• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Police power

by Simon Longstaff

The mortal wounding of NSW Police Constable, Peter Forsyth, did more than cause the tragic end of a brave life. It also marked out a new arena for a long-standing contest of ideas between those who support, as necessary for the common good, an increase in the powers of police and those who reject such calls as an erosion of the hallowed principles of civil liberty.

Debates about the allocation of power in and by a community should be amongst the most serious that can occur in any civil society. Yet, for all this, discussion of police power is frequently trivialised – on talkback radio, in the mouths of politicians wanting to ride to election on the coat-tails of a law and order debate and even, at times, by the protagonists themselves.

None of this makes it any easier for those wanting to mount a serious case for an increase in police power. But in addition to this, people working in the field of law enforcement feel that their contribution to the debate is constantly being devalued by the perception that they are primarily concerned about blunt, practical matters while their opponents gain legitimacy through an appeal to lofty principle.

Frustration at this state of affairs is understandable. After all, law enforcement agencies have access to arguments of depth and subtlety that could be used to support some of their claims for increased powers. Unfortunately, these arguments only rarely receive an airing.

For example, it could be argued that the principle of civil liberty is well served by measures designed to reduce crime. The loss of property can often lead to a corresponding loss of freedom. Of even greater significance may be the opportunity to reduce the fear of crime, in general, and violent crime in particular.

However, a successful campaign to reduce crime may not be matched by a lessening in communal fear and therefore, a corresponding increase in liberty. For example, a number of criminologists have argued that statistics indicate that the incidence of violent crime has remained fairly constant over the century. Yet, people now seem to be more afraid than ever. And as we know, psychological bonds can bind us as surely as the gaoler's chains.

Some may feel that an attempt to justify the enforcement of law and order through an appeal to the principle of liberty is mistaken. Instead, it may be better to treat a commitment to law and order as a separate but equal principle that needs to be balanced (but not overridden) by other concerns. On this view, a violent anarchic society would be no better than one in which the complete absence of strife was the price to be paid for a complete lack of freedom. But, where should the balance be struck? In the face of radically different answers to this question, the debate seems to go nowhere.

It is easy enough to see where the debate gets stuck. But is there a way through the impasse? I suspect that progress will not occur until we make two fundamental changes. First, we need to accept that ordinary citizens have an important role to play in fighting crime. Criminals prosper in environments where people are indifferent to their actions. They count on the fact that many people prefer to abdicate their civic responsibilities into the hands of the police. Let me be clear, I am not suggesting the formation of vigilante groups. Rather, we need to share in the responsibility for building communities of a kind that are hostile environments for the perpetrators of crime.

Zero tolerance of crime must start with us. We simply cannot afford to turn a blind eye and leave it to others and in particular, the police. This leads to a second point. We need to welcome our police back into our communities.

We should begin by realising that they are our police – part of the state and apart from it. They are fellow citizens who have sworn to protect us – not just from the usual criminal element, but also from the unlawful exercise of power by those who control the state. In a democracy, the original authority of the constable comes from the community. But we have allowed our police to become locked in a ghetto. We have allowed them to become insular and to develop a sub-culture in which the need to stick together – against an apparently hostile world – has been used to corrupt a noble institution and justify a multitude of sins.

Bringing our police back into the community will be an expensive exercise as it requires that the community invest in people. The cheapest alternatives will almost certainly be those provided by technology – remote surveillance, digital imaging, all linked to powerful databases configured so as to recognise troubling patterns before they occur. These technologies will collect intelligence for an efficient corp of anonymous officers who will work in relative safety from high-tech fixed and mobile stations. I believe that there is a better alternative.

The NSW Commissioner of Police, Mr Peter Ryan, is reported to believe that “people are just getting more violent” and that this is “translating itself into confrontations with police as well, where every young person the police stop to talk to, becomes aggressive to the police”. I do not believe that more powers for police offer a long-term solution to this kind of problem. In the absence of radical change, they may prove to be a necessary evil. But, a world in which law-abiding citizens can be subjected to random searches is hardly something to be celebrated as an advance on the old.

Instead, let us renew our acquaintance with police as people who walk our streets. Let there be sufficient numbers of them and time enough, for us to get to know each other. That, beyond all else, will help to end the vicious cycle in which citizens abuse police and police abuse citizens.

discuss this article

---