What is to be Done . . . About the Police

[agricola]

It's interesting that, while law-abiding people were free to carry concealed firearms (pre-1950s), the police didn't demand anything more than a tactfully-concealed truncheon.

The Police did have access to firearms during that time, and given the war experience of many officers there was probably more armed officers available in theory than there are now, though of course arms were issued as needed and not routinely patrolled with.

Your armour question is answered in some detail here.

 

[detective-boy]

As for the complexity of it and misunderstandings, that can be mitigated by having people correct it publically, which would be a lot easier for individuals to do themselves if they had access to the relevant information.

You fail to take account of the fact that half the population have absolutely no idea of how to critically appraise something ... and when they are corrected they either (a) deny that they are wrong or (b) claim that either something has been changed or something is being hidden.

(Go check out Jazz's critique of the now released 7/7 CCTV footage on the other thread for an example of what I mean ...)

 

[Azrael]

Times change [...]

This has nothing to do with inevitable change, but is a result of deliberate policy choices made in the 1960s, ones that need to be reversed as a matter of extreme urgency if both liberty and order are to be saved. As far as comparisons with Thatcher go, the Police Federation might be a powerful union, but I doubt they'll rise up in revolt unless officers' pay and pensions are attacked, and my suggestion would do neither.

The death penalty would, I suspect, be rather popular, and in any case, would need to be allied to a thorough-going reform of our prisons, turning purposeless warehouses into houses of correction where criminals go for relatively-short spells of hard labour.

As I said on the first page, I don't expect any of this to happen. Governments are much too lazy and conformist to implement the changes, and would have to change their minds about dogma, which they cannot do.

 

[agricola]

You fail to take account of the fact that half the population have absolutely no idea of how to critically appraise something ... and when they are corrected they either (a) deny that they are wrong or (b) claim that either something has been changed or something is being hidden.

(Go check out Jazz's critique of the now released 7/7 CCTV footage on the other thread for an example of what I mean ...)

I disagree, tbh. Most of the things I had in mind dont really need critical appraisal, and even the stuff that would - regarding legal issues and policy - would probably only be of benefit or interest to those interested in relevant issues.

One might also point out that the vast majority of other posters on that thread have recognized Jazzz's critique for what it is, indeed you could perhaps argue the release of just that small load of CCTV stills has damaged the "7/7 truth" nonsensicalists (just as a full inquest will) - the illogical nature of their arguments are made even clearer.

 

[Azrael]

Your armour question is answered in some detail here.

Thanks for the link.

It's interesting that discrete armour has been replaced with overt armour. If a discrete stab-vest as effective as the current Metvest were developed, I wonder if it would be adopted. This change from officers patrolling in blue-tunics to paramilitary robocops seems as much ideological as practical. For example, why are hi-vis jackets now worn as a matter of routine? Are speedcuffs and utility belts really needed, or adopted in part for their threatening appearance?

 

[detective-boy]

I'm not suggesting the police find enough evidence to charge on the CPS standard before arrest -- as I said above, it should be abandoned entirely -- but enough for the pre-1985 standards. If this is impossible, I'd support an arrest on "reasonable belief", the standard Canada and the USA use.

Is writing an entry in a charge book a serious restriction on the police? The test surely comes when a magistrate examines the evidence, and I'd give the police 24 hours to find one.

I think we're getting tied up on semantics around "charging" here.

What we have now (and have had for years) is arrest on "reasonable grounds to suspect". The standard of proof for that is less than that required for a prima facie case (the pre-PACE standard for charging).

We could quite easily substitute the old standard, and carry on the investigation post-charge but that would lead to two significant issues:

1. Many people would be unnecessarily charged, and find themselves dragged through the Court process, only for the case to fall apart later (avoiding that is one of the main things that the introduction of the CPS and the charging standards was intended to achieve)
2. With many, many more complex and time-consuming lines of enquiry (telecoms analysis, computer analysis, DNA, ...) now available than was the case even in 1984, to charge at the prima facie case stage would mean that lots of evidence would come to light after the defendant was charged and thus no longer able to be questioned (except in tightly circumscribed situations which rarely arise). We could change the rule there and allow general post-charge questioning ... but I think all that that would achieve is that people would be kept stringing along on adjournment after adjournment whilst things are continuing, with no certainty.

What exactly is it that you would be hoping to achieve by going back to the pre-1985 situation?

 

[detective-boy]

How am I supposed to get to know "my local copper", though? They've been withdrawn.

They've just been re-introduced, in fact. I think every area of the country now has a "Neighbourhood Policing Team". Which area do you live in?

 

[Balbi]

Worked in the Prison Service recently Azrael? The opposition are doing some heavy research into reforming the service according to a close friend of mine who works in the service. It's a nightmare, P.O's are stuck in their own little world where as officers they are paragons of virtue, any attempt to make them do their jobs to the letter get kyboshed by senior officers and managers because it involves pointing out that they've been fucking it up instead of doing their jobs. The drugs units can get some prisoners clean, but the outside support and co-ordination is fucking woeful. It's an occurance for my friend to wave goodbye to an inmate Friday, and then have him being escorted back in Monday.

Reform the CJS to clamp down harder, and you'll have more inmates - make them work, and the HRA 1998 suddenly becomes every inmates bedtime reading of choice. Oh, and then there's the problem of overcrowding - at this point we return to the HMP Ashwell problem. There were fuck all enough officers working what was essentially 300 prisoners with a free reign within the walls, and that was despite continuous warnings about the potential for a situation. I expect there's a few Tornado Teams (Prison Service riot squad) having a few extra practices at the minute.

I'd not put money on it, but it wouldn't be unlikely if a Prison was entirely lost within the next 12 months. 70% damage at Ashwell. Nightmare in prospect. The CJS, Prison Service and political capital involved is like a fucking Rubiks Cube - you end up with one side of all red squares, but all of the other colours go to shit.

 

[detective-boy]

The Police did have access to firearms during that time...

Indeed. You don't have to go back too far (60s, maybe even 70s) when "authorised shots" were able to take a revolver out on night duty if they wished ...

It was in the 80s when the idea of having a number of authorised firearms officers spread around on every division was changed to having a permanent cadre of armed response teams, diplomatic protection, etc. The number of authorised officers went down very significantly and the level of training went up massively.

 

[detective-boy]

To me "local officer" means someone who patrols daily and works in a local stationhouse (and I mean a stationhouse, not the grim fortresses that look like a purchase from the Statsi surplus store). He or she would be an approachable person wearing a dull blue tunic, be devoid of billy clubs, gas cans, and Speedcuffs, and would not search tired commuters on their way home!

Are you Peter Hitchens by any chance ...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Crime-Peter-Hitchens/dp/1843541483

 

[detective-boy]

I disagree, tbh.

I think you have a more optimistic view than me!

But I totally agree that as much stuff as possible should be out in public.

 

[detective-boy]

For example, why are hi-vis jackets now worn as a matter of routine?

Main reason: to make sure people who always complain they "never see any coppers on the street" niotice them when they are there.

Subsidiary reason (and excuse): Health and Safety ...

 

[Balbi]

Plus it makes them look so nu-rave dahling

 

[Azrael]

What exactly is it that you would be hoping to achieve by going back to the pre-1985 situation?

An end to arresting for the purpose of investigation, itself an attack on the presumption of innocence. (If you can be imprisoned on suspicion, it implies degrees of guilt.) An acceptance of "investigative detention" is what lies behind the spiralling periods of time for which suspected terrorists can be imprisoned without charge.

You raise two important objections to the old charging system. The first -- needless charging -- could surely be curtailed without raising the charging standard? A preliminary hearing before a magistrate, or something similar, would be one way of doing it. I'm sure others could be found.

The second objection seems to depend on Michael Howard's "modification" to the right to silence. If these were repealed, and no inference could be drawn from a refusal to make a statement, there would be no need to question suspects, beside to gather more evidence. This focus on inquisitional justice is contrary to the common law, and if less weight is put on confession, it would increase the incentive to find other evidence.

 

[agricola]

Thanks for the link.

It's interesting that discrete armour has been replaced with overt armour. If a discrete stab-vest as effective as the current Metvest were developed, I wonder if it would be adopted. This change from officers patrolling in blue-tunics to paramilitary robocops seems as much ideological as practical. For example, why are hi-vis jackets now worn as a matter of routine? Are speedcuffs and utility belts really needed, or adopted in part for their threatening appearance?

The change from covert to overt was principally because the covert vest was quite uncomfortable to wear, as it went either under the shirt or between the shirt and a jumper, if you got too hot you had to either totally or partially disrobe to take the thing off. I believe there were also issues around it being even more uncomfortable for female colleagues.

All the "overt" vest is is the old covert vest with a black hardwearing cover to it, btw. You could still use it as a covert vest just by taking the cover off.

Hi-viz jackets are, to use a favourite phrase of the Mail, worn for health and safety reasons.

 

[Azrael]

Are you Peter Hitchens by any chance ...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Crime-Peter-Hitchens/dp/1843541483

Nah, I've never had much interest in joining the Revolutionary Socialists.

I've read Mr Hitchen's book, and I agree with many of his points. I strongly disagree with his views on drug prohibition and allowing police to deliver "street justice". He also presents a false choice between police practice pre- and post-PACE.

The change from covert to overt was principally because the covert vest was quite uncomfortable to wear, as it went either under the shirt or between the shirt and a jumper, if you got too hot you had to either totally or partially disrobe to take the thing off. I believe there were also issues around it being even more uncomfortable for female colleagues.

Thanks for the info. With so many changes coming together, and during a perior when authoritarian laws are being passed like they're going out of fashion, it's natural to be suspicious. I'm glad there's a mode mundane, if sweaty, explanation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Worked in the Prison Service recently Azrael? The opposition are doing some heavy research into reforming the service according to a close friend of mine who works in the service. It's a nightmare, P.O's are stuck in their own little world where as officers they are paragons of virtue, any attempt to make them do their jobs to the letter get kyboshed by senior officers and managers because it involves pointing out that they've been fucking it up instead of doing their jobs. The drugs units can get some prisoners clean, but the outside support and co-ordination is fucking woeful. It's an occurance for my friend to wave goodbye to an inmate Friday, and then have him being escorted back in Monday.

This has been the way of things since the 1980s, and got even worse in the early 90s when "market testing" meant that the POA and the Prison Service bigwigs went into a huddle to make "publicly-owned" prisons more competitive. You ended up with the POA getting work contracts for their members which sliced about 85% off HMPS's overtime bill, but had to be compensated for by giving Prison Officers time off in lieu (TOIL) instead, which meant that every single establishment that had even a slight staffing problem ended up building up a big bank of days owed to the staff which had to be taken.
So, what you ended up with had the same effect as a "work to rule". Skeleton staffing levels which kicked the feet out from under education (including a very promising literacy drive), treatment and inmate employment, and also meant that the basic "policing" function couldn't be carried out except as a reaction to events that occurred, rather than stopping them occurring in the first place.

Reform the CJS to clamp down harder, and you'll have more inmates - make them work, and the HRA 1998 suddenly becomes every inmates bedtime reading of choice.

As I've tried to explain to Azreal before, except in a few special cases, prison labour is usually a nett expense to the taxpayer.

Oh, and then there's the problem of overcrowding - at this point we return to the HMP Ashwell problem. There were fuck all enough officers working what was essentially 300 prisoners with a free reign within the walls, and that was despite continuous warnings about the potential for a situation. I expect there's a few Tornado Teams (Prison Service riot squad) having a few extra practices at the minute.

A situation made far worse by the fact that the larger private prisons have a lower standard of staff than even HMPS, and "boil over" far more frequently.

I'd not put money on it, but it wouldn't be unlikely if a Prison was entirely lost within the next 12 months. 70% damage at Ashwell. Nightmare in prospect. The CJS, Prison Service and political capital involved is like a fucking Rubiks Cube - you end up with one side of all red squares, but all of the other colours go to shit.

What cat is Ashwell? I ask cos it's most often the Bs and Cs that erupt, rather than the A cats.

 

[Azrael]

Worked in the Prison Service recently Azrael?

Not at all, and if I was lecturing gaolers on how to improve our gaols within the current system, you'd have a point. But I'm not. I'm proposing a return to a system that saw prison numbers much lower than today, and all-but eliminated riots and disorder.

You persent several artificial barriers to what I propose. The Human Rights Act 1998 can be repealed, and we can remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of Strasbourg. We will have more inmates in the short term -- but before long I predict the prison population will shrink as crooks decide crime has seriously unpleasant consequences.

What happens now? Convicts can get dozens of "second chances" until they're set in their ways. Given the crisis in prison numbers, this approach is clearly a failure. Our prison population will continue growing whatever the case. Question is, how do you get it down again?

As I've tried to explain to Azreal before, except in a few special cases, prison labour is usually a nett expense to the taxpayer.

Is it? If it deters the convict from committing more crime, it's a gain, in both money and lives.

 

[Balbi]

I think it's Cat C, hence the inmates having the run of the place leading to the incident.

And you're bang on. The more prisoners have freedom within the prison, the more dangerous criminals put in amongst this environment with the more impressionable younger offenders because you can't fit them in the A cats, and the fewer staff you have due to Privatisation or staffing cuts.

I have heard a story of a Gov. in a particular prison who ended up with 3 MONTHS of TOIL, due to the workload at the place. I mean honestly, what the fuck!

 

[Balbi]

You find me a politician who is credible AND has the political capital to repeal anything with 'Human Rights' in the title, and i'll show you the new messiah. And the repealing will lead to a lot of prisoners losing their right to protest at their conditions, which aren't always as cosy as the media report, which will in turn lead to a lot of them getting very angry at the P.O's - who will respond in a 'traditional manner' especially with the HRA out of the way. In Private Prisons, as VP has pointed out - the standard for P.O's is lower.

I'd expect major prison riots. More severe than are already quietly being predicted.

 

[Azrael]

You find me a politician who is credible AND has the political capital to repeal anything with 'Human Rights' in the title, and i'll show you the new messiah.

This isn't a serious argument. If we only passed laws that were easy, we might as well give up now. Were the reforms around homosexuality, or the abolition of hanging, any easier? No, yet they happened. Besides, I don't think the public would be lining up to support the Human Rights Act.

As for the consequences of repeal, how does the HRA restrain gaolers? Assault was illegal before it. If more laws are needed, they can be passed. As for riots, there appears to be a causal relationship between lax discipline and disorder in prisons. Discipline in prisons improved markedly in the latter 19th century, and riots went. When the penal regime was softened after the Great War, sporadic problems arose. The softening continued, and so did riots.

None of this means prisons are cushy. They appear to be horrible in the wrong way, and to the wrong people, environments where strong, violent men have little to fear, but the weak are terrified. The old system, which separated convicts, one-to-a-cell, and imposed the silent rule, treated all equally, and allowed hardened thugs none of the "respect" they crave.

 

[Balbi]

Equating reforms to homophobic legislation, or the cruel and unusual form of execution to removing the HRA is a little bit...well, casual. Passing a difficult law is one thing, but considering HRA 1998 (2000) is not entirely the work of Machiavellian Strasbourg and more the consequence of the newly minted Labour Govt. trying to define a clear line between them and the Tories.

HRA doesn't restrain gaolers, but it certainly gives cause to prisoners going chapter on verse on them. Take away that opportunity and then you've got an overcrowded pressurised environment where violence and intimidation is the atmosphere. And brutality in prisons is probably about equal to police brutality, except when a prisoner gets lumped he's usually alone and with more than one officer around him and when he's asked if he wants to make a complaint, he's still alone and surrounded by officers. You want to make it harder? It's fucking hard.

One to a cell. And where will we get these cells?

 

[Azrael]

You want to make it harder? It's [----] hard.

It's clearly not hard enough on recidivists, because they keep coming back. Without separation, labour and discipline, they can throw their weight around, and take advantage of their "respect". What's horrible to decent people isn't horrible to them.

New prisons must be built whatever the case. The choice is, build them now, and with serious purpose, or later.

Right now we warehouse criminals, after trying very, very hard not to send them to prison in the first place. It's unsustainable, and damages both liberty and order. How would you solve things?

As for repealing the Human Rights Act, I wasn't comparing the merits of repealing the Buggery Act and hanging (the former was obviously justified, the latter wasn't) but the difficulty of the reforms. It would probably be difficult for Labour to ditch the Human Rights Act, albeit not impossible. It wouldn't be difficult for the Conservatives, but I doubt they'll go down that road. The Bill of Rights contains a ban on "cruel and unusual punishment": I'm still not seeing what's special about the Human Rights Act in this regard.

 

[agricola]

One to a cell. And where will we get these cells?

If today's Justice Questions is any indicator, the private sector. Straw reckons the public sector will be allowed to compete for the contracts!

 

[Balbi]

Oh FFS.

FRIEDMANISM DOESN'T FUCKING WORK YOU STUPID, STUPID FREE MARKET CUNTS.

There has to be a BALANCE.

 

[Azrael]

Incidentally, I don't support private prisons. Punishment should be a duty of the state, not a means to exploit a (literally) captive workforce.

 

[detective-boy]

An end to arresting for the purpose of investigation, itself an attack on the presumption of innocence.

I'm afraid I cannot agree. There will always be situations in which arrest is inevitable way, way, way before any investigation can be carried out. There is simply no way of having (a) no power to arrest on suspicion of an offence and (b) an effective criminal justice system. The real world simply is not like that.

There are debates to be had about which offences this should apply to - probably defined by some level of seriousness. There are debates to be had about how long it can be for, certainly. There are debates to be had about how much evidence is required before a "charge" must be laid and a person placed before a Court. But you cannot do away with arrest on suspicion - a Court can only ever make a decision on the basis of evidence which has been found / tested / researched, etc. and until an investigation has progressed at least some distance there simply is no such evidence on which they can make a decision.

 

[Azrael]

There is simply no way of having (a) no power to arrest on suspicion of an offence and (b) an effective criminal justice system. The real world simply is not like that.

Both Canada and the USA have such a system. (The standard for arrest is "probable cause" in the USA, and "reasonable and probable grounds" in Canada, both comprable to our old charging standard.) Scotland had it until 1995, and we had it until 1965. So it's certainly possible.

As to whether the systems are effective, it would be very difficult to abolish probable cause in the USA, but I'm not aware of any pressure in Canada to abolish the (statutory) burden of reasonable and probable grounds, and introduce arrest on suspicion.

Incidentally, those are also the standards for search warrants in both countries.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Thanks for the link.

It's interesting that discrete armour has been replaced with overt armour. If a discrete stab-vest as effective as the current Metvest were developed, I wonder if it would be adopted. This change from officers patrolling in blue-tunics to paramilitary robocops seems as much ideological as practical. For example, why are hi-vis jackets now worn as a matter of routine? Are speedcuffs and utility belts really needed, or adopted in part for their threatening appearance?

Do you mean discrete or discreet? Two words with totally different meanings.

 

[Azrael]

Discreet. At times I'm a homophone-o-phobe.