5 ms·

It's a book ideal that doesn't recognize reality: the fallibility and self-interests of individuals.

cstross 13y ago
So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations? The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even today the vast majority of British cops do not ever carry guns, and per a 2006 poll of members of the Police Federation, 82% of officers don't want to routinely carry guns: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 This demonstrates, if nothing else, that even after 170-180 years a high-minded book ideal can have a long term effect on an institution (even though we as a species seem to be extremely bad at keeping institutions on track on any time frame longer than a human working lifespan). And, if I may editorialize a little, being aware that it is possible to constitute a police force along radically unfamiliar lines should free us from the tyranny of low expectations that leads us to assume that current abuses of police powers are inevitable and unexceptional. We can do better, and we deserve better.
- threeseed 13y ago
  UK police officers don't want to carry guns because they really don't need to. The most likely threat they are going to face is from a youth carrying a knife (gangs are an issue in outer London boroughs). And since police officers are wearing protective vests a knife attack isn't going to be hitting major organs.
  - watmough 13y ago
    If you notice though, everywhere, including the UK, now has vans full of armed SWAT-type cops, ready to roll at a moments notice. Un-armed my foot! (pun intended)
    - andyjohnson0 13y ago
      Armed response vehicles do exist in the major cities in the UK, although the number of incidents in which they are used is declining. In England and Wales for the year ending March 2012, the police discharged firearms at a total of five incidents [1]. That's for a population of 56 million. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-use-of-firearms-in-england-and-wales-2011-12 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-...
- rjknight 13y ago
  Indeed, I think there's something a bit too fatalistic about the idea that the police must automatically be bad because the very nature of authority is corrupting. It's somewhat similar to genetically-deterministic evo-psych, or arguments that group X will behave in a certain way because of their privileges or sufferings. There might be a tendency toward that pattern of behaviour, but tendencies can be overcome. In social science there are rarely any iron rules of behaviour.
  - cstross 13y ago
    The real question is how we design robust institutional cultures that don't deteriorate over time, and adhere to the original mission goals. (And also how we free ourselves from the tyranny of low expectations, so that we can set good goals rather than accepting bad outcomes as inevitable.) Note that Peel's Principles were in no small part to address the public order aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre Prior to the huge wave of policing and justice reforms of the 1830s, in the UK not only were there no real organized police forces, but what policing there was relied on local bailiffs, freelance for-profit thief-takers (google "Jonathan Wilde" for an extraordinary example of just how wrong for-profit policing can go!), and in extremis, the army (who, at Peterloo, sent a cavalry charge into a large crowd who were demonstrating for electoral reform: many dead, many hundreds injured). Some sort of reform was clearly necessary, and the drawbacks of a military style of public order enforcement was glaringly obvious: hence the attempt at re-inventing the entire concept of policing.
    - icegreentea 13y ago
      Kinda ironic that you describe the problem as "military style of public order enforcement", since one of the hallmarks and necessities of the very reforms was the centralization of policing, and the imposition of various military-like organization on the police in an attempt to increase visibility, accountability, and legitimacy. In fact, I don't think the question isn't so much how to design robust cultures that do not "deteriorate over time", but how to design systems that are amenable to reform despite "deterioration". Basically, I'm making the claim that that on the micro-level, that every day, or year to year life of an institution, negative effects will tend to out-weight positives. And I'm going to argue that from the standpoint of entropy. So in other words, sure, we want to create systems that are robust, as in they can maintain their culture at some set level, but it's even more important to ensure that we can "reset" the system at relatively low cost.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  I like that you called them ideals. A lot of what I consider weirder political thought seems to come from treating some set of principles as inviolate. It's harder to make that mistake of thought with an ideal. (and any system involving more than 1 human seems likely enough to require compromise somewhere)
  - midas007 13y ago
    Yeah, it's usually the inexperienced and the privileged that take on a meritocratic, neat-and-simple worldview. It's the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. "Shit happens" isn't a bumper sticker for no reason.
- midas007 13y ago
  Because it's divorced from reality for one.

So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations? The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even today the vast majority of British cops do not ever carry guns, and per a 2006 poll of members of the Police Federation, 82% of officers don't want to routinely carry guns: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 This demonstrates, if nothing else, that even after 170-180 years a high-minded book ideal can have a long term effect on an institution (even though we as a species seem to be extremely bad at keeping institutions on track on any time frame longer than a human working lifespan). And, if I may editorialize a little, being aware that it is possible to constitute a police force along radically unfamiliar lines should free us from the tyranny of low expectations that leads us to assume that current abuses of police powers are inevitable and unexceptional. We can do better, and we deserve better.

threeseed 13y ago
UK police officers don't want to carry guns because they really don't need to. The most likely threat they are going to face is from a youth carrying a knife (gangs are an issue in outer London boroughs). And since police officers are wearing protective vests a knife attack isn't going to be hitting major organs.
- watmough 13y ago
  If you notice though, everywhere, including the UK, now has vans full of armed SWAT-type cops, ready to roll at a moments notice. Un-armed my foot! (pun intended)
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    Armed response vehicles do exist in the major cities in the UK, although the number of incidents in which they are used is declining. In England and Wales for the year ending March 2012, the police discharged firearms at a total of five incidents [1]. That's for a population of 56 million. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-use-of-firearms-in-england-and-wales-2011-12 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-...
rjknight 13y ago
Indeed, I think there's something a bit too fatalistic about the idea that the police must automatically be bad because the very nature of authority is corrupting. It's somewhat similar to genetically-deterministic evo-psych, or arguments that group X will behave in a certain way because of their privileges or sufferings. There might be a tendency toward that pattern of behaviour, but tendencies can be overcome. In social science there are rarely any iron rules of behaviour.
- cstross 13y ago
  The real question is how we design robust institutional cultures that don't deteriorate over time, and adhere to the original mission goals. (And also how we free ourselves from the tyranny of low expectations, so that we can set good goals rather than accepting bad outcomes as inevitable.) Note that Peel's Principles were in no small part to address the public order aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre Prior to the huge wave of policing and justice reforms of the 1830s, in the UK not only were there no real organized police forces, but what policing there was relied on local bailiffs, freelance for-profit thief-takers (google "Jonathan Wilde" for an extraordinary example of just how wrong for-profit policing can go!), and in extremis, the army (who, at Peterloo, sent a cavalry charge into a large crowd who were demonstrating for electoral reform: many dead, many hundreds injured). Some sort of reform was clearly necessary, and the drawbacks of a military style of public order enforcement was glaringly obvious: hence the attempt at re-inventing the entire concept of policing.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    Kinda ironic that you describe the problem as "military style of public order enforcement", since one of the hallmarks and necessities of the very reforms was the centralization of policing, and the imposition of various military-like organization on the police in an attempt to increase visibility, accountability, and legitimacy. In fact, I don't think the question isn't so much how to design robust cultures that do not "deteriorate over time", but how to design systems that are amenable to reform despite "deterioration". Basically, I'm making the claim that that on the micro-level, that every day, or year to year life of an institution, negative effects will tend to out-weight positives. And I'm going to argue that from the standpoint of entropy. So in other words, sure, we want to create systems that are robust, as in they can maintain their culture at some set level, but it's even more important to ensure that we can "reset" the system at relatively low cost.
maxerickson 13y ago
I like that you called them ideals. A lot of what I consider weirder political thought seems to come from treating some set of principles as inviolate. It's harder to make that mistake of thought with an ideal. (and any system involving more than 1 human seems likely enough to require compromise somewhere)
- midas007 13y ago
  Yeah, it's usually the inexperienced and the privileged that take on a meritocratic, neat-and-simple worldview. It's the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand. "Shit happens" isn't a bumper sticker for no reason.
midas007 13y ago
Because it's divorced from reality for one.