|
Skip to comments | 
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll
NZCPD
Forum
Opinion piece by Dr Lech Beltowski
9 September 06
Top
Cops advice to “have a go at crims” rational, effective
and long overdue
The
article (Herald, Saturday September 2nd 2006) in
which Detective Inspector Malcolm Johnston of Christchurch
police advises that citizens who think they can take on a
burglar should “have a go” is hopefully the first sign of
a return to common sense by a police force increasingly
struggling to contain serious crime. Recent claims from South
Auckland community groups that police have lost the fight
against crime in that part of our city gives this whole topic
a degree of urgency.
Certainly
it is the first time in very many years that a senior police
officer has had the courage to voice an opinion contrary to
the long-standing police policy of advising
“civilians” that the safest course of action when faced
with a criminal is “give them what they want and don’t
resist". While such a policy (actively discouraging
any proactive intervention
against criminal activity and mitigating effective
self-defence or defence of property) might have appeared
justified in the 1970’s, even then it was a policy based
more on flawed social theory than on hard fact or a sound
knowledge of human nature.
One thing
is certain- the evidence that this was a sound police policy
that saved innocent lives is simply not there, while evidence
that it is dangerous advice that has led to avoidable injury
or death has become more and more readily available from
overseas. But this is an inevitable consequence of moving away
from the the only proven basis for effective policing in a
free society, namely the nine basic rules of policing first
set out by the founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel in
1826. These nine rules (see box) are both a mission statement
for police and a guide on how a free and democratic nation can
(and should) be policed effectively.;
When asked
during a parliamentary select committee "who are the
police?" Peel answered that "the police are the
public and the public are the police; in other words, the
police are SIMPLY 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".
It
is therefore very clear that the founder of modern policing
did not intend his force to become an elitist (as opposed to a
skilled and highly professional) organisation with ever
increasing powers over the ordinary law-abiding
citizen.Indeed, the original model of policing was for police
to work alongside the public AS EQUALS and NOT AS MASTERS and
simply assist law-abiding members of the public to maintain
law and order in their communities. More precisely, there was
never ever any intention for police to usurp the crime
deterrant and crime fighting role of the ordinary citizen nor
of removing from ordinary members of the public their
traditional rights of self-defence(which included the use of
deadly force should this be necessary) or citizens arrest. Yet
that is precisely what has happened over the last few decades-
with predictable consequences
Two other
important points also need to be noted. First, the intention
was to keep police as independent as possible of both
government and the judiciary because it was understood that
only be doing this- by remaining strictly independent of
powerful minority elitist interests- could police best
fulfil their duties to their real masters-the public.
Second,
the intention was to avoid at all costs the para-military
model of community control (common then as now in the rest of
Europe and elsewhere) because it was considered an
inappropriate method of policing a free and wealthy democratic
country and would -over time-erode the basic liberties enjoyed
by its citizens.
In a New
Zealand context this is an important point, because it was
precisely this very high level of personal freedom that Maori
gained for all New Zealanders when they signed the Treaty of
Waitangi.
Having
gained a better picture of how police were originally meant to
operate, it is easy to see how far they have strayed (or been
dragged by successive governments) from their legitimate and
traditional function. Viewed from this historical vantage
point, our escalating crime rate over the last 40 or so years
no longer seems so surprising or so impossible to deal with.
What is of concern (even if also not a surprise) is the
continued reluctance of police hierarchy to review their
long-standing policy on self-defence and defence of property
and on active intervention by members of the public when a
crime is being committed.
As noted
earlier, while there has never been any valid evidence that
not intervening when confronted by criminal activity and not
resisting when faced with criminal attack is the safest option
to take, there has been ample evidence for well over a decade
that it is NOT the safest course of action.
National
Victims Data from the US in fact suggests that "while
victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about
twice as likely to be injured as those who submit, victims who
resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as
those who put up no defense." Of particular
interest to women and self-defense, "among those victims
using handguns in self-defense, 66 percent of them were
successful in warding off the attack and keeping their
property. Among those victims using non-gun weapons, only 40
percent were successful.(. Kleck G. Point Blank Š Guns and
Violence in America. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991).
Thus, our
present police policy on self-defence and defence of property
appears to be an elitist and discriminatory one, based on two
tiers of safety . The best (safest and most effective) means
of self-defence and intervention against criminal
activity (firearms, mace and pepper sprays and now Tazers) are
reserved solely for the professional elite-the police. The
second best option of doing nothing and being at the the mercy
of violent and often deranged or drug-fueled criminals (a
policy that inevitably results in a significant number of
innocent victims being needlessly killed or badly injured
every year) is what current police policy allows the ordinary
citizen.The current police policy is thus openly
discriminatory, with ordinary law abiding citizens being
treated as second class citizens, as less deserving of the
best level of protection than their servants-the police.
Most
people would consider this a totally unacceptable situation,
and one that needs urgent attention. Indeed, one would be hard
put to find a better example of discrimination and abuse of
power. It not only verges on negligence but is also a
gross denial of the most basic duty of care. Little wonder
that in this present topsy-turvy world of police policy it is
the criminals that end up the winners and their victims the
losers.
It is
surely time police replaced their present discriminatory
policy with one based on more recent and scientifically valid
evidence and returned to the historically proven concept that
the publ;ic has a very significant role to play in controlling
crime and that the ability (one might well argue need) of
law-abiding citizens to effectively protect themselves, their
families and their property not only poses no risks to society
but in fact confers a huge collective good by detering crime
-especially violent crime. Those who seem unwilling to accept
this should just ask themselves how many of the violent crimes
reported daily in our newspapers could have been deterred,
prevented or could have had a different outcome had the victim
or some other member of the public been able to intervene as
safely as police.
If police
are no longer willing to implement measures proven to protect
the public and rapidly reduce crime rates (as has happened in
the US) then clearly they are no longer part of the solution
but have become part of the problem. If police policymakers
are genuine about wanting to reduce crime rates in New Zealand
then this is the only proven, evidentially based path to go
down. But they need to move quickly , before they lose still
more of the most valuable commodity a police force can
have-the good will and respect of the long-suffering public.
Sir Robert
Peel's nine rules of policing:
- The
basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent
crime and disorder.
- The
ability of the police to perform their duties is
dependent upon public approval of police actions.
- Police
must secure the willing co-operation of the public in
voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and
maintain the respect of the public.
- The
degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured
diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use
of physical force.
- Police
seek and preserve public favour not by catering to
public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute
impartial service to the law.
- Police
use physical force to the extent necessary to secure
observance of the law or to restore order only when the
exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to
be insufficient.
- Police,
at all times, should maintain a relationship with the
public that gives reality to the historic tradition that
the police are the public and 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.
- Police
should always direct their action strictly towards their
functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the
judiciary.
The test
of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not
the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
If you
would like to comment on this issue please click
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll
Your
Comments:
Your comments
will be published on the READERS FORUM. To view
>>>
|
