominated crime control.
SPEAKER [continued]: So she says well although there havebeen big changes from traditional professionalpolicing, all that stuff existed in the past.And the biggest change itself was the developmentof professional police.That's the big thing that sticks out.Otherwise, there's a lot continuity here.So like Innes, she suggests we are returning to the past.We're looking back to classicism.This stuff is just neoclassical.
SPEAKER [continued]: It's going back to a past system.So we're going return to 18th century criminal justice,rather than invented anything new, is her argument.Nonetheless, there are some worrying possibilitiesthat I'll just finish up with.So these changes present some things for usas critical criminologists to think about.The fact that crime threats in some way are becoming
SPEAKER [continued]: deemed a security threat now.Although that might just seem like a way of playing aroundwith words, it isn't.So if we deem things that were traditionallyabout crime in order, as actually being about securityof the whole country, that means thatthese secretive high policing agencies, if you like,can come to perform that policing.And as we know, with the response to terrorism,
SPEAKER [continued]: for example, which is arguably bearing downon people who aren't terrorists, when we envisage thingslike terrorism or transnational organized crime as a securitythreat, we will police it by any means necessary.We don't really mind what the police do.And it tends to cross over into the aggregations
SPEAKER [continued]: of some people's human rights.So there's an issue there, because all the stuff is mixedup together with these transnational agenciesfor example.I mean much more about that than counter-terrorism.Secondly, we have to figure out who's accountable.Like the thing with transnational policingwith Europol for example, who's accountable for Europolwhen it's a load of different countries conjoining together?There's no lead as such who is accountable for them all.
SPEAKER [continued]: Or with private companies.I mean who's accountable to them?Who's overseeing and controlling them?Also, where policing pluralizes so local authorities areinvolved, social work becomes involved,schools become involved, this kind of pluralization
SPEAKER [continued]: of control, where there's a network of different players.If something goes wrong, who do we blame?We don't know, because all these different agenciesare involved.It's possible to pass the buck from each two each,from each kind of part of the network to another.Thirdly, obviously with private control,private companies running things,I mean is there interest moral?
SPEAKER [continued]: As we would assume professional police interests are, or isit very instrumental, do private companies justwant to make money?So are they going to govern and policein a different way than a state bound police force.It becomes driven by profit.Another issue with this, when thereare all different agencies involved,
SPEAKER [continued]: is a divergence of interests.So if the police are working with a local authorityin an NGO, or in a school, I mean whose interestscome through?There's research done about police workwith social workers for example.Social workers want to kind of be nice to their clients,and rehabilitate them whereas the police want be much morepunitive.So when all these agencies come together to work together,
SPEAKER [continued]: they can often pull in different directions.And actually a lot of the evidenceabout multi-agency works say it doesn't reallywork very well for them, because it's sometimes just difficultto get everybody to come together.But in another sense they all have divergent interests.That pulls these things apart.So OK kind of few worrying things,and we'll pick up on them over the next two weeks.And look at some of this stuff in a lot more detail.
SPEAKER [continued]: Thanks.
Changes in Late Modern Policing, Part 1
View Segments Segment :
Professor Darren Thiel discusses changes in late modern policing and how it affects transnational policing. Many of the changes in late modern policing are due to technological advancements and globalization. Thiel discusses the civilianization of policing, professionalization of the police, and community policing.
Professor Darren Thiel discusses changes in late modern policing and how it affects transnational policing. Many of the changes in late modern policing are due to technological advancements and globalization. Thiel discusses the civilianization of policing, professionalization of the police, and community policing.