London? Alternatively, is it truly a case that, statistically, men (and it is mostly men) who are black are more likely to commit street crime and thus police stop and search of such minorities are appropriate? Would even this justify the evidence that shows police officers stop and search those who are black, six times more often than those who are white?
Police officers generally stop individuals they suspect of committing, or being likely to commit, an offence. They are supposed to be equal in their treatment of those they stop and should not undertake, even subconsciously, racial profiling in order to carry out their duties. Of course, police officers are human and thus not infallible and so bring to their work (as
many people do) their own prejudices, beliefs, opinions and interpretations of society and the problems within it. Whilst in a modern, multicultural and multi ethnic society, such prejudices are expected to be minimal, the reality is that in some areas of the UK, minorities are viewed as either taking over or being given the soft treatment because of their race or ethnicity.
Police prejudices may have been normal in the past, but certainly one would hope that we have moved on as a society to accept anyone and everyone on the basis of their actions, over and above the colour of their skin or ethnic background.
Again, however, infallibility is a human trait and we cannot expect that police officers are any different. If young black men are committing more street robberies than white men, then undoubtedly they will be targeted as potential suspects by the police and subject to more rigorous policing such as stop and search.
However, is it police racism, whether overt or otherwise, which explains the higher (and apparent disproportionate) number of black men stopped by the police? Is it reflective of a society that (as some might argue) discriminates against minorities in all aspects: poor educational facilities and fewer employment prospects so that criminality becomes more attractive and an easier option for ethnic minorities? Whilst there are some who climb the corporate ladder, becoming successful lawyers, even politicians, doctors or other white collar or blue collar workers, far more are excluded from certain posts. The Race Relations Act 1975 was supposed to remove discrimination from many aspects of
society but particularly in relation to employment. As we have often seen with legislation, however, laws to combat society's perception of 'the other' do not necessarily work and, on occasion, may eventually come back and bite those who it seeks to protect.
Are police officers stopping higher numbers of young black men because they are, like society, implicitly racist? The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), when it was produced, should have stopped, or at least reduced, the number of people stopped and searched for anything other than 'reasonable suspicion' (s.1). However, reasonable suspicion, whilst legislated to be objective, rarely is: police officers interpret 'reasonable suspicion' in many ways and it is easy to find justification where there may be none. Various laws allow police officers to search those they suspect of carrying illegal substances as well as for weapons, etc. Reasonable suspicion of certain individuals may seem obvious and thus stereotyping of many may seem an obvious requirement of police work but not all black men are out on the street seeking
potential robbery victims; however, how many white old ladies are stopped and searched for drugs or weapons or items used in burglaries? It is not necessarily being put forward however that stereotypes should be ignored altogether by police officers when consideration is given to who should be targeted in stop and search procedures.
Obvious reasons for fewer numbers of old ladies (whether white or black) being stopped by police officers is that they rarely commit crimes, such as street robbery, burglary or drugs offences. Therefore, stop and search techniques which involve some form of stereotyping and/or profiling are necessary; if some method of stereotyping of the population were not undertaken then methods of policing would either have stop altogether (to avoid any claims of discrimination) or police numbers would have to rise significantly to deal with the higher number of stops required to search
everyone who 'may' carry illegal weapons/substances. Either scenario is highly impractical.
Problems arise when one group (i.e. ethnic minorities) are specifically targeted over any other without reasonable grounds and such grounds must be reasonable using an objective method. Objective reasonable grounds should not include the ethnic group to which a suspect may belong; this naturally occurs, but of course, whether consciously or not, officers utilise their experience and knowledge of offending patterns. For those police officers, such knowledge or experience can be objective reasoning and thus their stop and search practices continue to follow the pattern that young black men are stopped more frequently. If they believe that, statistically, men of certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit offences such as street robbery, then naturally they will target such groups. If an offender is intending to steal from a house (burglary), then he or she may 'go equipped' and thus any stop and search would identify this person as such; it may be of note that seven percent of those who are stopped are actually arrested.
Research has shown that whilst police officers are in fact bias to some extent, the underlying reason for their bias is the evidence stated above - that certain groups from ethnic minorities commit higher rates of offences. This research also shows that, despite the fact that there is disproportionately more stop and searches of certain ethnic groups, this is not solely attributable to police bias but the geographic and demographics of the area. Nevertheless, in analysing the Islington Crime Survey, Brian Maclean found some evidence that young black men (16-24 years) were stopped by the police more frequently than white or Asians (19.1% as against 10.9 for the same group of white men). Interestingly, however, the figures for those who were stopped and searched are relatively similar: 4.6% for black and 4.0% for white men. The figure for Asian men who were stopped only was 8.5% whilst stop and search figures are significantly lower at 1.4%. All figures relate to stops or stops and searches whilst suspects were on foot. Those in vehicles were lower still though the difference for searches of those in vehicles were
more stark than their counterpart figures for those stopped on foot (2.6% white, 7.9% black and 2.5% Asian). On the basis of these figures, it does appear that stops and searches of black men by police tend to outnumber white and Asian men, but what is not clear is whether this is reflective of the demographic area. Many areas in Islington do house greater numbers of black people than white. Another potential problem with interpreting statistical data, is lack of clarity in terms of when and where such stops took place; i.e. were the stops undertaken by police immediately following a report of a street robbery, was the time of day suspicious in that - at 2am on a Thursday morning, it may be curious to say anyone walking around and thus stopping people is not wholly unusual. Statistical analysis is always difficult particularly if one is seeking to find underlying causes as the data is often limited and structured in such a way as to provide basic information only.
However, to return to the main question - does racial
discrimination or racial attitudes affect police stop and search numbers? Is the disproportionate number of black men who experience stop and search by the police reflective of a wider society which discriminates against them (in that crime is the only option due to fewer employment opportunities) or is it geographic in that areas of higher rates of stop and search of young black men are as result of a greater number of black people residing in the area?
A combination of both factors perhaps may exist, as well as the fact that younger people generally hang around with no real purpose and/or direction more frequently than those in their thirties and forties who may go out to bars, parties, etc. If we look at age alone, figures show that those within the lower age range (16-24) are subjected to higher rates of stop and stop and searches by police officers. Those who are aged 45 or over are less likely to be
stopped by almost one fifth (5.4%) of the same group who are 16-24 years of age (24.2%), whilst only half the number are likely to be stopped if they are in middle group (aged 25-44 : 13.1%). It is worrying however that it is a general assumption that police officers are racist or that racism is endemic within the police. This is despite the assertion by Lord Macpherson that the Metropolitan Police was 'institutionally racist' (1999).
Such an assumption, backed up by Macpherson, is highly damaging to police officers all over the country, but particularly acute in cities with high numbers of ethnic minority groups (e.g. London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.). Whilst Lord Scarman had avoided such a label in the Brixton Riots Inquiry in the 1980s, Macpherson felt that Scarman's definition of overt racism was not necessarily the one which could and should be followed. Therefore, when police officers stop (or stop and search) young black men - or other young ethnic minority men - then accusations of racism are undoubtedly likely to arise. This is not to say that problems such as institutional racism, if it exists,
should be avoided or ignored; to do so would only exacerbate the problem and cause further conflict among others.
However, to solely or largely attribute such stop and search numbers as disproportionate down to racist attitudes by police officers and their institution, can cause resentment by police officers themselves. Following Macpherson's report, police integrity was obviously called into question and this can cause serious problems with morale among officers. Such low morale can result in fewer stop and search procedures being undertaken; statistical comparisons of stop and searches between 1997-98 and 1998-1999, again in 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 illustrate a drop in such procedures between 1998 and 2000 and only a slight increase in 2001. If police officers' assert that their actions are justified but are not supported by their bosses and condemned by politicians on the one hand, whilst enacting laws which create greater powers for stop and search on the other, then trust by police officers in their own status may be undermined. Recruitment may drop, early retirement may increase and levels of police officers may drop (precisely what the public do not want to see).
This is a particular problem under Labour; the Government wholeheartedly supported Macpherson's report and ordered a review of policing throughout England and Wales. Just a couple of years later, however, further laws were introduced empowering the police to make detentions based on racial profiling (due to the events of September 11th in New York and Washington); thus the Government sanctioned some form of racial discrimination for 'public protection'. Even further, many of these laws (despite opposition from some) allowed for the detention of people without trial - the Government was forced to review after the Law Lords ruled in favour of detainees who were detained (usually in Belmarsh high security prison) without trial was incompatible with human rights legislation. If this does not signify that society is confused (and those who purport to act on its behalf) as to what constitutes racism and what does not, what does? If the higher ranks of the police act in a particular way, or condone the seemingly racist attitudes of their officers (by lack of public or private condemnation) then it is not difficult to see how and why the police are considered racist, particularly by many groups of ethnic minorities.
For example, in the Macpherson report, it was specifically mentioned that the 'professional incompetence' and 'failure of leadership by senior officers' was core in the failure of the police in the Lawrence murder inquiry. So what is the institutional racism with which the Metropolitan Police were accused of? How is it defined? According to Macpherson, it is: "collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin...seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people."
Justifying actions on the basis that a particular group are more likely to partake in certain sanctioned conduct is part of the way in which we allocate resources for law and order. Of course, each side of the argument will state categorically that their position is the correct one, or that - if nothing else - the vast majority support their position and that on the whole, it is the best method of policing. Thus, Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself denied that not only were the Metropolitan Police Service not racist, but that the definition of 'institutional racism' itself was essentially indistinct and variable, that it was impossible to label any institution in such a way! Nonetheless, once the Lawrence Inquiry published it's findings, Sir Paul Condon accepted that his institution was racist and ACPO accepted the definition - almost without complaint - along with Jack Straw, then Home Secretary.
According to O'Neill and Holdaway, the only empirical evidence used to consider the question of institutional racism within police forces is the statistical data on stop and search but points out the flawed nature of such evidence (i.e. that "they are merely indicative of processes and relationships based on racialized categorization.").
If the police are institutionally racist, what can be done to reverse this apparent discriminatory attitude? Is it endemic within the police culture, or do the combined attitudes, perspectives and beliefs of individual officers mean that tackling racism has to be done on an individual basis and, if this is the case, how would such a task be undertaken? Where would one begin - at the training centre, through psychological profiling of potential recruits? One problem which may arise in 'forcing' race relations to be part of police officer culture is that it could drive the problem underground; officers may publicly denounce racism whilst forcing those they see as obtaining 'special treatment' or 'positive discrimination' into a corner from which they cannot return. Whilst this may result in a few officers being reprimanded or even forced to resign if they do not comply, many more will be left to fester their dislike in a more discreet manner. We need to address the problem on a larger scale and tackle the root causes of racism among society to reach those who - at the end of the day - grow up believing that multicultural Britain somehow means that 'white' people are no longer the 'majority' and that other ethnic groups are 'taking over'.
Police officers are representative of the society in which they police; they are not likely to be the only organisation which suffers from institutional (or any other) racism. Indeed, Jack Straw acknowledged this in his statement to the House of Commons relating to the Macpherson Report: 'In my view, any long-established, white-dominated organisation is liable to have procedures...and a culture that tend to exclude or to disadvantage non-white people...including the Home Office - and many other institutions'. Society at large discriminates - in one way or another - against groups it feels represent different values, cultures and ideals. The problem with such attitudes within the police, however, is that as a service, they operate with some autonomy and have powers available to them with which, if they so chose, could allow for racist (or other bigoted) attitudes to shine through and result in discriminatory practices. Such practices may have the affect the ethnic group to which such people belong to in terms of their views and feelings towards the police officers who police them, but also against the systems which are there for their protection (i.e. the criminal justice system). Such anti-establishment feeling is unlikely to be removed by simple denials of racism but institutions which have - for them - been disproportionately targeting them over and above others purely on the basis of skin colour or ethnic background.
For example, research undertaken in Norway shows how police officers' actions can be perceived as racist, whilst at the same time allowing for other factors behind their stop and search procedures. Sollund makes the argument (and follows with examples) that although race may play a factor, other reasons come into play when police officers decide to perform stop and searches. Further, the examples illustrate that aggression and/or frustration on both sides (i.e. from the police and the person stopped) can exacerbate an already tense situation so that what may have been a routine stop '...escalate[s] so dramatically'. Here, the black male driver was in a BMW vehicle, known by the police to be a target for thieves; the driver was in a hurry to get to work and so may have appeared agitated (though So
llund points out that he was stopped at a stop sign and so was not driving at that point). Of more interest, however, is that mention is made of police checking the licence plate and finding that the driver had been stopped before, thus raising the possibility that the police felt justified in performing a further stop. It is therefore a combination of these factors which precipitated the stop itself; the driver's irritation due to a lack of information as to the reasons behind the stop itself may have exacerbated the situation so that the end result was a violent confrontation between the [white] police officers and the [black] driver. Sollund does not take either side at face value, nor are attempts made to justify one parties' actions over and above the other; what Sollund does do is put forward arguments which illustrate each actor's perspective and thus provide subjective and objective interpretation for all those involved. Racist commentary was used by one officer, but whether this was based on personal racism, or just a tactic to illicit an aggressive response to justify the stop itself, is unknown; it would be doubtful if this would be a tactic unknown to police officers all over the world, whatever the race or even gender of the suspected person.
It could be argued that police officers are biased towards individuals and groups of individuals no more or less than any other institution which operates control and/or power over others. The armed forces have also suffered accusations of racism and sexism for decades; clubs which operate 'private members' have often been accused of being sexist for only allowing male members and being class-based. The particular problem for the police, however, is that their very essence, their very existence requires them to be discriminatory in terms of who they target and when, how, where and why they do so. The police force has traditionally - and in many ways has to remain - responsive to crime (i.e. reactionary, rather than proactively) in order to ensure their resources are not so stretched as to avoid collapse. Legislation to which they operate requires them to use discretion and a method of profiling (whether on the grounds of race, gender, class, etc.) to ensure that those who are likely to have offended, or who may offend, are targeted.
Some research into the reasons why police officers undertake stops and precisely who they target raises interesting notions of both police bias towards ethnic groups, but equally towards particular age groups. Officers' reasons for stops were related to the appearance, including age, dress, vehicle and ethnicity (though only in some cases was ethnicity given); location and time of the person(s), behaviour of the person(s) and any information the officers had available as to local problems/criminals. Further, the research summarises that although in some cases, young black men may be disproportionately stopped by police officers, they could, in some areas and at certain times, be under-represented in stops by officers. The same research claims that white people are in fact over-represented in stops by police officers. Asian people on the whole were less likely than either black, or white, people to be stopped though there were 'some exceptions'.
Thus, depending on research undertaken, and perhaps the questions posed to both officers and those subject to stops by them, ethnic minorities may face no more, or less, bias by police officers when it comes to stop and search procedures.
There is little doubt that officers' perception, though subjective, relies upon local intelligence; people who are involved in criminal activities need to be targeted specifically over those who are not involved (or those who are not likely to become involved) and that automatically generates a form of profiling. Building profiles of people inevitably involves their ethnicity, though it obviously should not solely be on that basis. If reports of robberies come in and officers' radio calls state that a young black male is the perpetrator, then immediately it is obvious that young white males will not be targeted. Where would or should officers draw the line as to what people they ought to stop? If police officers began to question everyone with whom they came into contact with, not only would their senior ranks decry the waste of limited resources, but the public would respond with apoplexy. Thus, society as a whole requires the police to discriminate against certain individuals - one only has to look at how the public have responded to youths who 'hang around the
streets' whereas decades ago, nothing more than a slight nuisance would have been attached to them, we now target them as being the bane of decent folks' lives.
Antisocial Behavioural Orders (ASBOs) have been issued in many cities and towns across the UK to target 'antisocial behaviour' which can simply consist of a group of youths - bored - standing around perhaps being a little too exuberant in their discussions. Indeed, legislation has been introduced to ensure that, where a group of two or more youths are congregating, they can be dispersed by the police. Though it is not related to race, but age, this is only one example of discriminatory methods used against a particular group; there are other groups of people who tend to have a particular ethnic origin - gypsies or travellers (i.e. who generally are Irish or of Irish descent) and who are targeted by police and the authorities as being unwanted and undesired. For instance, s.61 and s.62 of Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 allows for police officers to order people to leave land if reasonable grounds exist for the officer to believe such people (who generally are travellers) are residing there illegally and causing damage. Penalties include terms of up to three months' custody. There is little doubt that antisocial behaviour legislation may also be utilised for this group of people.
Over and above these groups, further legislation has been brought in that implicitly enables the police and security services to utilise racial profiling, and thus racial discrimination, of Muslims/Islamists to enable the greater public protection against terrorism in the wake of September 11th events in the USA and the July 7th and 21st attacks in London as it is highly likely that only 'Muslims' will be targeted as the only group likely to target the UK on behalf of, or because of affiliation to, Al-Qaeda (such as the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006). Legislation used against suspected terrorists has been subject to controversy and cited as being in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights Thus it is difficult to see how some form of discrimination is not utilised by police officers - on behalf of the State - whether due to their colour (i.e. Black people), their perceived religion (Middle-Eastern or African/Asian people), or their lifestyle/culture (such as Irish travellers/gypsies).
Society, therefore, as a whole plays a part in allowing racism to become and remain endemic within itself. Government legitimatises repression in one form or another by introducing laws which, even though not specifically stated, target people from particular ethnic origins, age, culture or social class. When stated over and over, such discrimination allows the general population to feel that their concerns over 'others' because the Government has allowed such discrimination to fester in its attempts to eradicate criminality in whichever form it feels needs priority at any particular time. If and when, therefore, young black men (or institutions representing such minority groups) claim racism, it is seen by many as an excuse to remove responsibility for criminal actions which, if they were white, would not be dismissed quite so readily.
Thus, political parties such as the National Front or the British National Party claim that to end such problems, curbs should be made on immigration levels. Whilst publicly condemning such organisations as being racist, or fascist, the Government may in fact be assisting such a wave of anti-ethnic minority feeling as it tells of
tolerance for all generally, but then makes legislation targeting specific ethnic groups and labelling them as 'potential' criminals or terrorists. It is not surprising, therefore, that organisations which act on behalf of the Government in terms of law enforcement are accused of racism when they use racial profiling to meet the expectation that anti-terrorism laws are being utilised and that action is being taken to 'reduce crime' perpetrated by specific groups (i.e. youths, street robbers and burglary to name but three). It is difficult to fully attribute any over-representation of black and other ethnic minority groups in stop (or stop and search) policing methods to racism - institutional or otherwise. There are undoubtedly other factors: if a person is known to be either associated directly, or indirectly, with known criminals; if a person has a criminal record and/or has been in prison. Such factors will encourage police officers to stop such people if they see them walking or driving around, even if they have legitimate and reasonable rights to do so.
Targeting people because of prior criminal history is not unusual and one would suspect that the public at large would expect officers to do so. Targeting people due to racial or ethnic background is more difficult to justify however; even if that person has a
criminal record, any stop by the police is likely to result in accusations of racism. Officers who conduct such stops ought to try a little harder to understand the background to which racism accusations are based and approach each stop (whether of a white or black person) in a considerate and fair, albeit firm, manner. Respect is reciprocal and each actor involved in such scenarios ought to be prepared to give and take; slightly lower levels of aggression, a positive but sedate posture and no doubt a little less authoritarian attitude may result in a lower levels of aggressive responses from those who are stopped. A whole new experience of mutual understanding and even empathy of each person's perspective may mean more positive experiences for young ethnic minority males which in turn would result in a less stressful and less accusatory position of the officers.
Thus, in essence, the extent to which police racism can be attributed to the apparent disproportionate overrepresentation of black people, particularly young black men, in stop and search statistics is truly difficult to state. In some cases, and in particular
individual instances, there is undoubtedly an element of racism when officers stop and search certain people, whether overtly conducted or not. To attribute each stop and search of a young black male as being racially motivated, however, is not only false and harmful, but discriminatory in itself. Officers may have subtle prejudices which may affect their judgement when considering whether or not to stop certain people, but they are not always related necessarily to ethnic status. It is far more probable that officers stop those people they feel match descriptions of offenders or suspects and those who are of certain ethnic groups may be more likely to meet such criteria. Whether this is determined by society as a whole, by Governments and/or by police officers themselves is something far more difficult to state but it inevitably is an argument which will rarely be out of the limelight.
'Race and the Criminal Justice System: An overview to the complete statistics 2004-2005'. Published by the Home Office. November 1996. 'Profiling Populations Available for Stop and Searches' Miller, J. Police Research Series Paper No. 131. Published by the Home Office in 2000. 'Left realism, local crime surveys and policing of racial minorities' Maclean, B. Crime, Law & Social Change Journal. Vol 19. Printed in The Nederlands in 1993. 'The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of An Inquiry' by Sir William Macpherson (Published by The Stationery Office in 1999). 'Policing, Race and Racism' Rowe, M. Published by Wiley in 2004. 'Institutional Racism After Macpherson: An Analysis of Police Views' O'Neill, M & Holdaway, S. Policing & Society Journal. Vol. 16(4). 'Racialisation in Police Stop and Search Practice - The Norwegian Case' Sullund, R. Critical Criminology Journal. Vol.14. 'Police Stops and Searches: Lessons from a Programme of Research' Miller, J, Quinton, P & Bland, N. Home Office Briefing Note. Police Research Papers Series: 127-132 (September 2000). Antisocial Behaviour, etc Act 2003 (Published by HMSO - 2003) Antisocial Behaviour, etc (Scotland) Act 2004 (Published by HMSO - 2004) BBC Websites (News articles).
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1003866
0 Comments