The Racist Practices - Essay Example

?Discretion in the stop and search context have come under much scrutiny as it has widely been linked to racist practices. Discuss Introduction One of the most controversial strategies adopted in policing to prevent crime in the local community has been the introduction of the practice of stop and search, by which the police officers are given the discretion to stop individuals and search them for a variety of reasons. It was introduced with the objective of tackling crime and anti social behaviour in the local community and preventing more severe crimes from occurring. In Britain, police officers are empowered to stop and search citizens under a wide range of legislative acts and the power. Although stop and search normally happens in public places, it may also be implemented in certain private areas. However, police discretion to stop and search individuals in public has become one of the most contentious aspects of British policing, and several empirical researches, anecdotal evidences, and survey data point to the ineffective and discriminatory use of the police powers. Significantly, the question of police powers to stop and search people has become one of the central questions in the debate about the relationship between police and community. Most notably, discretion in the stop and search context give rise to several related issues including racist practices and it remains a bare fact that Black people are more likely to be stopped than White people. As Bowling and Phillips (2007) maintain, “the statistics show that the use of the powers against black people is disproportionate and that this is an indication of unlawful racial discrimination. If stop and search powers cannot be electively regulated – and it seems that they cannot – then their continued use is unjustified and should be curtailed.”1 Therefore, it is fundamental to establish that discretion in the stop and search context has come under much scrutiny as it has widely been linked to racist practices. This paper makes a reflective exploration of the use of discretion in the stop and search in relation to racist practices. Discretion in the Stop and Search and Racist Practices The fundamental relationship among the concepts of ethnicities, racism, crime, and criminal justice has been widely acknowledged in the various empirical studies in criminology. Significantly, the modern strategies of police and policing affect the minority communities and ethnic groups. Ever since the beginning of post-colonial migration to the U.K., the relationship between policing and minority ethnic communities have been characterised by mistrust, resentment, and suspicion. As Whitefield (2004) maintains, the anti-immigrant attitudes and insensitive policing of the early years of post-colonial migration developed ‘mistrust, resentment, and suspicion’ between the police and minority ethnic communities. For example, the West Indian Standing Conference report by Hunte (1966) draws attention to police officers going “nigger hunting … to bring in coloured person at all costs.” 2 Significantly, oppressive policing against African, Caribbean, and Asian communities takes the form of mass stop and search operations, the improper use of paramilitary methods, disproportionate surveillance, groundless armed raids, etc. “Among the various aspects of the relationship between the police and minority ethnic communities, it is the practice of ‘stop and search’ that has been the most contentious.” 3 Therefore, police discretion in the stop and search context has given rise to heated debates in criminal justice seeing that it has widely been linked to racist practices. First of all, it is essential to realise what ‘stop and search’ exactly means and what are the various contexts in which the police discretion in the stop and search is applicable. According to the Vagrancy Act of 1824, any individual in suspicious context could be arrested and prosecuted by the police, and there are evidences to establish that this discretionary power of the police has been used extensively and arbitrarily to the black communities in the nation. The ‘sus’ law was abolished on account of the mounting allegations of insensitive and discriminatory policing in connection with stop and search, especially after the mass stop and search operation called Operation Swamp. “After the abolition of ‘sus’ a new provision, section I of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), permitted an officer to stop and search someone where he or she has ‘reasonable suspicion’ of wrongdoing. However, allegations that minority ethnic groups were being targeted persisted and when the first ‘ethnically coded’ statistics on the use of PACE, section I, were published, a clear picture of disproportionality was revealed, a pattern that persists this day.”4 Therefore, the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) provide the police officers with statutory powers to stop and search individuals with suspicious background and this practice has undergone serious debates. Significantly, the police officers are empowered to stop and search by numerous legislative instruments. One of the primary purposes of the statutory powers given under the PACE Code of Practice is “to enable officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising their power of arrest.” 5 In a careful investigation of the legal powers to stop and search, it becomes lucid that the Section 1 of PACE lists out the various provisions or statutory powers offered to the police officers. According to this Code of Practice, police constables can stop and search a person or a vehicle in public places, on condition that the person has reasonable grounds of suspicion. However, the question of what makes reasonable grounds of suspicion is not an easy one, and this obscurity provides the police officers on the street with a wide range of discretion. “A list of powers of stop and search requiring ‘reasonable suspicion’ to which Code A is given as the Annex to the Code, and includes searching for firearms, controlled drugs, poaching equipment and evidence of wildlife offences… Code A tries to explain, in everyday language, various aspects of statutory stop and search powers.” 6 Therefore, it is crucial to recognise that the Section 1 of PACE as well as Annex to the Code A provides detailed description about the powers of stop and search requiring ‘reasonable suspicion’. However, the question of what makes reasonable grounds of suspicion remains confusing and obscure, although an important statement of principle in Code A maintains that the powers to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly and without unlawful discrimination of the people being searched.7 One of the essential questions concerning the statutory powers of police officers to stop and search is whether the discretion of the police officers will correspond to the concepts of accountability and legitimacy of policing. It is important to recognise that a fundamental factor contributing to the use of statutory powers by the police as a means of racial discrimination and racist practices is the lack of clarity regarding what makes reasonable grounds of suspicion. There is a general consensus among the scholars in criminology that the use of discretion by the police, especially in cases of stop and search, is one of the most contentious concepts in criminal justice, because such discretionary powers are used as a means of racist practices. The critics of such discretionary powers to police officers claim that the use of discretion is not benign and the exercise of discretion many often turns out to be tools of tyranny, injustices and arbitrariness. Significantly, the police practice in relation to stop and search is one of the most important settings and arenas of criminal justice decision today. “Powers of stop and search, and of arrest and detention, represent considerable legal power. Maintaining proper accountability whilst also enabling police officers to make appropriate decisions in relation to the diverse incidents with which they deal is a complex task…” 8 Therefore, it is essential to maintain that the use of discretion regarding stop and search makes the police officers fragile to the chances of using the statutory powers as a means of racial discrimination and racist practices. An analysis of the discretion in the stop and search in relation to racist practices takes one naturally to the question of racial profiling, which has acquired the most attention from social scientists, legal scholars and public policy makers. The anecdotal and empirical evidences in relation to the stop and search practice have contributed to the awareness among the state and local activists, community members, and governmental officers about the issues of racial profiling. The police officers exercise a great deal of individual discretion all through the different areas of their daily routine, such as the traffic stops. Significantly, the complexities of police discretion has made an important contribution to the origin of racial profiling, because there are no specific, formal, written standards of how to use their discretion. Whereas various factors affect a police officer’s decision to stop and search individuals, it is mainly done on the basis of high- and low- discretion realms. In the low-discretion realm, the officer’s decision not to make a stop is limited, whereas his decision to stop individuals in high-discretion realms is based on his experience in the field. “These high-discretion stops invite both intentional and unintentional abuses. Police are just as subject to the racial and ethnic stereotypes they learn from our culture as any other citizen.”9 (Muffler, 65) One of the major factors affecting the intentional and unintentional abuses against the minorities and ethnic groups is racial profiling. In fact, profiling individuals on the basis of racial and ethnic stereotypes can bring about extensive use of the discretion in the stop and search in relation to racist practices. The use of criteria such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc as a formalised scientific method of determining the probable behaviour of people belonging to a particular population is absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, the questions of racial profiling are basic issues affecting the use of discretion in the stop and search resulting in racist practices. “The broad powers to stop and search without grounds, coupled with institutional bias have frequently been criticised for demonstrating police prejudice, and ethnic minorities and young people are over-represented in the so-called random process.”10 A profound review of the available research and statistical information on police powers regarding stop and search helps one in realising the extensive abuse of these statutory powers as a means of racist practices. Most essentially the disproportionate use of stop and search powers has come under scrutiny in the recent years, due mainly to the results of empirical research, anecdotal evidences, and survey data relating to the abuse of police powers to stop and search. The disproportionate use of stop and search in relation to the police powers refers to disparity and discrepancy in the application of these powers to different ethnic groups in place of a neutral criterion. In a profound investigation of the factors affecting the disproportionate use of stop and search, it becomes palpable that racism and racial prejudice in the police service contribute heavily to such disproportionate use of police powers. As the research evidences suggest, racial prejudice in the police service is not limited by rank and it is not a mere artefact of the past. According to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, “racial discrimination, both direct and indirect, and harassment are endemic within our society and the police service is no exception . . . There was continuing evidence during the Inspection of inappropriate language and behaviour by police officers, but even more worrying was the lack of intervention by sergeants and inspectors.” 11 Therefore, it is important to recognise that racial prejudice in the police service is a clear reflection of the racism inherent in the wider society. As William Macpherson explains, institutional racism has a wide reach in the social setting and it creates general attitudes and behaviour towards ethnic groups and minorities. “In the police service there is a distinct tendency for officers to stereotype people. That creates problems in a number of areas, but particularly in the way officers deal with black people. Discrimination and unfairness are the result.”12 In short, racism and racial prejudice in the police service is a mere reflection of the social attitudes and behaviour, and it contributes heavily to disproportionate use of police powers with regard to stop and search. Another fundamental element of understanding disparity in police use of stop and search powers is the relationship among stereotyping, suspicion, and discrimination in the use of discretionary powers. Research evidences relating to disparity in police use of stop and search powers point to the essential relationship between police stereotypes, suspicion and the use of discretion. As Bowling and Phillips (2007) purport, cultural stereotyping and the ‘heightened suspicion’ of black people contribute mainly to the disproportionate use of police stop/search powers. “The pattern of disproportionate use of police stop/search powers is consistent with patterns of selective enforcement based on cultural stereotyping and the ‘heightened suspicion’ of black people.”13 Therefore, due to the prejudiced and indiscreet assumptions by the police officers black people are generally stereotyped as potential criminals and injustice and discrimination against these people follow. It is essential to maintain, at this point, that, whatever may be the reasons, the stop and search practice is influenced by racial bias and news reports also maintain that controversial stop-and-search tactics of the police chiefs in London are obviously racist. “A report by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) claims the practice is ‘influenced by racial bias’. It said black people were four times more likely to be stopped than white people and urged work with communities for a more ‘intelligence led approach’.”14 Conclusion In a profound investigation of the stop-and-search tactics of the police, it becomes lucid that the research evidences on the topic establish that stop and search practice continues to be influenced by racial bias. It has been widely acknowledged in empirical studies on the basis of research evidences, anecdotal evidences, and survey data that stop-and-search practices by which police officers are given categorical discretion to stop and search are used as an instrument of racist practices. In other words, discretion in the stop and search context has come under much scrutiny as it has widely been linked to racist practices. This paper undertook a reflective exploration of the use of discretion in the stop and search in relation to racist practices, and the research evidences prove that discretion in stop and search ultimately results in racial discrimination and racist practices. Therefore, it is fundamental that the concerned authorities including the Home Office adopt strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of stop and search and to deal with the issues related to racist practices. Another effective way to deal with these issues is to make the general public aware of their rights concerning the practice, through community groups, etc. Since police discretion to stop and search individuals in public has become one of the most contentious aspects of British policing, it is the responsibility of the authorities to adopt measures that strengthen the relationship between police and every type of community, ethnic groups, and minorities. Works Cited Bowling, Ben and Coretta Phillips. “Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence on Police Stop and Search.” The Modern Law Review Limited. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Vol. 70. Iss. 6. Pp 936-961. Canton, Rob and Tina Eadie. “Accountability, Legitimacy, and Discretion: Applying Criminology in Professional Practice.” Applied Criminology. Brian Stout, et al. (Ed). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 2008. P 94. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. Stamping Out Rights: The Impact of Anti-Terrorism Laws on Policing. CHRI 2007 Report. 2007. P 31. Cownie, Fiona, et.al. English Legal System in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. P 13. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Winning the Race: Policing Plural Communities: HMIC Thematic Inspection Report on Police Community and Race Relations. London: Home Office. 1997. Home Office. “Code of Practice for the Exercise by Police Officers of Statutory Powers of Stop and Search, Code A.” London: Home Office. 2005. Hunte, J. Nigger Hunting in England? London: West Indian Standing Conference. 1966. P 12. Macpherson, William. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: Home Office. 1999. P 32. Muffler, Steven J. Racial Profiling: Issues, Data, and Analyses. New York: Nova Publishers, Inc. 2006. P 65. Phillips, Coretta and Ben Bowling. “Ethnicities, Racism, and Criminal Justice.” The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Mike Maguire, et al. (Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. P 434. “Stop-and-Search ‘Racism’ Must End.” BBC News. 2004. 13 Mar. 2011. . Whitefield, J. Unhappy Dialogue: The Metropolitan Police and Black Londoners in Post-War Britain. Cullompton, Devon: Wilan. 2004. Read More