7 ms·

Sir Robert Peel would be ashamed; this is in clear contradiction to principle 7: > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality

Sir Robert Peel would be ashamed; this is in clear contradiction to principle 7: > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. The Peelian principles are akin to a "Policing Constitution." The closer you get to its ideals the higher quality your policing is, and by that standard US policing even outside of "abuse" falls well short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

JanSolo 7y ago
I had heard of Robert Peel, but not of his principles. Thanks for the link; it was an interesting read. And I agree that US policing would really benefit from following some of his ideas. Specifically Principle 6.
- Frondo 7y ago
  I imagine the Discworld series is pretty popular here, but for those who aren't super familiar with it, the character of Sam Vimes is a cop (and very much an honorable one) whose policing is based on Peelian principles. They even had a character named Keel in one of the books; the sort of historical reference Pratchett loved to include. https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes
logfromblammo 7y ago
Peelian policing is but one of the foundation influences on U.S. policing, introduced in northern metropolitan areas: Boston, New York City, and Chicago. The other major influence was the slave patrol. This is why there is such a strong overlap between the membership rosters of the KKK and police departments. As policing expanded, and the institutions intermingled, the former was corrupted by the latter. It is impossible to uphold #7 in an organization that implicitly divides "the public" into "citizens to be protected", "citizens to be ignored", and "savages". The only way we can get there from here is to completely dissolve municipal police departments, and rebuild them from scratch, without re-hiring anyone that has ever served as a cop, training them specifically to be wardens of the whole community, rather than employ the "everyone is trying to kill you" videos that they show the young cop-cadets to make them twitchy and paranoid whenever anyone has a non-visible hand or is within 7 yards of them.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
The failure to implement Peelian principles in the USA is not an oversight, but a deliberate decision that stems from the USA’s racial tension. When this debate has arisen, white law-enforcement elites have claimed that Peelian policing is inapplicable to the American context, because if black communities were policed by representatives of that community (i.e. other blacks), then the police would likely overlook much of the crime going on. The black police officers would sympathize too much with the citizens they policed, they would see both themselves and the local citizens as opposed to an outside white world, and they would be unwilling to put fellow blacks before white judges and prosecutors. (Not to mention that there has been enormous suspicion among the US national-security apparatus about any kind of self-organizing among black communities.) Therefore, critics of Peelian policing claim, the only effective solution to ensure prosecutions for crimes would be to have these communities policed largely by outsiders. So, if you wanted to fully implement a more just form of policing in the United States, you would have to somehow overcome this deeply entrenched racist thinking. Yet unfair policing also drives racism, because it tends to perpetuate among white society an image of minority communities as hotbeds of chaos barely kept in check by a "thin blue wall". So, the result is a vicious circle.
- nerdponx 7y ago
  This is fascinating, I've never heard of this debate before. Do you have any sources for further reading on it?
- pstuart 7y ago
  Much of the crime going on is drug related, which is a manufactured crime that was designed to make POC criminals. End the war on drugs and a large chunk of crime magically disappears. Obviously this doesn't address poverty from other systematic discrimination but it does remove a key driver for criminal activity.
  - taborj 7y ago
    I'm not sure how much I agree with this. On the one hand, yes, you'll have fewer arrests on drug charges, but you'll still have (or maybe have more of) crimes related to drug use, such as theft and assault. Addicts looking for cash for a fix drop much of their moral compass.
gumby 7y ago
Instead of “peace officers”, or even “police” we have “law enforcement” which pretty much shows how the priorities have shifted over the last 50 years. Whom now do they “protect and serve?” Not the citizens but the legal code. This same kind of language has transformed the system output as well: instead of “penitentiary” (where you reflect on your crime and perhaps resolve to be better” or “correctional” facilities we just have a “department of prisons”. That’s been a longer shift. The process has become the focus rather than the end result much less the broader good.
- rsync 7y ago
  "Instead of “peace officers”, or even “police” we have “law enforcement” which pretty much shows how the priorities have shifted over the last 50 years. Whom now do they “protect and serve?” Not the citizens but the legal code." I have a suspicion that we could take a long step back toward serving the public if all police officers were required to become EMT/EMR certified and had some kind of duty to act in cases of basic life support. I don't doubt that there are logistical hurdles and very complicated rules of engagement vs. standards of care but I (an EMR in California) think these could be overcome - especially in smaller and/or rural locales.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > Whom now do they “protect and serve?” Police departments, unions, etc., have gone to court in these cases and _successfully_ argued that they have _no obligation_ to protect _or_ serve. It's just fluff.
cafard 7y ago
The public, in Sir Robert Peel's terms, with the middle and upper classes--who to this day in the US get along with the police fairly well. Have a look at Mayhew's London Labor and the London Poor to see what the poor thought of the London police. I don't think that the police should have the impunity they do in the US; but don't delude yourself about Sir Robert Peel.
baybal2 7y ago
> People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. Maybe you need to replace your supreme court judges? They are in their majority clearly beyond the age at which mental faculties start to suffer. Common sense tells me that you can't expect a bench of octagenarians to normally function as the top legal institute of a country. It is not a sacred cow beyond all reason and doubt, and its judges are not the 9 holy sages. Why can't your put some effort, and replace them?
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  Most of the court is under 70.[1] The article says Sotomayor, Thomas, and Ginsburg have criticized qualified immunity. They're the 1st, 3rd, and 5th oldest. [1] http://www.threestory.com/scotus/ http://www.threestory.com/scotus/
carapace 7y ago
I just wanted to say that it's heartwarming to find the Peelian principles are the subject of the top comment here. It makes me think of Star Trek (the OG stuff where the crew has their shit together, not the newer Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer-in-Space styff.)
throwaway55554 7y ago
> People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. Stop training them like they're going to war and train them to "server and protect" instead. The National Guard can come in if they're needed. Police don't need to handle that.

JanSolo 7y ago

I had heard of Robert Peel, but not of his principles. Thanks for the link; it was an interesting read. And I agree that US policing would really benefit from following some of his ideas. Specifically Principle 6.

Frondo 7y ago
I imagine the Discworld series is pretty popular here, but for those who aren't super familiar with it, the character of Sam Vimes is a cop (and very much an honorable one) whose policing is based on Peelian principles. They even had a character named Keel in one of the books; the sort of historical reference Pratchett loved to include. https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes

logfromblammo 7y ago

Peelian policing is but one of the foundation influences on U.S. policing, introduced in northern metropolitan areas: Boston, New York City, and Chicago. The other major influence was the slave patrol. This is why there is such a strong overlap between the membership rosters of the KKK and police departments. As policing expanded, and the institutions intermingled, the former was corrupted by the latter. It is impossible to uphold #7 in an organization that implicitly divides "the public" into "citizens to be protected", "citizens to be ignored", and "savages". The only way we can get there from here is to completely dissolve municipal police departments, and rebuild them from scratch, without re-hiring anyone that has ever served as a cop, training them specifically to be wardens of the whole community, rather than employ the "everyone is trying to kill you" videos that they show the young cop-cadets to make them twitchy and paranoid whenever anyone has a non-visible hand or is within 7 yards of them.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

The failure to implement Peelian principles in the USA is not an oversight, but a deliberate decision that stems from the USA’s racial tension. When this debate has arisen, white law-enforcement elites have claimed that Peelian policing is inapplicable to the American context, because if black communities were policed by representatives of that community (i.e. other blacks), then the police would likely overlook much of the crime going on. The black police officers would sympathize too much with the citizens they policed, they would see both themselves and the local citizens as opposed to an outside white world, and they would be unwilling to put fellow blacks before white judges and prosecutors. (Not to mention that there has been enormous suspicion among the US national-security apparatus about any kind of self-organizing among black communities.) Therefore, critics of Peelian policing claim, the only effective solution to ensure prosecutions for crimes would be to have these communities policed largely by outsiders. So, if you wanted to fully implement a more just form of policing in the United States, you would have to somehow overcome this deeply entrenched racist thinking. Yet unfair policing also drives racism, because it tends to perpetuate among white society an image of minority communities as hotbeds of chaos barely kept in check by a "thin blue wall". So, the result is a vicious circle.

nerdponx 7y ago
This is fascinating, I've never heard of this debate before. Do you have any sources for further reading on it?
pstuart 7y ago
Much of the crime going on is drug related, which is a manufactured crime that was designed to make POC criminals. End the war on drugs and a large chunk of crime magically disappears. Obviously this doesn't address poverty from other systematic discrimination but it does remove a key driver for criminal activity.
- taborj 7y ago
  I'm not sure how much I agree with this. On the one hand, yes, you'll have fewer arrests on drug charges, but you'll still have (or maybe have more of) crimes related to drug use, such as theft and assault. Addicts looking for cash for a fix drop much of their moral compass.

gumby 7y ago

Instead of “peace officers”, or even “police” we have “law enforcement” which pretty much shows how the priorities have shifted over the last 50 years. Whom now do they “protect and serve?” Not the citizens but the legal code. This same kind of language has transformed the system output as well: instead of “penitentiary” (where you reflect on your crime and perhaps resolve to be better” or “correctional” facilities we just have a “department of prisons”. That’s been a longer shift. The process has become the focus rather than the end result much less the broader good.

rsync 7y ago
"Instead of “peace officers”, or even “police” we have “law enforcement” which pretty much shows how the priorities have shifted over the last 50 years. Whom now do they “protect and serve?” Not the citizens but the legal code." I have a suspicion that we could take a long step back toward serving the public if all police officers were required to become EMT/EMR certified and had some kind of duty to act in cases of basic life support. I don't doubt that there are logistical hurdles and very complicated rules of engagement vs. standards of care but I (an EMR in California) think these could be overcome - especially in smaller and/or rural locales.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> Whom now do they “protect and serve?” Police departments, unions, etc., have gone to court in these cases and _successfully_ argued that they have _no obligation_ to protect _or_ serve. It's just fluff.

cafard 7y ago

The public, in Sir Robert Peel's terms, with the middle and upper classes--who to this day in the US get along with the police fairly well. Have a look at Mayhew's London Labor and the London Poor to see what the poor thought of the London police. I don't think that the police should have the impunity they do in the US; but don't delude yourself about Sir Robert Peel.

baybal2 7y ago

> People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. Maybe you need to replace your supreme court judges? They are in their majority clearly beyond the age at which mental faculties start to suffer. Common sense tells me that you can't expect a bench of octagenarians to normally function as the top legal institute of a country. It is not a sacred cow beyond all reason and doubt, and its judges are not the 9 holy sages. Why can't your put some effort, and replace them?

pseudalopex 7y ago
Most of the court is under 70.[1] The article says Sotomayor, Thomas, and Ginsburg have criticized qualified immunity. They're the 1st, 3rd, and 5th oldest. [1] http://www.threestory.com/scotus/ http://www.threestory.com/scotus/

carapace 7y ago

I just wanted to say that it's heartwarming to find the Peelian principles are the subject of the top comment here. It makes me think of Star Trek (the OG stuff where the crew has their shit together, not the newer Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer-in-Space styff.)

throwaway55554 7y ago

> People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. Stop training them like they're going to war and train them to "server and protect" instead. The National Guard can come in if they're needed. Police don't need to handle that.