5 ms·

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 corrupti

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.
  - cstross 13y ago
    In your country, are the Fire service, Ambulance service, or Coast Guard, necessarily military? Because they were uniforms, have rank structures, operate heavy equipment, and are government employees. (Yes, this is a trick question. In some countries these are paramilitary organizations and services -- or provided by private corporations. But in the UK, they're civilian government agencies that are explicitly non-military. It's possible to have a centralized, hierarchical uniformed state agency that isn't militaries and isn't there to point guns at the public. That's the point I'm trying to make here.) Your secondary point about systems needing to be amenable to reform is a good one. Too much rigidity and inflexibility makes reform hard: but it may also help prevent corruption. Which aspect wins out probably has something to do with the type of people the organization recruits -- are they dedicated to public service, or are they attracted to a role where they get to carry a gun and wear a uniform and are feared by the public? My gut feeling is that authoritarian followers (per Altermayer) are a really bad fit for community policing ... but unfortunately uniformed armed services are attractive to such personality types.
    - icegreentea 13y ago
      I readily accept your first point. I guess I messed up my delivery of the first point. It wasn't meant so much as a rebuttal or counterpoint, but something of a "random aside". The point wasn't that they "militarized" the police, especially in the way militarized is often used today in the context of American law enforcement (with the implications of increased use of aggressive force), but rather that its kinda funny that their solution to trying to back off on the level of violence was to impose aspects of military like control. Of course, in the long view it's pretty obvious why that happened. Consider why modern western militaries are structured and organized the way they are. The state has a monopoly on force, which requires not just the owning the army, but to be able to control the application of force down to the level of individual soldier. Obviously the control can never be perfect, but I think its pretty clear that it typically works well enough. I guess my point is that especially in the context of the 19th century, militarization has two orthogonal aspects, the first being the nature and quantity of force to apply, and the second being control of force, and that when faced with the problem of overly aggressive police action, they sought to apply control by applying aspects of military organization - aspects which the military could claim to "own" first, just because they were only groups around with that type of organization at that time.
- midas007 13y ago
  The only way is if police are held to account. That there is some sort of oversight committee, separate from the police force, that can fire officers. For example, Mountain View PD has this female police officer that is just plain nutters in a dangerous way (aggressive and crazy with a gun).
midas007 13y ago
How many police officers have you interacted with?

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.
- cstross 13y ago
  In your country, are the Fire service, Ambulance service, or Coast Guard, necessarily military? Because they were uniforms, have rank structures, operate heavy equipment, and are government employees. (Yes, this is a trick question. In some countries these are paramilitary organizations and services -- or provided by private corporations. But in the UK, they're civilian government agencies that are explicitly non-military. It's possible to have a centralized, hierarchical uniformed state agency that isn't militaries and isn't there to point guns at the public. That's the point I'm trying to make here.) Your secondary point about systems needing to be amenable to reform is a good one. Too much rigidity and inflexibility makes reform hard: but it may also help prevent corruption. Which aspect wins out probably has something to do with the type of people the organization recruits -- are they dedicated to public service, or are they attracted to a role where they get to carry a gun and wear a uniform and are feared by the public? My gut feeling is that authoritarian followers (per Altermayer) are a really bad fit for community policing ... but unfortunately uniformed armed services are attractive to such personality types.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    I readily accept your first point. I guess I messed up my delivery of the first point. It wasn't meant so much as a rebuttal or counterpoint, but something of a "random aside". The point wasn't that they "militarized" the police, especially in the way militarized is often used today in the context of American law enforcement (with the implications of increased use of aggressive force), but rather that its kinda funny that their solution to trying to back off on the level of violence was to impose aspects of military like control. Of course, in the long view it's pretty obvious why that happened. Consider why modern western militaries are structured and organized the way they are. The state has a monopoly on force, which requires not just the owning the army, but to be able to control the application of force down to the level of individual soldier. Obviously the control can never be perfect, but I think its pretty clear that it typically works well enough. I guess my point is that especially in the context of the 19th century, militarization has two orthogonal aspects, the first being the nature and quantity of force to apply, and the second being control of force, and that when faced with the problem of overly aggressive police action, they sought to apply control by applying aspects of military organization - aspects which the military could claim to "own" first, just because they were only groups around with that type of organization at that time.
midas007 13y ago
The only way is if police are held to account. That there is some sort of oversight committee, separate from the police force, that can fire officers. For example, Mountain View PD has this female police officer that is just plain nutters in a dangerous way (aggressive and crazy with a gun).

midas007 13y ago

How many police officers have you interacted with?