Policing in Smart Societies: Reflections on the Abstract Police (Palgrave's Critical Policing Studies) 3030836843, 9783030836849

Citation preview

Policing in Smart Societies Reflections on the Abstract Police Edited by Antoinette Verhage Marleen Easton Sofie De Kimpe

Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies Series Editors Elizabeth Aston School of Applied Sciences Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh, UK Michael Rowe Department of Social Sciences Newcastle City Campus Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

In a period where police and academics benefit from coproduction in research and education, the need for a critical perspective on key challenges is pressing. Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies is a series of high quality, research-based books which examine a range of cutting-edge challenges and developments to policing and their social and political contexts. They seek to provide evidence-based case studies and high quality research, combined with critique and theory, to address fundamental challenging questions about future directions in policing. Through a range of formats including monographs, edited collections and short form Pivots, this series provides research at a variety of lengths to suit both academics and practitioners. The series brings together new topics at the forefront of policing scholarship but is also organised around who the contemporary police are, what they do, how they go about it, and the ever-changing external environments which bear upon their work. The series will cover topics such as: the purpose of policing and public expectations, public health approaches to policing, policing of cyber-­ crime, environmental policing, digital policing, social media, Artificial Intelligence and big data, accountability of complex networks of actors involved in policing, austerity, public scrutiny, technological and social changes, over-policing and marginalised groups, under-policing and corporate crime, institutional abuses, policing of climate change, ethics, workforce, education, evidence-based policing, and the pluralisation of policing. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/16586

Antoinette Verhage Marleen Easton  •  Sofie De Kimpe Editors

Policing in Smart Societies Reflections on the Abstract Police

Editors Antoinette Verhage Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP) Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Faculty of Law & Criminology, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium

Marleen Easton Department of Public Governance and Management Chair Research Group ‘Governing and Policing Security’ Ghent University Ghent, Belgium

Sofie De Kimpe Research Group Crime and Society (CriS), Faculty of Law and Criminology Department of Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Brussel, Belgium

ISSN 2730-535X     ISSN 2730-5368 (electronic) Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies ISBN 978-3-030-83684-9    ISBN 978-3-030-83685-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgments/Note from the Editors (Verhage, De Kimpe, Easton)

This book is the result of a long-developed cooperation between the three editors. As women in police studies in Belgium, we often cross roads. Sometimes these roads cross in the framework of the Center for Policing and Security (CPS), sometimes in other settings and circumstances. But it is always a pleasure. As a result of these crossroads, and the discussions they bring about, we decided to organize a conference on the abstract police, an ideal type developed by Terpstra, Fyfe and Salet, in the unique occasion of the organization of the European Society of Criminology in Ghent in 2019. In a second phase, insights arising from this conference are now written down in this book, which for us is the illustration of a fruitful cooperation. We are very thankful to the authors of the chapters for being willing to write down their presentations, even in the midst of the COVID-circumstances. However, two other women have given input for this book. First of all, Nathalie Roegiers, secretary of the CPS, made the organization of the conference into a successful gathering. Secondly, Haike Vandenabeele, trainee at the research group Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), has tied everything together administratively. Thank you both for your hard work!

v

vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/NOTE FROM THE EDITORS (VERHAGE, DE KIMPE…

And finally, thanks to the publisher of this book, Palgrave Macmillan and everyone involved in the publishing process, for guiding us with patience and positivity. To the reader: we hope that you will enjoy this book and look forward to discussing it with you in the future! The Editors Antoinette Verhage  Sofie De Kimpe  Marleen Easton

Contents

 Introducing Policing in Smart Cities: Reflections on the Abstract Police  1 Sofie De Kimpe, Marleen Easton, and Antoinette Verhage  Abstract Police Organisations: Distantiation, Decontextualisation and Digitalisation  9 Jan Terpstra, Renze Salet, and Nicholas R. Fyfe  Reflections on the Abstract Police Using the Perspective of Ideal-Types 27 Marleen Easton  Technology and Police Legitimacy 43 Elizabeth Aston, Helen Wells, Ben Bradford, and Megan O’Neill  Plural Policing and the Abstract Police 69 Megan O’Neill  We Need Discretion? Police Decisions and the Limits of Do the Law 87 Antoinette Verhage

vii

viii 

Contents

 The Abstract Police: An Exploration of the Concept in the Belgian Local Police109 Yinthe Feys Index133

Notes on Contributors

Elizabeth  Aston  is Associate Professor of Criminology at Edinburgh Napier University and the Director of the Scottish Institute for Policing Research. Her research focuses on local policing and in 2020 she was appointed by the Scottish Government to Chair an Independent Advisory Group on Emerging Technologies in Policing. Ben Bradford  is Professor of Global City Policing at University College London and Director of the Jill Dando Institute for Global City Policing. His research interests include public trust, police legitimacy, cooperation and compliance in justice settings, and social identity as a factor in all these processes. Sofie  De  Kimpe is Professor of Criminology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and member of the Crime & Society research group (CRiS). Her main research expertise is (qualitative and ethnographic) research in police and policing. She is chair of the EU Cost Action POLICE STOPS and an active member of the Flemish Centre of Policing and Security. Marleen  Easton  is a professor and head of the UGent research group ‘Governing and Policing Security’ (GaPS) and adjunct professor at the Griffith Criminology Institute. She is presiding the Belgian Innovation Network for Security (vzw Iungos) and is an active member of the Flemish Centre for Policing and Security. Yinthe Feys  is a PhD researcher at Ghent University. Her mixed-­methods research focuses on the (ethical) decision-making processes of Belgian, ix

x 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

local police officers. She has also collaborated on a research project concerning police accountability and a UNDP project concerning the legislative framework over internal security forces. She previously worked as a researcher for the Flemish Government, focusing on projects related to ethnicity. Nicholas R. Fyfe  is professor and Vice Principal for Research at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, and was previously the Director of the Scottish Institute for Policing Research. He has written extensively on police reform and is co-editor of Centralizing Forces? Comparative Perspectives on Contemporary Police Reform in Northern and Western Europe. Megan  O’Neill is a reader in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Dundee and an Associate Director of the Scottish Institute for Policing Research (SIPR). Her work focuses on aspects of police culture, public sector pluralization in policing and surveillance practices of the state. Renze Salet  is Assistant Professor of Criminology in the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands) Jan Terpstra  is Emeritus Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. His research and publications mainly focus on the functioning of the police, social safety and security policy. Antoinette  Verhage is Associate Professor of Criminology at Ghent University (Belgium) and a member of the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP). Her research and teaching activities focus on police and policing, integrity and deontology. Helen Wells  is Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Keele, where she previously completed her PhD. She specializes in research into roads policing and police use of technology. She is founder and director of the Roads Policing Academic Network.

Introducing Policing in Smart Cities: Reflections on the Abstract Police Sofie De Kimpe, Marleen Easton, and Antoinette Verhage

Abstract  In this book, the editors have brought together papers that reflect upon recent changes in police organizations and organizational police culture, from the point of view of a conceptual model: the abstract police. All authors participated in the pre-conference ‘Street policing in a smart society’ that took place in September 2019 (preceding the 2019 European Society of Criminology in Ghent, Belgium). In this preconference, changes impacting upon police work and police organizations were discussed and set against the abstractization of policing. This book is a

S. De Kimpe (*) Research Group Crime and Society (CriS), Faculty of Law and Criminology, Department of Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussel, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] M. Easton Department of Public Governance and Management, Chair Research Group ‘Governing and Policing Security’, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_1

1

2 

S. DE KIMPE ET AL.

reflection of these discussions and discusses not only the abstract police but also the use of ideal types in police models, technology, plural policing, discretion, and police decision-making in relation to abstractization of policing. Keywords  Introduction • Abstract police • Preconference ESC • Street policing The police and policing services face increasing challenges as our society has been evolving toward a more complex, diverse, enhanced, and digital (in short, smart) society in which technology and digital evolutions play a crucial role. Societal changes imply and require changes in police and policing, yet adapting to these fast-changing contexts is not as easy as it may seem. International literature shows that the police are ‘by nature’ a difficult organization to change, which might suggest that the police are not adapting to the induced smart society. Loftus (Loftus, 2008), for example, explains that adaptations remain mostly surface-level changes, which do not change the intrinsic nature of police forces. Police culture, in her view, is therefore still associated with cynicism, suspicion, machismo, and a crime-fighting mindset. Others, often from a more managerial perspective, state that we do see important oscillations in police organizations all over the world in general and in Western European countries in particular. These changes are set up with a view on effectiveness and efficiency (in many cases accompanied by a centralization of police services). The question arises: How are smart societies changing the police? What is changing within the police organization? What is the impact of these changes on ‘policing’? Aiming to understand more ‘in depth’ what is going on in the process of change within the world of police and policing, Terpstra, Fyfe, and Salet

A. Verhage Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Faculty of Law & Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]

  INTRODUCING POLICING IN SMART CITIES: REFLECTIONS… 

3

(Terpstra et al., 2018) introduced the concept of ‘abstract police’. In this concept, they try to grasp the variety of recent changes in police organizations within one clear common denominator: a process of abstractization. This publication inspired us to explore what this concept could mean for police practice and science and to detect whether the abstract police are also developing in other nation states. The idea for a pre-conference (preceding the annual conference of the European Society of Criminology in 2019) on policing was born. This book is the reference work of the pre-conference ‘Street policing in a smart society’, organized as a pre-conference of the ESC working group on policing,1 on September 18, 2019. The aim of the conference was to initiate a debate on ‘abstract police’, as a possible concept to explain the impact of past (sometimes managerial) transformations of national police organizations and societal developments. The concept of abstract police was introduced by its founding authors to provoke our thinking and reflection on the consequences and outcomes of current changes in the police organization. We tried to approach this concept from different perspectives, for example, police culture, gender, technology, or plural policing. The conference generated a very fruitful debate on the meaning and the use of this concept for future research or analysis. Not all papers of this conference were published in this book, but we found several authors willing to contribute. As explained, the idea for this conference was induced by a paper of Jan Terpstra, Nicholas R. Fyfe, and Renze Salet, titled The Abstract Police: A Conceptual Exploration of Unintended Changes of Police Organisations (2018). In the first chapter of this book, the authors explore their ideal typical concept of the abstract police further. The authors argue that during the past decade (since 2013), changes within the police of Scotland and the Netherlands might have generated some unintended changes in the police organization. According to them, the police in both countries have made a shift toward a fundamentally different kind of organization: the ‘abstract police’. The increasing abstract character resulted in changes in the internal and external relations of the police. They stipulate that the police have become more at a distance, more impersonal and formal, less direct, and more decontextualized. The abstract police are less dependent on personal knowledge of officer(s), as this is increasingly being replaced 1  In cooperation with CPS ((Flemish) Centre of Policing and Security) and SIPR (Scottish Institute for Policing Research)

4 

S. DE KIMPE ET AL.

by ‘system knowledge’ within rigid systems, framed within the ‘logic’ and categorizations of computer data systems (Ericson & Haggerty, 1997 as cited in Terpstra et al., 2019). Citizens and communities became more at a distance. Gradual and long-term processes may have similar consequences. They argue that it may be expected that the increasingly abstract character of the police may also be found elsewhere. In their contribution, they reflect upon the reactions at the conference and develop the concept of abstract police further. Marleen Easton, author of the second chapter, challenges this concept. In her chapter, she argues that defining abstract police as an ideal type using empirical findings is limited to giving a description of current practices. Easton states that ideal types often project a wanted police model and type of policing when used in police models, while abstract police are a reflection of the practices today. She thinks that the discussion can be enriched by linking observations to existing ideal types/police models that were developed on the basis of earlier police research. This would also allow including positive and negative evolutions in the uptake of technology by the police. One of the drivers of the unintended consequences that increase the abstractness of the police is the incorporation and increasing use of technology in the police and policing. Elizabeth Aston, Helen Wells, Ben Bradford, and Megan O’Neill approach the concept of ‘abstract police’ by raising questions on the impact of the expansion of technologically on street-level policing. They start from the finding that despite a significant and growing emphasis on these issues in various academic literatures (e.g., Bradford et  al., 2020; Ferguson, 2017; Nikolovska et  al., 2020), the impact of technological shifts on police officers and the way they think about and do their job, and, particularly, the effect of the expansion of technologically mediated contact on police legitimacy remain largely unexplored. In their chapter, they explore some of these issues through a consideration of the use of mobile devices by police and public. What internal challenges should be considered for police organizations? What is the effect of the expansion of technologically mediated interactions, via the use of mobile communication devices, on public perceptions of legitimacy? They argue that while there is a large volume of work linking procedural justice in face-to-face interactions to legitimacy, we know surprisingly little about how this operates in an online sphere. Employing the concept of the ‘abstract police’ (Terpstra et al., 2019), their chapter considers the potential impact of technology on the police and the public

  INTRODUCING POLICING IN SMART CITIES: REFLECTIONS… 

5

and will conceptualize legitimacy as dialogic and relational (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). The chapter argues that embracing aspects of organizational justice adds to the utility of Bottoms and Tankebe’s (2012) thesis as it can be used to examine power-holder and audience legitimacy, both internally within police organizations and externally between the police and the public. Megan O’Neill examines the implications of the ‘abstract police’ trend for plural policing in Europe. She denounces the absence of the possible impact of the role of the private sector and other policing actors in the process toward a more abstract police. Policing in some countries, England and Wales in particular, relies to a large extent on private sector involvement (a component of neo-liberal policymaking; see, e.g., Van Steden & De Waard, 2013) as well as on a pluralization of its own provision. In her chapter she explores the ‘abstract police’ concept in more detail, and she describes some of the main features of pluralization in policing and then postulates what the outcome might be as these two systems interact. The ‘abstract police’ thesis, as described by Terpstra et al. (2019), focuses on the influence of rationalization as one of the main drivers for change. O’Neil argues that the role of neoliberalism, which may be an equally significant driver of change, has been overlooked here. It is through a consideration of pluralized policing that the importance of neoliberalism in the changes that the ‘abstract police’ is intended to identify becomes more apparent. Antoinette Verhage describes the impact of abstractization on the level of discretion. She starts from the reflection by Terpstra and colleagues upon the evolution of discretion. They state that policing has evolved from a street-level bureaucracy to a system-level bureaucracy. This would also imply a decrease of the amount of discretion that police officers dispose of, as it is now ‘the computer that says no’. In her chapter, she reflects upon the extent to which discretion exists in Belgium, what the link is with police dismissal, and how much decisive power (street) police officers actually have today. As such, the Belgian view on discretion is discussed, and the pros and cons of discretion for policing and for society are mapped. This leads her to conclude by referring to the impact of abstractization and technology on discretion. In Yinthe Feys’ chapter, we can read how the concept of abstract police can serve as an ‘ideal type’ to explore the abstractness of a national police system or organization, in this case Belgium’s. Based on former research on police decision-making, the author explores to which extent such an

6 

S. DE KIMPE ET AL.

abstractization can be found within the Belgian local police. Although we need to consider that this research has a limited representativeness, only three local police forces were involved in the research, we can presume that there are fundamental differences between the local police in Belgium and the national-oriented police forces in Scotland and the Netherlands. The Belgian police system is far more locally embedded, whereby police officers experience their internal as well as external contacts or relations as quite direct, informal, and personal. Compared to the study of Terpstra et al. (2019), the Belgian local police are considered to be less abstract. The author closes with the reflection that COVID-19 might change this situation as sanitary restrictions in the organization result in less personal contact between police officers and in more distance between police and the citizens. The enforcement of the corona regulations may put pressure on the bond between police officers and citizens as the latter perceive these regulations as unfair or unjustified. This combination of reflections on the abstract police shows that the concept serves perfectly as a means to discuss police and policing in the current, smart, societies that we live in today. We hope that it will also give the reader inspiration to reflect upon changes and evolutions in their own police system and society.

References Bottoms, A.  E., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102, 119–170. Bradford, B., Yesberg, J. A., Jackson, J., & Dawson, P. (2020). Live facial recognition: Trust and legitimacy as predictors of public support for police use of new technology. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(6), 1502–1522. Ericson, R.  V., & Haggerty, K.  D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Oxford University Press. Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing. University Press. Loftus, B. (2008). Dominant culture interrupted: Recognition, resentment and the politics of change in an English police force. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(6), 756–777. Nikolovska, M., Johnson, S.  D., & Ekblom, P. (2020). “Show this thread”: Policing, disruption and mobilisation through Twitter. An analysis of UK law enforcement tweeting practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. Crime Science, 9(1), 1–16.

  INTRODUCING POLICING IN SMART CITIES: REFLECTIONS… 

7

Terpstra, J., Fyfe, N., & Salet, R. (2018). The abstract police: Unintended consequences of organisational change of the police. The Police Journal. Terpstra, J., Fyfe, N.  R., & Salet, R. (2019). The abstract police: A conceptual exploration of unintended changes of police organisations. The Police Journal, 92(4), 339–359. Van Steden, R., & De Waard, J. (2013). ‘Acting like chameleons’: On the McDonaldization of private security. Security Journal, 26(3), 294–309.

Abstract Police Organisations: Distantiation, Decontextualisation and Digitalisation Jan Terpstra, Renze Salet, and Nicholas R. Fyfe

Abstract  Over the past years, police organisations in many Western European countries have witnessed a range of important changes. To gain a better understanding of these changes, a new ideal-typical concept was introduced: the abstract police. Both in their internal and external relations, the police have become more at a distance, more impersonal and more decontextualised. Several factors have contributed to this process, such as organisational-scale enlargement, standardisation, digitalisation of police work and changing views on police organisations and police work. The rise of an increasingly abstract character of the police may also be

J. Terpstra (*) • R. Salet Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] N. R. Fyfe Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK Scottish Institute for Policing Research, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_2

9

10 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

understood as the unintended outcome of a process of hyper-rationalisation. Finally, this chapter deals with some of the questions that have been raised by the concept of the abstract police. Keywords  Abstract police • Organisational change • Digitalisation Over the past years, the police in many Western European countries have witnessed a range of important changes. These changes concern a complex of highly diverging aspects of the police organisation. This is probably one of the reasons why these changes were often not perceived as interrelated and why they were often not recognised as resulting in a fundamentally different kind of organisation. To sum up very briefly: Both in their internal and external relations, the police have become more at a distance, more impersonal and formal, less direct and more decontextualised. The police have also become more dependent on ‘system knowledge’, framed within the logics and categorisations of digitalised data systems (Ericson & Haggerty, 1997). To gain a better understanding of these fundamental changes to the police, we introduced a new concept in The Police Journal in 2019 that we called the abstract police (Terpstra et al., 2019). In this chapter, we first deal with the context of discovery of this concept and with the question of why a new concept was needed. Next we concentrate on the main outlines of this concept, the changes over the past years in the internal and external relations of the police and how these relations have made the police more abstract. Then we try to understand the main drivers and forces that have contributed to this shift to an increasingly abstract police organisation. Finally, in this chapter, we deal with some new questions and comments that have been raised in debates about this concept. In this way we hope to promote further debate on this topic and stimulate more research that will bring greater light on the ongoing changes in police and policing. We feel that this is necessary, because too often it is assumed that police, police culture and police work have remained essentially the same since the classic studies about the police in the 1960s and 1970s. However, we feel that there is not only continuity in the police but also fundamental change taking place (Terpstra & Salet, 2019; see also Sklansky, 2005). We feel that the notion of abstract police may be helpful to better understand these ongoing changes and the complex relations between change and continuity in the police.

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

11

The Context of Discovery The concept of the abstract police was developed in several studies that we did on the police and criminal justice in both the Netherlands and Scotland over the past few years (Fyfe, 2018; Hail, 2016; Salet & Terpstra, 2020; SIPR et al., 2017a, b; Terpstra et al., 2016; Terpstra, 2018; Terpstra & Fyfe, 2014, 2015, 2019). Before we deal with the concept of the abstract police in more detail, we will briefly sketch two cases that made us aware of the need for a new concept to better understand the important changes that have been going on in the police. At first sight, these examples may look very different and unrelated. However, later on in this chapter, it will become clear that in fact the serious challenges in the police exemplified by these two cases illustrate a set of common underlying processes and patterns. The Client and the Computer Screen It must have been in late 2014 when two of us were doing fieldwork for our study on what is called ASAP (Salet & Terpstra, 2020), a multi-agency network in the Netherlands for the processing of cases of high-volume crime. Several agencies cooperate in these local security networks, such as the police, the public prosecution agency, Child Welfare, the Probation Service and Victim Support. We visited one of the offices of ASAP. In this building a large number of officers of these agencies had their work place. Here they were cooperating in the processing of cases of petty crime. To promote the communication and cooperation between these officers with very different professional and organisational backgrounds, it was decided that they should be working in one large room in this building. It was the first day of our field work, so we introduced ourselves to all the officers working here. We also asked them individually about their work, what they exactly did, how they cooperated and what their main experiences were. One of the persons that we talked with was a Victim Support Officer, a woman of about 30 years. When we talked with her, something happened, which at first surprised us very much, but that later on proved to be very important for raising our awareness of what we would later call abstractness. However, at that time, we did not really understand what was happening. At first we asked this Victim Support Officer if she could explain to us the work that she was doing. However, it proved that she could only

12 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

explain this by showing us on her computer screen what she was doing. She said: ‘For every case that I work on, I open up a file on my computer screen. It contains a menu with a number of questions that I have to answer, especially about the loss suffered by the victim and the compensation that may be asked from the offender. I do this by ticking off the relevant boxes. When I have answered all the questions about the case on my screen, I am ready. Next I can send the file to one of the other officers working here.’ When we asked her if she knew how victims experienced her work, she became a bit confused and seemed to be surprised by the question. She said that she had never thought about that question before. In fact, she had never met a victim in person and did not have any idea about how victims felt about what she did. The only information she had about the victims was the information she had from her computer system. After our visit to this office building, for some days, we were wondering how to understand what this woman told us. The problem was certainly not that this woman could only do very simple work or that she was not able to reflect about this. Given her position as a victim support officer, she probably had a bachelor’s degree in social work. Murder of a Nurse in a Hospital Parking Area The second case concerns a terrible, dramatic incident that happened in the Dutch medium-sized city of Waalwijk on 10 August 2015. A woman aged 28 years, named Linda van der Giessen, was killed in the parking area of the hospital where she worked as a nurse. In the days following this incident, it emerged that she was killed by her ex-partner. An independent committee investigated this case (Commissie Eenhoorn, 2016). The report of the committee showed that in the weeks before her death, Linda had reported several times to the police that she felt very threatened by her ex-partner, that he was stalking her and that he had bought a gun. In fact, during the weeks before she died, she had talked with at least seven different police officers about being seriously threatened. Still the police had done nothing to protect this woman against the threats and stalking of her ex-partner. The committee concluded that the police should have paid more attention to the case and should have intervened with more urgency. The problems were caused by the highly ‘complex, bureaucratic and fragmented work processes’ and information systems of the police. Police officers seemed to be caught in ‘systemic communication’ and were mainly focused

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

13

on following criminal law procedures. In general, the police showed too much trust in the effectiveness of IT systems and IT communication. As a result, it looked as if police officers felt insufficient responsibility for the case and for the protection of this woman (Commissie Eenhoorn, 2016: 20–21).

The Search for an Adequate Concept These two incidents (as well as many others) raised the question: What happened here? Why did the police fail to respond in an adequate way? How can we understand this? Is this just a matter of bureaucracy, of red tape, of a cynical police culture, or should these incidents be seen as new examples of the perverse effects of the managerialisation of the police (to mention just a few of the common explanations of police failure and shortcomings)? Although each of these concepts is still very useful, we believe that these concepts can only offer partial explanations of these problematic situations existing within contemporary police organisations. What is maybe even more important, all of these concepts do not recognise sufficiently the fundamental changes of the police over the past years. That also implies that they may exaggerate the degree of continuity in the police. We started to realise that ‘something new’ has been going on in contemporary police organisations, with fundamental consequences for both the internal and the external relations of the police. Comparative studies about the consequences of the 2013 police reforms in Scotland and the Netherlands showed that the police had become more at a distance, more impersonal, more formal, less direct and more decontextualised. The police have also become less dependent on the traditional personal knowledge of officers, as this is increasingly being replaced by system knowledge and IT systems. Relations, both between police officers and between the police and citizens, have become more impersonal and at a distance, a change that is in sharp contrast to the dominance of the traditional direct and personal relations in and outside the police organisation. Although these changes were strongly promoted by these police reforms, it is not impossible that before 2013 at least some of them could already have been found in a more rudimentary form. To understand this complex of changes and to be able to understand their interrelatedness, we thought it necessary to introduce a new concept: the abstract police. Although at first a main reason to develop this concept was to understand the main (unintended) outcomes of the Scottish and

14 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

Dutch 2013 police reforms, we believe that the rise of a more abstract police is not limited to these two countries. The abstract police are also a consequence of long-term social developments, of a process of late or hyper-modernisation if you wish, such as the increasing globalisation, individualisation, the disembedding of social institutions (Giddens, 1990, 1991) and the increasing impact of digitalisation on everyday social relations and practices (Turkle, 2015). The ‘abstract police’ should be understood as an ideal-typical concept (Weber, 1922/1965). Ideal types (sometimes called pure types) are abstractions that emphasise certain aspects of social reality. They provide an analytical perspective to better understand specific elements of reality, such as certain important developments of the contemporary police. To evaluate ideal types, the relevant question is not whether the concept is (completely) ‘true’, but if it is helpful to better describe and understand important developments and to create adequate interpretations of important empirical findings that until then could not be understood satisfactorily. In this way, the ideal type is also meant to raise a critical attention for certain developments in the police that until now were not in the public awareness. The concept of the abstract police should be helpful to raise the public, political and professional debate about the future of police organisations.

The Abstract Police: Changing Internal and External Relations The increasingly abstract character of the police refers to changes over the past years in both the internal and the external relations of the police. Both of these relations have become more at a distance, more impersonal and formal, and communication has become less direct, in other words have become more abstract.1 In certain respects, the increasing importance of the abstractness of the police can be compared with a process of de-­humanisation, not in the meaning that all police officers are now ‘less humane or uncaring’ but in the meaning ‘that the human is less in the foreground of the actual situation’ (Heintschel von Heinegg et al., 2018: 1  In this context the word abstract is used not in the intellectual but in the social meaning: social relations and practices are taken from the direct, face-to-face, local and personal context, with a reduction of the role of the human individual, more or less replaced by systems, system knowledge, communication at a distance and so on.

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

15

4). However, as the example of the murder of the Dutch nurse in August 2015 shows, an increasingly abstract police organisation runs the risk of becoming less caring and less oriented to helping vulnerable persons. It is important to realise that the rise of an increasingly abstract police organisation can also have ‘disruptive’ effects (Allwood, 2017). This means that it may be disruptive for former, traditional relations and practices that were more personal, direct, informal and contextualised. As a result, the rise of the abstract police may be felt as a loss of the former traditional and more personal relations and ways of doing, but it may also create conflicts with those (within and outside the police) who try to continue the traditional, less abstract relations and practices. In the following sections, we will deal with the increasingly abstract nature of both the internal and the external relations of the police. This analysis is largely based on our comparative studies on the implementation and (local) effects of the Scottish and Dutch police reforms in 2013 (Terpstra & Fyfe, 2014, 2015, 2019). Internal Relations The first important aspect of the increasing abstractness of the police can be found in the changing internal relations of the police services. Both the Scottish and the Dutch police reforms of 2013 have resulted in a considerable scale enlargement and in highly centralised organisations with a focus on efficiency and control. For instance, in the Netherlands, much larger local police teams and working areas were introduced. In the past a local police team had about 30–40 members. Nowadays, a local team may have between 90 and 220 members. This has a negative impact on the traditional close relations that police officers used to have. Police officers now do not know all their team members anymore, something that would have been unimaginable in the past (Terpstra, 2018). In Scotland, the creation of national police in 2013 has also led to a fundamental configuration of local policing centred around the ‘3 Rs’. These are the Reduction in the number of civilian staff at a local level, requiring police officers to undertake more ‘back office’ functions; the Redeployment of local police officers to regional and national specialist units without being replaced in local communities; and the Restructuring of beat areas to create larger geographical territories over which officers must work (SIPR et al., 2017a). The relations between police officers have also changed as a result of formalisation and increasing horizontal and vertical fragmentation of the

16 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

police. For instance, in the past, Dutch community police officers could largely decide on their own how to do their job. If they needed some assistance from colleagues, they just asked them informally in the canteen or at the coffee machine. Nowadays, they have to follow detailed procedures to involve their colleagues. A community officer must now make a so-called neighbourhood assignment in a special computer program and format. This assignment will be assessed by a coordinating officer, who will decide if it will be given to patrol officers. Feedback is not given directly to the community officer but is communicated by the same computer program (Terpstra, 2018). One of the main objectives of the Scottish police reform was to create specialist units at the national level. Although this may have considerable benefits, it also contributed to a new organisational fragmentation (Giacomantonio, 2015), problems of coordination and more distance between local officers and specialists (Fyfe, 2018; Hail, 2016). Studies, in both Scotland and the Netherlands, found a much larger distance between local officers and the centralised contact centres. The staff at the new contact centres often proved to have a lack of local knowledge and understanding of the problems and priorities of communities and were under pressure to resolve calls as quickly as possible so that they were always available to take the next call. In some cases, the problems of call handling in contact centres had tragic consequences, including the delay in a police response to reports that a car had crashed off the motorway in which both the driver and passenger were killed (SIPR et al., 2017a; HMICS, 2015). Not only have the relations between local operational police officers changed but also the relations with senior officers. The scale enlargement of the local teams, especially in the Netherlands, has meant that senior officers are more at a distance. Direct and personal relations between senior and rank-and-file officers have diminished. Scottish officers also often feel that they now have less access and interaction with senior officers (SIPR et al., 2017a). Dutch officers often complain that they cannot approach their chiefs anymore for all kinds of questions, which was quite normal before the reform. Communication by senior officers is increasingly dependent on e-mail and computer systems (Terpstra, 2018). Dutch officers often call this ‘management by e-mail’. Several studies showed that relations in the contemporary Scottish and Dutch police differ strongly from the traditional police cultures with their strong emphasis on solidarity, feelings of togetherness with colleagues and social cohesion that often used to dominate local police teams (Loftus,

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

17

2009; Cockcroft, 2013; Terpstra & Schaap, 2013; Terpstra et al., 2016). The gap between street cops and management cops (Reuss-Ianni, 1983) may even become greater (Hail, 2016). External Relations The increasing abstractness of the police can also be found in their external relations. Both in Scotland and the Netherlands, the transition to national police systems has resulted in a greater distance between the police and local communities. Several factors have contributed to this, such as the closure of large numbers of police stations (both in rural and urban areas) and the reduction of opening hours. Many local officers feel that there is a loss of local orientation and local knowledge of the police. In Scotland the loss of small and personal beats has contributed to a perceived loss of moral ownership and responsibility of local officers for their areas (Hail, 2016). The increased distance between the police and the general audience can be illustrated by a new model of service provision of the Dutch National Police. According to this so-called Multi-Channel Model, citizens can use different channels to contact the police for information or to report a crime: through the Internet, by phone or teleservice, through a visit to the police station or by meeting a police officer at home. The model suggests that citizens as ‘customers’ of the police can choose between different channels. However, this model is primarily a way for the police to manage their workload (Welch et al., 2004). In practice, in most cases, citizens are supposed to use the Internet. Many of the citizens who come spontaneously to the police station are refused and told that they should make an appointment online. The system does not take into account that many victims of crime have the emotional need to tell their story in person and do not want to use the Internet or the teleservice system. Many police officers note that this model has created a larger distance between the police and citizens, especially for those who lack relevant computer skills. As a result, many police officers feel that since the introduction of this service model, the police receive less information (Terpstra et al., 2016; Terpstra, 2018). In addition to the changes in the relations of the police with citizens, there have also been important changes in the relations with partner agencies. Scottish studies showed that, as a consequence of the initial centralisation of the police, local partnerships have deteriorated. The

18 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

communication and exchange of information with partners has also declined (Hail, 2016; SIPR et al., 2017a). In the Netherlands, relations between cooperating agencies are now often more remote, formal and dependent on communication by e-mail and computer systems (Terpstra et al., 2016). As a result, officers from partner agencies often do not know each other anymore in person. ASAP, a multi-agency approach operating in the whole country for the management of cases of high-volume crime, is now dependent on highly standardised work processes. The cooperation between the partner agencies in this network was shifted from the local level to much higher organisational levels (Salet & Terpstra, 2020). As a result, personal trust, as one of the main factors contributing to inter-­ organisational cooperation in the past, has been decreasing.

Main Drivers and Forces Most of the empirical information in our analysis refers to the local impact of the 2013 police reforms in Scotland and the Netherlands. However, we assume that the shift to a more abstract police is not bound to these two countries or to countries with comparable police reforms. It can be expected that the 2013 police reforms in these two countries made the contours of abstract character even more prominent and visible than elsewhere. We also assume that now or in the near future, the transition to more abstract police organisations can also be found in other Western European countries, although probably with all kinds of international differences. This assumption follows from our analysis of the main drivers and forces that are relevant to understand the rise of abstract police. Many of these factors and circumstances are not unique for the police reforms in Scotland and the Netherlands. On the contrary, the growth of an increasingly abstract police must be understood as closely related to more general social developments and fundamental changes in our societies over the past decades. To understand the increasingly abstract character of the police, not only are the organisational changes mentioned before (such as scale enlargement and standardisation) relevant, but also several other drivers and forces, such as digitalisation and changing views on police organisations and police work. In addition, the process of increasing abstractness can also be understood as the outcome of long-term social processes of rationalisation in times of late or hyper modernity. We will briefly sketch the main outlines of each of these main drivers.

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

19

Police services, just like most other organisations, have become more dependent on digital devices and systems. This has resulted in important changes in relations, work processes and practices of the police. One of these changes has been the shift from the traditional street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980), first to a screen-level bureaucracy and next to a system-­ level bureaucracy (Bovens & Zouridis, 2002; Buffat, 2015; Reddick, 2005). In the traditional street-level bureaucracy, officers used to have much discretion and have direct relations with citizens. In the first stages of digitalisation, the relations between police officers and citizens became increasingly mediated by the computer screen. In the past, police officers had much discretion in their direct interactions with citizens. With the shift to a system-level bureaucracy, citizens who want to report a crime to the police generally only have to deal with the computer (system). For instance, in the Dutch Multi-Channel service model, there should be less personal contact, except in very urgent cases. This has reduced direct and personal communication (Tollenaar, 2014). The processes of digitalisation have also contributed to new forms of autonomy and dependency of police officers. On the one hand, the police have become more dependent on ‘system information’. This implies that the information used by the police has become more dependent on the frames and categories of computer systems (Ericson & Haggerty, 1997). As a result, the direct and often personal knowledge of police officers has become less important. It may enlarge the risk that the police will not be able to escape the (ir)rationality of computer systems: the well-known danger of ‘the computer says so’. On the other hand, police officers working on the streets have now direct access to all kinds of system information: They can always check their mobile device or on-board computer in the patrol car. Compared with the past, they are now less dependent on information delivered by the police dispatcher or the control room. However, the use and availability of mobile devices creates a much more detailed system of internal control and surveillance. With every move they make and every time they look for information on their mobile device, the street officers create new information (often without being aware) that makes it easier to find out where they have been and what they have done (Ferguson, 2017, 143–166; see, for comparable goals of police technologies, Williams, 2014). In the Dutch local police teams, the relations of police officers with their colleagues but also with their supervisors have also changed because communication by the Internet and e-mail has often replaced the direct

20 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

and personal interaction (Terpstra et al., 2016). The strong emphasis on performance management by means of decontextualised universal targets, quantitative data and computer system also contributes to less direct and personal relationships between officers and their supervisor. These processes can also disrupt (Allwood, 2017) both the traditional types of police information (seen as invalid or unreliable now) and the traditional informal relations in the police (now defined as undermining control and efficiency). The increasingly abstract character of the police can also be seen as a (partially unintended) outcome of changing views on police work and police organisations over the past two decades. In most Western European countries since the 1990s, the New Public Management has had a huge impact on the police. Many measures to promote the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of the police have increased the abstractness of this organisation, such as the closure of police stations, the reduction of opening hours, a stronger reliance on IT, the introduction of impersonal forms of communication with citizens, the centralisation of specialist units, the use of centrally determined Key Performance Indicators and targets or organisational-scale enlargements. In some cases, these measures were not only taken for instrumental reasons but also for symbolic reasons (or what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) called cultural isomorphism): the wish to imitate the private sector or to look as a hypermodern organisation (Terpstra, 2020). The increasing abstractness of the police can also be understood as being promoted by the growing belief in intelligence-led policing (Ratcliffe, 2016). The main assumption of this model is that police work should be based on the systematic analysis of information. In many police organisations, this has resulted in the proliferation of collected data, in growing numbers of specialists for crime analysis and intelligence and in a more risk-focused approach. On the one hand, this has contributed to loss of status and validity paid to the traditional, informal and often personal knowledge of police officers. On the other hand, the emphasis on abstract information (intelligence) and on information systems created a new organisational risk that intelligence would become isolated from actual police work. It contributed to new forms of misunderstanding, tensions and conflicts between on the one hand operational officers and on the other hand the intelligence specialists working at special units often located far away from operational police work (Terpstra et al., 2016).

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

21

In many Western European countries over the past two decades, there has been a debate on whether the police should concentrate on so-called core tasks. In the long run, this debate has had several consequences for the police. One of these was that community policing and policing in rural areas seem to have been redefined as old-fashioned and as less important. Often it seems that problems are only seen as important for the police if they are (re-)defined as criminal law issues. What happened in August 2015 with the nurse in the city of Waalwijk can be seen as a sinister illustration of the dramatic effects that this can have. The emphasis on ‘core tasks’ has also contributed to the gradual loss of police visibility, local presence and service to citizens. The rise of an increasingly abstract character of police organisations can also be seen as the unintended outcome of a process of hyper-­rationalisation, or what Ritzer (1993) called McDonaldisation. This process of hyper-­ rationalisation is aimed at improving efficiency, calculability, predictability and control. However, in the end, this process becomes irrational in its consequences, increasing inefficiency, unpredictability, incalculability and a loss of control. Ritzer shows how the strong emphasis on control results in the replacement of human judgement. Rules, regulations and structures become reified with less importance and room for human skills, abilities and knowledge. The greater distance in relations, the fragmentation of organisation, of work processes and of responsibilities, the stronger dependence on IT communication and on system information, means the rise of the abstract police can be seen as an example of rationalisation resulting in ‘dehumanising’, deskilling and ‘unreasonable systems’ (Ritzer, 1993: 21, 118–122). This process of (ir)rationalisation is also related to changes in Western European societies over the past decades, such as time-space distantiation, the disembedding of social institutions, globalisation, individualisation and as a result the increasing dependence on abstract systems (Giddens, 1990, 1991). With the abstract police, new opportunities have been created for dealing with his more complex, hyper-modern society. In certain respects, these create more control and security for the police and police officers. However, with the stronger dependence on abstract systems and the growth of the distance created for both officers and citizens, ‘there is also a serious price to pay for these advances’, as Giddens noted (1991: 88). Abstract systems depend on trust that generally ‘takes the form of faceless commitments’ (Giddens, 1990: 88). This implies that trust in abstract systems does not provide the traditional ‘moral rewards’ that were

22 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

related to more ‘personalised’ forms of trust. As Giddens (1991: 136) notes, the increasing dependence of daily life on abstract systems is creating new risks. This may also happen to both police organisations and individual officers. One of the risks of this process of abstracting the police is that, in the long run, this will be accepted as the ‘normal’, maybe also inevitable, situation. If that would happen, it will result in the belief of police officers in their work as ‘an abstract task, with abstract responsibilities, working for abstract communities, abstract citizens, and evaluated by means of abstract performance targets and procedures’ (Terpstra et  al., 2019: 354). This may have disastrous consequences for any of the work of police forces that have accepted the principles of community policing with its strong emphasis on proximity, visibility, community involvement, citizen participation and tailor-made problem-solving approaches (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997; Skogan, 2006; Terpstra, 2010), the opposite of abstractness.

Concluding Remarks: Some Additional Notes Since we published our original paper on the abstract police (Terpstra et al., 2019), some new questions were raised about this concept, including a desire for clarification of certain elements of our analysis. In our paper of 2019, our explicit aim was to deal only with abstract police, not with abstract policing. Although a police organisation can be increasingly abstract, its policing can still be very concrete. One might expect that higher levels of abstractness of police organisations might go hand in hand with certain abstract styles of policing at a distance, such as big data or intelligence-led policing. On the other hand, however, in certain historical and political contexts, increasing abstractness of the police might open the door for (re-)militarisation in policing (Harcourt, 2018). At this moment, we are not able to answer the question whether and how increasing abstractness of the police organisation will also change the style of policing. However, we expect that it will have some consequences. For now, this is a matter for more empirical research. Some critics have rightly noted that increasing levels of abstractness can be found not only in the contemporary police but also in other organisations. Some suggested the term abstract society, a term that we do not want to use here because in 1970 it was already introduced by Zijderveld, in a somewhat different meaning. But the conclusion seems to be right: processes of globalisation, the disembedding of social institutions,

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

23

individualisation and the digitalisation of social life (see, for instance, Turkle, 2015) all seem to contribute to more abstract forms of society. This raises a lot of fundamental and urgent new questions, but we would like to deal with that somewhere else. At the pre-conference of the ESC Working Group on Policing in Ghent in September 2019, some commentators wondered if our analysis of the increasingly abstract police was not a sign of a very naïve conservatism. ‘Welcome to the 21st century’, as one of these critics said during the heat of the debate about our presentation, suggesting that we were not only naïve but also anti-digital technology, full of nostalgia for a Gemeinschaft that has passed away long ago. Of course, the digitalisation of social life is an undeniable social fact. Digitalisation has created so many economic and social benefits that it is almost impossible to have an overview of them. The issue here is however that the increasingly abstract police organisation does have serious negative side effects, for the police, individual officers, communities, external partners and citizens. There is no reason to believe that these side effects are unalterable or given as iron facts. The problem is that our belief in ‘systems’ has made us forget the importance of the presence and approachability of humans, human skills and capabilities, and also the importance of values connected to the presence of fellow man and of human care, not only in policing. Is this naivety? Is this nostalgia? We do not believe so. It is comparable to what Turkle (2015) showed in her book about the negative side effects of the digitalisation for everyday life in highly diverging everyday social contexts. The fascination of many people for digital devices, their digital addiction, has made us forget the importance and value of social conversation. She argues that there should be more room for conversation. In a comparable way, in the abstract police, the balance between abstractness and the room for the ‘human factor’ should be restored. One of the main reasons is that abstract systems produce amoral trust, which, especially in the case of the police, will probably not stand hard times. Similarly, Cottam (2018) argues that given the growing complexity of social life in the twenty-first century, there is a pressing need for the police to be more ‘socially rooted’. She argues that the police should focus on helping facilitate stronger collaborative relationships within communities that will then foster the capabilities of neighbourhoods and individuals to flourish. Unfortunately, current trends are taking the police in the opposite direction, less socially rooted and more orientated toward abstract systems.

24 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

References Allwood, J. (2017). Is digitalization dehumanization? Dystopic traits of digitalization. Presentation at the Summit Digitalisation for a Sustainable Society. Gothenburg, Sweden, 12–16 June 2017. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. Buffat, A. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161. Cockcroft, T. (2013). Police culture: Themes and concepts. Routledge. Commissie Eenhoorn. (2016). Conclusies en aanbevelingen onderzoeksrapport Tweesteden. Available from: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/...tweesteden/tk-­ conclusies-­en-­aanbevelingen-­onderzoeks. Accessed 13 Feb 2020. Cottam, H. (2018). Radical help: How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionize the welfare state. Virago. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Ericson, R.  V., & Haggerty, K.  D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Oxford University Press. Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing. Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York University Press. Fyfe, N. R. (2018). The changing ecology and equity of policing: Reconfiguring organisational boundaries in an era of police reform. In N.  R. Fyfe, H. O. Gundhus, & K. V. Ronn (Eds.), Moral issues in intelligence-led policing (pp. 246–261). Routledge. Giacomantonio, C. (2015). Policing integration: The sociology of police coordination work. Palgrave. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Polity. Giddens, A. (1991). Self-identity and modernity. Self and society in the late modern age. Polity. Hail, Y. (2016). Local Policing in Transition. Examining the impacts and implications of police reform in Scotland. PhD Thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee. Harcourt, B. E. (2018). The counterrevolution. How our government went to war against its own citizens. Basic Books. Heintschel von Heinegg, W., Frau, R., & Singer, T. (2018). Introduction. In W. Heintschel von Heinegg, R. Frau, & T. Singer (Eds.), Dehumanization of warfare: Legal implications of new weapon technologies (pp. 1–11). Springer. HMICS. (2015). Independent assurance review police Scotland  – Call handling final report. HMICS.

  ABSTRACT POLICE ORGANISATIONS: DISTANTIATION… 

25

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage. Loftus, B. (2009). Police culture in a changing world. Oxford University Press. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016). Intelligence-led policing. Routledge. Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38–57. Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. Transaction Publishers. Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society. Pine Forge Press. Salet, R., & Terpstra, J. (2020). Criminal justice as a production line. ASAP and the managerialization of criminal justice in the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology, 17(6), 826–844. SIPR, WWS, & ScotCen. (2017a). Evaluation of police and fire reform: Year 2 report. Scottish Government. SIPR, WWS, & ScotCen. (2017b). Evaluation of police and fire reform: Year 2 report annexes. Scottish Government. Sklansky, D. A. (2005). Not your father’s police department: Making sense of the new demographics of law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96(3), 1209–1243. Skogan, W. G. (2006). The promise of community policing. In D. Weisburd & A.  A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovations. Contrasting perspectives (pp.  27–43). Cambridge University Press. Skogan, W.  G., & Hartnett, S.  M. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. Oxford University Press. Terpstra, J. (2010). Community policing in practice: Ambitions and realization. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(1), 64–72. Terpstra, J. (2018). Local policing in a nationalized police force. A study on the local teams of the Netherlands’ National Force. Policing. A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pay037 Terpstra, J. (2020). Police reform as institutional change: Symbols and dilemmas. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 60, 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.100359 Terpstra, J., & Fyfe, N. R. (2014). Policy processes and police reform: Examining similarities and differences between Scotland and the Netherlands. International journal of law, crime and justice, 42(4), 366–383. Terpstra, J., & Fyfe, N. R. (2015). Mind the implementation gap? Police reform and local policing in the Netherlands and Scotland. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 15(5), 527–544. Terpstra, J., & Fyfe, N. R. (2019). Great expectations? Assessing the creation of national police organisations in Scotland and the Netherlands. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 21(2), 101–107.

26 

J. TERPSTRA ET AL.

Terpstra, J., & Salet, R. (2019). Change and continuity in the police. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 21(4), 193–195. Terpstra, J., & Schaap, D. (2013). Police culture, stress conditions and working styles. European Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 59–73. Terpstra, J., et al. (2016). Basisteams in de Nationale Politie. Organisatie, taakuitvoering en gebiedsgebonden werk. Politie & Wetenschap. Terpstra, J., Fyfe, N.  R., & Salet, R. (2019). The abstract police: Unintended consequences of organizational change of the police. The Police Journal, 92(4), 339–359. Tollenaar, A.  J. (2014). ICT en de uitdagingen voor de menselijke maat. In A. T. Marseille & L. Van der Velden (Eds.), Verdient vertrouwen, vertrouwen verdiend: visies op geschilbeslechting door de overheid (pp. 120–129). SDU. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation. The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Books. Weber, M. (1922/1965). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2004). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of public administration research and theory., 15(3), 371–391. Williams, C. A. (2014). Police control Systems in Britain, 1775–1975. From parish constable to national computer. Manchester University Press. Zijderveld, A.  C. (1970). The abstract society. A cultural analysis of our time. Penguin Press.

Reflections on the Abstract Police Using the Perspective of Ideal-Types Marleen Easton

Abstract  In this chapter, some reflections are made on defining Abstract Police as a new ideal-type. We argue that the valuable discussion on Abstract Police can be enriched by linking the observations to existing ideal-types/police models developed in earlier police research as it allows to include positive and negative evolutions in the uptake of technology by the police. This would anchor the debate more in existing theory and add some balance to the discussion. This chapter first sheds a light on ideal-types as a concept relying on the work of the sociologist Max Weber. Second, the way in which ideal-types have played a role in police research during the past decades is described. Third, we recapitulate how Terpstra, Fyfe, and Salet have defined the Abstract Police as ideal-type. In a fourth section, we formulate our methodological comments and suggest another approach to strengthen the valuable discussion initiated by our colleagues.

M. Easton (*) Department of Public Governance and Management, Chair Research Group ‘Governing and Policing Security’, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_3

27

28 

M. EASTON

Keywords  Ideal-type • Police models • Technology

Ideal-Type: What’s in a Name? Throughout history scientists have used ideal-types to capture the world, and it has been an interesting methodology to assess societal evolutions in many scientific research fields. The ideal-type should be situated as part of the comparative-historical sociology developed by Max Weber (Kalberg, 1994). This well-known scholar emphasized the interpretive understanding of subjective meaning, and he acknowledged pluralistic motives for actions, contributed to construction of theories, and always kept culture in mind as important for understanding societal evolutions. These can all be considered valuable goals in making sense of what is going on in contemporary society especially in an attempt to make sense of what is going on in policing these days. Although Max Weber himself has never been very explicit on how to develop ideal-types, some scholars (Gerth & Wright Mills, 1948; Kaplan, 1964; Adriaansens, 1976; Frissen, 1989; Eliaeson, 1990; Levin, 1991; Lammers, 1993; Secher, 1993; Dunivin, 1994; Gerhardt, 1994; Kalberg, 1994; Wagner & Härpfer, 2014; Easton, 2001; Segady, 2014; Rosenberg, 2015; Swedberg, 2017; Serpa, 2018; Oliverio, 2020) have done so based on Weber’s writings. For the purpose of our arguments in this chapter, it is important to explain that (1) the ideal-type is a theoretical construct shaped by a paradigm, (2) ideal-types are analytical tools constructed in terms of precise and abstract core variables, and (3) ideal-types can be used to provide reference points and guidelines for comparing, measuring, and studying a case. 1. The ideal-type as a theoretical construct takes shape from a paradigm: “… a paradigm is the underlying collection of broad, often unstated, assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes that shape our ideal types and models. A paradigm is a particular perspective or view of the world. … paradigms are important because they influence the kinds of ideal-types…” (Levin, 1991: 532). Consequently, a different ideal-type may be formed depending on the paradigm or frame of reference (Kalberg, 1994: 84, Gerhardt, 1994: 87). This makes the logical “meaning-making” process that underlies this issue visible (Frissen, 1989). 2. The ideal-type as a theoretical construct is a particularly useful analytical tool for studying complex social phenomena. The ideal-type, after all, carries the possibility of deepening partial aspects of the

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

29

same problem on the basis of precise and abstract concepts with it, as well as of bringing them together in a complete image, a so-called Gestalt. The use of abstract and precise concepts also distinguishes the use of the ideal-type from the purely historical approaches of societal phenomena. The ideal-ype makes it possible to unravel evolutions as complex process variables into precise and abstract core variables which, from a specific paradigm, give shape to a specific ideal-type (Lammers, 1993: 190, 205). 3. The most fundamental use of ideal-types is the yardstick usage (Kalberg, 1994: 87; Easton, 2001). This usage provides reference points and guidelines for comparing, measuring, and studying a case. The case is compared to the ideal-type, and through the search for deviations, the case is defined (Kalberg, 1994). The contrast is paramount. This measurement technique is like putting on a pair of conceptual spectacles that provide a point of reference for studying diffuse empirical reality (Kalberg, 1994: 87). “(This) ideal-type, furthermore, is purely descriptive and should not be misused to explain the data it reveals; … primarily an instrument for classification, and as such useful for the systematic arrangement of several categories in each of which all observations  – either quantitatively or qualitatively – that are covered by its descriptions may be grouped together” (Weber in Secher, 1993: 14). This application must be clearly distinguished from the use of ideal-types as hypothesis-forming models used for causal analysis (Kalberg, 1994: 92). These three elements have important implications for the use of the ideal-type in empirical research. For developing our arguments, we roughly decipher five of them. (a) “Ideal-types are constructed ‘utopias’ that alone aim to facilitate empirical inquiry” (Kalberg, 1994: 85). Thus, that conceptualization only serves to support the research, rather than capture the reality. (b) The ideal-type is also not a descriptive concept in the sense that an isomorphism is assumed between the ideal-type and the empirie. Instead, the ideal-type is characterized by Steigerung, Stylization, the deliberate overemphasis of typical elements, explication for the sake of demonstrative goals (Eliaeson, 1990: 22–23). Therefore, the ideal-type should not be confused with an average type, a sum-

30 

M. EASTON

mary of ­common elements of empirical phenomena. Rather the unique than the common in the case is emphasized. “The goal of ideal-typical concept-construction is always to make clearly explicit not the class or average character but rather the unique individual character of a cultural phenomenon” (Weber in Kalberg, 1994: 86; Kaplan, 1964: 83). (c) This brings us to the most characteristic of ideal-types. They are generalizing concepts; they abstract from a single special case and form a rubric into which several special cases can be placed, and at the same time, they have the function of clarifying precisely the concrete and the special of action (Adriaansens, 1976: 26). (d) Finally, it is important to point out that the term ideal in no way contains a normative prescription in the sense that an ideal-type is a priori good or that agreement of empirical reality and ideal-type would be desired. Even in the sociology of organizations, for example, the use of the term ideal-type does not refer to an “ideal” type but to a characteristic type of organization (Lammers, 1993: 105). (e) Nor is it assumed that incongruence would be the exclusive cause of problems. Ideal-types are a pure construct (Gerth & Wright Mills, 1948: 59; Frissen, 1989: 82). The fact that an ideal-type does not really exist in reality does not diminish the scientific usefulness of the concept as an analytical tool (Kaplan, 1964: 82; Secher (Weber), 1993: 52–53; Dunivin, 1994: 531). The heuristic potential of the ideal-type has made it one of the most popular instruments in social research in general since it is methodologically adequate and logically consistent (Oliverio, 2020: 5). Yet many scientists were mostly confused and unable to apply it (Swedberg, 2017). Due to its complexity and inherent pitfalls, the ideal type is not often used in (sociological) empirical research (Wagner & Härpfer, 2014; Rosenberg, 2015; Segady, 2014; Swedberg, 2017). The main reason for that is the need for researchers developing ideal-types to be aware of two great inherent difficulties: “if it is too abstract or close to macrosociology, if it is too general, it explains everything, therefore it explains nothing, and its operative value is weak, if it is too close to empirical data and concrete realities, it is not distinguishable from historical narration, systematic description or orderly presentation of examples, and provides little understanding” (Schnapper in Serpa, 2018: 398). Building upon the insights above on what an ideal-type means, we describe in the following section the way in which ideal-types in the

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

31

format of police models have played a role in police research during the past decades. It provides a context to assess the development of the Abstract Police as ideal-type, developed by our colleagues.

The Tradition of Using Ideal-Types in Police Research Because an ideal-type as a theoretical construct takes shape from a paradigm, it explicitly allows the discussion of frames of reference and, in particular, of the vision on the role and position of the police in our society to be the starting point. From a historical perspective, the impact of police models for police reform around the globe cannot be underestimated (Bayley, 1975; Lawrence, 2011; Cordner et al., 2021). Christensen (2017: 845) describes how the creation of a bureaucratized police force in Denmark in the nineteenth century was built on the import of a specific police model: that of the Metropolitan Police implemented in London in 1829. Gonçalves (2014: 5) explains how the political culture in Portugal and the circulation of police models between national jurisdictions in Europe in the nineteenth century is a better explanation for police reform at the time than actual concerns about disorder and crime. Clive Emsley describes the common characteristics acquired by European police institutions during the nineteenth century in three idealtypes: civilian police forces (controlled by central government and deployed in cities), municipal civilian police (controlled by municipalities), and national, military police forces (controlled by central government and deployed in rural areas). The Metropolitan Police of London and its Bobbies were the model for urban police forces and the French Gendarmerie model outside major cities (Emsley, 1999). The experiences of this cross-fertilization process, outside the main European countries, remain poorly explored (Gonçalves, 2014: 6). It is important to note that these models traveled without their original social context promoted as internationalized ideal-types of policing (Christensen, 2017: 862–863). Ponsaers (2001) defines police models as central entities of thoughts and ideas on policing, which include an observable internal coherence. Although the number of ideas on policing was already enormous at the time, he stressed that there existed only four main central police models: the “military-bureaucratic model,” the “lawful policing model,” the “community policing model,” and the “public-private divide model.” Each of these

32 

M. EASTON

models differs in relation to eight central dimensions being (1) the discretion the police officers (do not) have; (2) the importance of the Law for the functioning of the police; (3) how accountability is organized; (4) the relation with the public; (5) how professionalization takes place; (6) the source of legitimacy; (7) the importance of prevention; and (8) the position on the continuum of proactive and reactive policing (Ponsaers, 2001: 473, 491–492). Using these central dimensions, his analysis leads to an interesting comparison of the internal logics of these four central police models. This internal-logical vision has a critical function based on assumptions about the role and position of the police in society. The importance of police models as ideal-types is threefold. Firstly, it shows that change in policing is related to the timeframe in which it takes place. The military-bureaucratic model, now considered to be the traditional model, was innovative at the time in dealing with the problem of corruption, politicization, and the lack of professionalism (Reiss, 1992). The “Community Policing Model” challenged the earlier models in the sense that it questioned the position and the role of the police in modern society (Easton, 2001). The essence lies in the social embedding of the police and in their cooperation with the community, with a view to a safe and harmonious society. Central to this is the idea that the relationship with the population should enable us to understand the nature of social problems before formulating a police response to them (Van Ryckeghem et al., 1998). The postmodern “Public-Private Divide Model” fits into the current challenges for the police in an era of economic crisis and an evolving security field in which there is an increasing degree of interaction between public and private bodies (Johnston, 1999; Wood & Dupont, 2006). Secondly, it helps describe other evolutions such as “broad-scope policing”; “problem-solving or problem-oriented policing”; “technological led,” “information-led,” or “intelligence-led” policing; “broken windows policing”; or “zero tolerance policing,” not in terms of being independent police models but in terms of variations, theories, strategies, or purely the result of societal evolutions. Broad-scope policing is being described as incident-driven policing and problem-solving/problem-oriented policing as a variant of the community (oriented) policing model. Broken windows is considered a theory rather than a police model, and zero tolerance is a strategy used by the police with the aim to regain control. Intelligence/ technological (led) policing is seen as merely the result of a societal evolution toward the use of technology (IT) in all segments of society, including the police. Consequently, technology can be used in every police model (Ponsaers, 2001: 483–485).

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

33

Thirdly, it makes clear that any police reform is an ongoing process in which a “point of no return” is never reached and the return to other models is always present. Each police model is a voluntary and conscious choice between different options. As Ponsaers (2001: 490) states: “… it is a myth to believe that the described police models are to be considered as a sequence in time: one model follows the other, as lawful policing would follow military policing; and community policing would follow lawful policing. The described models are logic deductions, not chronological episodes.” Each concrete police apparatus can be considered a combination of police models. Crucial is that the dominance of a certain model in a specific organization expresses the dominance of a certain group within the organization as well as outside the force, in the political and socioeconomic arena (Ponsaers, 2001: 470–473). In that sense any police reform is precarious as choices must be monitored. Despite the fact that police models are inherently defined by social scientists as ideal-types with the characteristics attached as described above, in practice, they have often been used as normative “ideal” types and have been adapted and interpreted by different political regimes (Christensen, 2017). That also explains why there are believers and non-believers of police models. Police practitioners often confront academics with the fact that a police model is not applicable in practice although that it is not the intention of academics when defining a police model as a way of conceptualizing the role of police in our society with its organizational and operational consequences in an ideal-typical way. It is a misunderstanding that in the literature is often described as an aspect of the “dialogue of the deaf” or a “dialogue of the hard-of-hearing” that exists between academics and practitioners (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Johnston & Shearing, 2009; Bronitt, 2013; Easton & De Vlieger, 2018). Taking this tradition of using ideal-types into account (in the format of police models) in police research during the past decades, we move to the core of the Abstract Police as an ideal-type defined by Terpstra, Fyfe, and Salet (2019) and position it within the tradition described above.

The Core of the “Abstract Police” as an “Ideal-Type” Very early on in their argument, the authors indicate that the Abstract Police should be understood as an ideal-type. In the following citation, we read how they use the concept of “ideal-type” to underpin their contribution: “The abstract police should be understood as an ideal-typical concept

34 

M. EASTON

(Weber, 1965). Ideal (or ‘pure’) types are abstractions that emphasize certain elements or perspectives on social reality. They should be helpful to describe and understand important elements, such as changes in contemporary police organizations. The use of the ideal type of abstract police is not meant to suggest that the empirical reality of the current police completely corresponds with it. The empirical reality is more complex than that. Although the police may be seen as increasingly abstract, elements of former and more traditional organizational types and cultures can still be found, and may be in conflict with the abstract police. As a consequence, the issue is not if the concept of abstract police is (completely) ‘true’; what matters is if the concept is helpful to better understand increasingly dominant elements of contemporary police organizations. In the following we will deal with both aspects of the abstract police. This concept should contribute to a better understanding of recent developments in police services and the interpretation of important findings of several empirical studies” (Terpstra et al., 2019: 4). In this citation, we decipher five dimensions in their conceptualization of the Abstract Police as an ideal-type that can be related to the core of what an ideal-type is. (a) They refer to an ideal-type as an abstraction that emphasizes certain elements or perspectives on social reality. (b) The ideal-type is used to describe and understand important elements such as changes in contemporary police organizations. (c) The ideal-type is not meant to suggest that the empirical reality completely corresponds with it. (d) Elements of former and more traditional organizational types and cultures can still be found and may be in conflict with the Abstract Police. (e) The issue is not if the concept of the Abstract Police is (completely) “true”; what matters is if the concept is helpful to better understand increasingly dominant elements of contemporary police organizations. So far so good as these elements capture the core of an ideal-type and how this concept has been used in earlier research on policing. Terpstra, Fyfe, and Salet (2019) put forward the thesis that, over the past years, the police in many Western European countries have made a shift toward a fundamentally different kind of organization with

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

35

far-reaching consequences, which have remained unnoticed until now. They introduce the concept of the Abstract Police as an “ideal-type” to explore how policing in Scotland and the Netherlands has become more distanced and formalized, in both external and internal systems, processes, and relationships. These changes are due to police reforms in both countries since 2013 that can be characterized by scale enlargement and highly centralized national forces. The goals of these reforms are an increased effectiveness and efficiency and to solve problems related to organizational fragmentation. According to the authors, the rise of the Abstract Police can partially be seen as a significant unintended outcome of these reforms, although more gradual and long-term social developments have also contributed to this new kind of police organization. With the “Abstract Police,” the authors mean that the police have become more impersonal, less direct, and more decontextualized. Personal knowledge of officer(s) is increasingly replaced by “system knowledge,” framed within the “logic” and categorizations of computer data systems. It has consequences for how the police operate but also for what they believe is “good” policing. Furthermore, they indicate that the shift toward the Abstract Police is not the same as the loss of local embeddedness. Even Abstract Police organizations can be oriented to local problems and partners, but increasingly this is being realized in more abstract or decontextualized ways, less dependent on local knowledge and personal and informal relations (Terpstra et al., 2019: 4). The authors underpin their arguments more in detail with attention for internal processes, the external relations of the police organization, and an overall assessment of the changing structure and views of the police. If we move to the “internal” relations of the “Abstract Police,” the authors observe larger teams, larger working areas, less close relations between officers, and less confident and familiar atmosphere than in smaller teams and local stations. An increased formalization and fragmentation of police work in combination with a disturbed internal communication is at the core of these observations. This is reinforced by more layers of management and specialization within the police forces. Direct, personal, context-dependent forms of supervision are replaced by centralized, performance management focusing on quantitative targets and general goals that overlook the specific context and local situation in which field workers find themselves on a daily basis. The outcome is a gap between management cops and street-level cops.

36 

M. EASTON

The current “external” relations of contemporary police organizations are characterized by the authors in terms of more distance between the police and their “audiences,” a loss of knowledge on what is happening in the field and a shift in style of policing from local engagement to a focus on mere enforcement. Cooperation with partners has been taken out of the local context, away from the local police, highly depersonalized and dependent on computer systems. It is clear to the authors that policing has fundamentally changed in terms of “structure” and “culture.” In relation to “structure,” the choice for scale enlargement, standardization of work processes, and an increased reliance on IT (even dependence on computers) has led to a horizontal division of tasks and responsibilities among different actors and a vertical division of specialized expertise and powers in the organization. Although this was meant to generate a less fragmented police which is more effective, efficient, and better equipped for organized crime and cybercrime, it has important unintended consequences. According to the authors, it has generated coordination problems, a loss of feeling of responsibility and ownership, and a lack of overview. It is their reasoning behind the idea of the police evolving from a street-level, screen-level to a system-level bureaucracy which is less informed, less flexible, and more dependent on rigid systems. In relation to “culture,” the authors observe changing views within the police organization because of the impact of New Public Management, information-led policing, and a focus on core tasks of the police. In an attempt to strife for values such as efficiency and effectivity, budget cuts led to closure of police units, central specialized units, and stronger reliance on IT. The introduction of intelligence-led policing brought in specialists focusing on intelligence and crime analysis to the detriment of the importance of informal knowledge in the police organization. At the same time, the police focus more on their core tasks being criminal law issues which leads to a degradation of all tasks defined as community oriented. The authors indicate that these evolutions lead to an undermining of the traditional police culture believed to be solid and generating togetherness. On this recapitulation in summary form of the “Abstract Police,” we would like to make some methodological reflections in the next section to further consider in moving forward in the interesting debate that our colleagues have started.

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

37

Some Methodological Reflections When reading the contribution of Terpstra, Fyfe, and Salet (2019), it becomes clear that the authors have built up the ideal-type mainly using findings from their vast empirical research on local policing in Scotland and the Netherlands. Their vivid description of police practices in contemporary police organizations generates understanding of what is currently going on in the field and the unintended consequences of certain reforms that police organizations have been through. They use telling examples from practice that are recognizable both for academics and for professionals in the field. Despite the insights and understanding generated by our colleagues, their ideal-type does not transcend those empirical findings. Although the authors pose the question whether this is the kind of police that we want for the future, their ideal-type does not fundamentally question the current role and the position of the police in our society. More than that, they do not develop an idea on policing to strive for in the future, an inherent characteristic of ideal-types in general and those previously developed in research on the police (as mentioned in section “The Core of the ‘Abstract Police’ as an ‘Ideal-Type’”). Previous types indeed showed an unbridled belief in the predetermined goal and highlighted paradigmatic shifts in the history of policing. On the contrary, the Abstract Police is built up inspired by negative consequences of good intentions, an unwanted side effect. The latter observation is an interesting one. During the discussions at the pre-conference of the European Society of Criminology in 2019  in Ghent, the authors presented their analysis. The audience, consisting of academics and practitioners, expressed both recognition and criticism of the analysis presented. Numerous empirical examples and experiences were expressed and discussed in plenary and in the corridors. Criticism was mainly countered by the authors using the argument that an idealtype is not meant to suggest that the empirical reality completely corresponds with it and that elements of former and more traditional organizational types and cultures can still be found. Although this is a theoretically valid argument linked to the definition of an ideal-type, we believe that this argument does not apply to the kind of ideal-type developed here being one inspired by mainly empirical findings of previous research. Somehow this indicates that the authors might have been confronted by what we previously called the two great inherent difficulties in

38 

M. EASTON

developing ideal-types being either too abstract or too close to empirical findings. To use the words of Schnapper in Serpa (2018: 398), they might have stayed too close to empirical data and concrete realities, making it not distinguishable from historical narration, systematic description, or orderly presentation of examples. If we think this is the case, it becomes hard to sustain the argument that the Abstract Police is an ideal-type that fits into the row of previously developed police models as ideal-types. On the contrary, it opens up the avenue to further explore how the analysis of our colleagues can be explained using the police models that we know instead of presenting it as the development of a new ideal-type. Although the authors state that they capture elements that have been left unnoticed until now, that is not the feeling the reader gets when going through the result of their analysis. Issues such as the existence of the gap between management cops and street cops; the exchange of knowledge and info within the police organization that is hampered by a focus on IT; the ignorance of street-knowledge gathered by officers on the beat; the misinterpretation of community policing within the police organization and the perverse effects of new public management values for the police function in our society; all are not really new developments and have een been researched in the past decades. We do agree that some of these evolutions have been further triggered by the use of more IT in the police organization. That’s why we are convinced that the analysis presented could have gained strength when it would have been presented not as a new idealtype. The empirical elements gathered are strong, but we do believe they can be captured by referring to a pendulum movement within police organizations between different existing ideal-types/police models such as the “military-bureaucratic model,” the “lawful policing model,” the “community policing model,” and the “public-private divide model.” As police organizations are often home to a combination of models, a variety of paradoxes and contradictions are inherent to the functioning of our contemporary police organizations. Although we agree that the technological changes in our society these days are generating a huge impact, we still believe that technology can be part of each of the police models (as previously stated by Ponsaers, 2001) and will further trigger the pendulum movement within police organizations. This alternative might open the door for including more of the positive evolutions that technology has brought to the functioning of the police in our contemporary society and

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

39

further add to our understanding of what is currently going on in the field. It must be clear that we see more potential in this option to continue and balance the interesting debate initiated by our colleagues.

Conclusion: Adding Balance to the Debate Taking into account the symbolic role of ideal-types internationally for local reformers in the history of policing (Christensen, 2017: 851) using it as inspiration (as could be observed in relation to the community-oriented policing model) or as something to avoid at all costs (as was the case with the military-bureaucratic model in Anglo-Saxon contexts), the question remains what the role of the Abstract Police could be. Despite the generated insight and understanding of what is currently going on in the field of policing, only the future will tell if the Abstract Police as ideal-type will play a significant role in future reforms of policing worldwide. We currently have our doubts as the ideal-type does not represent a vision on the future for policing and does not have any inherent aspirations which was the case in other ideal-types developed such as the “military-bureaucratic model,” the “lawful policing model,” the “community policing model,” and the “public-private divide model.” In this contribution we built upon the observation that Terpstra, Fyfe, and Salet (2019) have developed an ideal-type mainly relying on empirical findings from their research on local policing in the Netherlands and Scotland. Because there is a pitfall in developing an ideal-type closely linked to empirical findings, we suggested the idea of making sense of all their valuable observations by framing them using the existing police models as ideal-types developed in earlier research on the police. The advantage of this approach is that it is a way out of the current negativity emanating from the Abstract Police and it opens up the door to include all positive developments of technology being used by the police in our contemporary society. This would enrich the debate, adding balance in terms of positive and negative evolutions in the uptake of technology by the police, and give credit to existing police models developed as ideal-types in previous research. For fueling the debate in the future, sociology remains an interesting discipline. Structural sociology offers a framework that makes the ­import/ export of police ideals intelligible by investigating the close relationship between the collectively constructed symbolism of international ideal types and the national field of power in which they are activated,

40 

M. EASTON

reproduced, and transformed (Christensen, 2017: 863). Different case studies could generate more insight on the impact of context on uptake of ideal-types. This means that more research is needed on how the different police models are combined in police organizations across Europe and how the context (within the organization as well as outside the force, in the political and socioeconomic arena) of each case influences the mutual similarities and differences.

References Adriaansens, H. P. M. (1976). Talcott Parsons en het Conceptuele Dilemma. Van Loghum Slaterus. Bayley, D. H. (1975). The police and political development in Europe. In C. Tilly (Ed.), The formation of national states in Western Europe (pp.  328–379). Princeton University Press. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the ‘dialogue of the deaf’: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Bronitt, S. (2013). Beyond ‘dialogues of the deaf’: Re-imagining policing and security research for policy and practice. In G.  Bammer (Ed.), Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems (pp. 381–388). The Australian National University Press. Christensen, M. J. (2017). The Import/Export of Police Models: Danish 19th Century Police Reform Between Elites of Revolution and Reaction. Journal of Historical Sociology, 30(1), 845–867. Cordner, G., Maguire, E.  R., & Shearing, C. (2021). Policing, politics, and democracy: David Bayley’s enduring contributions. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.108 0/01924036.2021.1916972 Dunivin, K. O. (1994). Military culture: Change and continuity. Armed Forces & Society, 20(4), 531–547. Easton, M. (2001). De demilitarisering van de rijkswacht. Criminologische Studies (Vol. 9). VUBPress. Easton, M., & De Vlieger, S. (2018). Belgian reflections on the dialogue of the deaf. European Journal of Policing Studies, 5(3), 36–54. Eliaeson, S. (1990). Influences on Max Weber’s methodology. Acta Sociologica, 33(1), 15–30. Emsley, C. (1999). A typology of nineteenth-century police. Crime, History & Societies, 3(1), 29–44. Frissen, P.  H. A. (1989). Bureaucratische Cultuur en informatisering. Sdu Uitgeverij.

  REFLECTIONS ON THE ABSTRACT POLICE USING THE PERSPECTIVE… 

41

Gerhardt, U. (1994). The use of weberian ideal-type methodology in qualitative data interpretation: An outline for ideal-type analysis. Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique (0759–1063), 45(1), 74–126. Gerth, H.  H., & Wright Mills, C. (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Gonçalves, G. R. (2017). Police reform and the transnational circulation of police models: The Portuguese case in the 1860s. Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies [Online], 18(1) | 2014, Online since 01 July 2017, connection on 17 March 2020. http://journals.openedition.org/chs/1461; https:// doi.org/10.4000/chs.1461. Grønning, T. (2017). Ideal type. In B.  S. Turner, C.  Kyung-Sup, C.  Epstein, P. Kivisto, W. Outhwaite, & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of social theory (pp.  1–2). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118430873.est0670 Johnston, L. (1999). Private policing. Public Policy Research, June–August 2011, 73–80. Johnston, L., & Shearing, C. (2009). From a ‘dialogue of the deaf’ to a ‘dialogue of listening’: Towards a new methodology of policing research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 415–422. Kalberg, S. (1994). Max Weber’s comparative historical sociology. The University Press of Chicago Press. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Chandler Publishing Company. Lammers, C. J. L. (1993). Organiseren van Bovenaf en van Onderop: een Beknopte Inleiding in de Organisatiesociologie. Het Spectrum. Lawrence, P. (Ed.). (2011). The New Police in the Nineteenth Century. Taylor & Francis Group. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/lib/griffith/detail.action?docID=4907753 Levin, W. C. (1991). Sociological Ideas. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Oliverio, A. (2020). The importance of models in sociology: The example of Max Weber. Advances in Applied Sociology, 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4236/ aasoci.2020.101001 Ponsaers, P. (2001). Reading about “community (oriented) policing” and police models. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24(4), 470–496. Reiss, A. J. (1992). Police organization in the twentieth century. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Modern policing, crime & justice: A review of research. The University Chicago Press. Rosenberg, M. M. (2015). The conceptual articulation of the reality of life: Max Weber’s theoretical constitution of sociological ideal types. Journal of Classical Sociology, 16, 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X15574414 Secher, H. P. (1993). Max Weber: Basic concepts in sociology. Citadel Press.

42 

M. EASTON

Segady, T. W. (2014). The utility of Weber’s ideal type: Verstehen and the theory of critical mass. Sociological Spectrum, 34(4), 354–361. Serpa, S. (2018). Ideal type in sociological research. Sociology International Journal, 2(5), 398–399. https://doi.org/10.15406/sij.2018.02.00075 Swedberg, R. (2017). How to use Max Weber’s ideal type in sociological analysis. Journal of Classical Sociology, 18(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.117 7/1468795X17743643 Terpstra., Fyfe., & Salet. (2019). Paper ‘Abstract Police’ as presented at ESC preconference in september 2019 at Ghent University, Belgium. Van Ryckeghem, D., Huens, C., & Hendrickx, E. (1998). Conflicten in de Maatschappij: de Politie een Partner? Een onderzoek naar de grenzen van de traditionele referentiekaders en die van ‘Community Policing’ in het raam van het politionele begeleiden van evenementen. Rijkswacht Generale Staf. Wagner, G., & Härpfer, C. (2014). On the very idea of an ideal type. Societàmutamentopolitica., 5(9), 215–234. Weber, M. (1965 [1922]). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr. Weber, M. (1968 [1922]). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Bedminster Press. Wood, J., & Dupont, B. (2006). Democracy, society and the governance of security. Cambridge University Press.

Technology and Police Legitimacy Elizabeth Aston, Helen Wells, Ben Bradford, and Megan O’Neill

Abstract  Through a consideration of the use of mobile devices by the police and the public, this chapter explores some of the potential issues raised by the incorporation of technology. What internal challenges should be considered for police organisations? What impact may the expansion of technologically mediated interactions have on public perceptions of police E. Aston (*) School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] H. Wells School of Social, Political and Global Studies, University of Keele, Keele, UK e-mail: [email protected] B. Bradford Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] M. O’Neill School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_4

43

44 

E. ASTON ET AL.

legitimacy? Whilst there is a large volume of work linking procedural justice in face-to-face interactions to legitimacy, we know little about how this operates online. Employing the concept of the ‘abstract police’ (Terpstra et al., The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 92(4), 339–359, 2019), we consider the potential impact of technology on legitimacy both internally within police organisations and externally between the police and the public. We consider organisational justice and conceptualise legitimacy as dialogic and relational (Bottoms & Tankebe, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102, 119–170, 2012). Keywords  Technology • Police legitimacy • ‘Abstract police’

Introduction Policing is experiencing, indeed being pushed towards, rapid transformation, a process accelerated by change linked to globalisation, technological shifts and societal challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and financial recession. Technological shifts at multiple levels push police to adapt in order to, for example, respond to global criminal networks operating online, or to engage with partners and with the public in ways to which the latter have now grown accustomed. We increasingly live our lives online, and police also need to be present in this ‘space’. With growing reliance on mobile devices, and with people increasingly networked on a more or less permanent basis, the policing problems presented, and suitable responses to them, often span multiple physical and virtual places. Furthermore, social and political debate, tension and discord can generate significant focus on the role of technology in policing, as well as the role of the police in society, for example, in the context of austerity, discrimination in policing (e.g. in relation to ‘predictive policing’) and calls to ‘defund’ the police (Vitale, 2019). Yet, despite a significant and growing emphasis on these issues with various academic literatures (e.g. Bradford et al., 2020; Ferguson, 2017; Nikolovska et al., 2020), the impact of technological shifts on police officers and the way they think about and do their job, and, particularly, the effect of the expansion of technologically mediated contact on police legitimacy, remain largely unexplored (an important exception to this being the large body of work testing the effect of body-worn cameras (BWC) on officer behaviour

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

45

; e.g. Ariel et al., 2018). Given the centrality of legitimacy and related concepts in the debates mentioned above, much academic research on policing, and, indeed, the regulatory framework of policing in countries such as England and Wales (HMICFRS, 2018), this may be considered something of a puzzle—it certainly represents an increasingly obvious gap in the literature. In this chapter, we seek to address three sets of issues relating to the question of technology and police legitimacy, using mobile devices as a focus. Firstly, in a Smart Society, policing straddles the physical and virtual—yet we know very little about how legitimacy, as a property of the relationship between police and public, ‘works’ in a virtual sphere. A wealth of evidence supports the idea that procedural justice during face-­ to-­face engagement is a key predictor of legitimacy (Walters & Bolger, 2019); but what impact might interactions that are increasingly technologically mediated (Wells et al., 2020) have on police legitimacy? Secondly, we need to consider the impact of technology and the ‘abstract police’ (Terpstra et  al., 2019; discussed below) on public perceptions, that is, ‘external’ or audience legitimacy and in addition ‘internal’ or power-­ holder legitimacy, in both an organisational and individual sense (self-­ legitimacy). The two are of course connected (Bradford & Quinton, 2014), and we argue that concepts borrowed from the literature on organisational justice are helpful for exploring this. Thirdly, if legitimacy is indeed dialogic and relational (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012), reliance on technology, and an increasingly ‘abstract police’, will have implications for, and indeed may disrupt, legitimacy (internal and external) and notions of policing by consent in ways that are currently not well understood. This chapter begins with a consideration of some of the existing literature around the key concepts to be explored: technology and street policing in smart societies; police legitimacy; ‘abstract police’; and technologically mediated contact and police legitimacy. The next section looks at a consideration of the implications of mobile data terminals in frontline policing. Then we explore public use of mobile devices, for example, social media, online reporting and implications for legitimacy. We conclude with considerations and concerns relating to technology, ‘abstract’ policing and legitimacy.

46 

E. ASTON ET AL.

Technology and Street Policing in Smart Societies People are increasingly living their lives online and using mobile devices to share and access information. The amount of time people spend connected to the Internet increased in 2020, to an average of seven hours a day, with the vast majority of access being via mobile devices (Kemp, 2020). Police are also increasingly ‘connected’, for example, in smart city systems (Cassandras, 2016) that link dispersed sensor layers connected to actuator layers which can include police actors. In smart societies, policing straddles physical place-based locations and the online virtual world. ‘Smart Cities’ use Internet of Things (IoT) technology and Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-based infrastructures with the avowed aim of enhancing quality of life. But these infrastructures also pose threats to privacy and the security of personal data (Ismagilova et  al., 2020). In a ‘smart’ system, technology may simultaneously present a solution, by purporting to enhance safety, and a problem, by posing a risk, for example, to privacy and security. Thus, careful adherence to and regular reviews of data protection, human rights and equalities legislation regulations are paramount for the success and acceptability of these systems. Many different forms of technology and digital policing could be explored in the context of smart societies, and some of these are briefly mentioned now. Technology is increasingly present in face-to-face police contact, such as police use of mobile data terminals and body-worn cameras. Some research suggests that BWC may improve trust and transparency (Sousa et  al., 2018) and reduce complaints and use of force (e.g. Ariel et  al., 2015), but the evidence is mixed, and Lum et  al.’s (2020) systematic review concluded that there is little evidence of consistent and significant effects on the way officers or citizens behave. Furthermore, there is concern that BWC may constrain discretion and does not necessarily bring greater public accountability (Rowe et al., 2017). Technology is also increasingly present in online contact for crime reporting (e.g. ‘single online home’ in England) or in police engagement via social media. It is also worth considering the impact of technology in surveillance, security and policing solutions (e.g. CCTV, facial recognition software, online surveillance, the use of ‘big data’, AI and predictive policing) and investigation (e.g. digital forensics, drones). For example, police use of live facial recognition (LFR) has prompted debate because of its potential for inaccuracy and bias. In particular, an inquiry in Scotland concluded that there is no justifiable basis for investment and welcomed

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

47

confirmation from Police Scotland that they have no intention to use LFR at this time (Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 2020). The use of drones by police for ‘visual monitoring’ has also been contentious in the UK and indeed other countries such as Belgium. The use of drones is perhaps less contentious for missing person searches (Heen et al., 2018), but ‘mission creep’ into wider policing purposes has recently been examined in Scotland (Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 2021). In this chapter, we will focus on mobile devices as a lens through which to explore some key aspects of technology and police legitimacy, through both police use of mobile data terminals and public use of mobile devices. As the discussion will demonstrate, however, the majority of current research prioritises the police point of view, which highlights the need for a better understanding of public perceptions. Firstly, we explore literature on police legitimacy, the ‘abstract police’ and the potential implications of increasingly technologically mediated contact on police legitimacy. Police Legitimacy: What Is It, and Why Should We Care? The question of legitimacy has, in the last decade, moved to the centre of academic and also wider debates on policing (Tankebe, 2014). It has become something of an organising concept around which ideas, discussion and actions revolve, and provides for a rich set of understandings of police policy and practice. This is not to say, however, that its meaning and import are not themselves contested. Until recently, police legitimacy has tended to be understood through the lens of Tyler’s procedural justice theory (PJT). Here, legitimacy is, first, a property of an authority that leads people to believe it and its decisions are right, proper and demanding of deference and obedience. Second, the basis for these beliefs can be found most importantly in perceptions and assessments of process fairness (Tyler, 2006). On this account, legitimacy can be identified in the positive, intentional beliefs people hold in relation to authorities—that they are morally appropriate, entitled to command obedience and that those subject to them have a duty to obey. These beliefs are themselves grounded most importantly—but of course not solely—in experiences and perceptions of fairness, and particularly process fairness. One of the most important ways authorities such as police can communicate that they are morally and normatively appropriate is treating those over whom they have power with dignity and respect, allowing them a voice and making decisions that affect people in a fair and unbiased fashion. Research has focused on the

48 

E. ASTON ET AL.

antecedents of public perceptions of legitimacy, but also its consequents, most notably compliance with the law and cooperation with authorities (see Higginson & Mazerolle, 2014, and Walters & Bolger, 2019, for recent reviews). This research provides a compelling account of why this concept is so important in police-community relations—it is legitimacy that allows ‘policing by consent’ and that translates police power into authority. Bottoms and Tankebe’s (2012) ‘dialogic’ model offers perhaps the most developed, and increasingly popular, theoretical critique and extension of this notion of legitimacy. Concerned that criminologists were excessively focusing on ‘the public’, Bottoms and Tankebe proposed a more holistic view of legitimacy that took proper account of the perspectives of powerholders (i.e. police officers and organisations). They propose a dialogic and relational model of legitimacy wherein police make claims, of various kinds, in various ways, and at various levels, to be legitimate, which are processed and acted on with the public. Moreover, the reactions of the latter to police claim-making reflect back on and alter the types of claims police can and wish to make. Whilst Bottoms and Tankebe’s ‘dialogic model’ is itself subject to critique and possible extension (Martin & Bradford, 2019), its core ideas are highly pertinent to our aims in this chapter. First, the weight placed on police officers’ understandings of their own legitimacy, and thus the types of claims they are willing and able to make, highlights the importance of considering their reactions to new communication technologies and their perceptions of the possibilities and challenges these bring. Second, Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) identify a core aspect to legitimacy sustaining processes often glossed in the PJT literature—that claims to legitimacy can be embedded in any form of communication between police and policed, whether these are intentional or implicit, direct or mediated, person to person or via some automated system. To put it another way, the claim of police to be morally appropriate can be made in many ways and, potentially, to many different audiences. As Noppe et al. (2017) point out, most policing research focuses on citizen perceptions (what they term empirical legitimacy and we refer to here as external legitimacy), rather than power-holder legitimacy (or as they term normative legitimacy and we refer to here as internal legitimacy). As well as external legitimacy (in the eyes of the public, i.e. audience legitimacy), we also consider the potential impact of the introduction of technology on internal (i.e. power-holder) legitimacy, both at the level

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

49

of police organisations and at the level of officers’ and staff’s self-­legitimacy. Indeed, internal and external legitimacy are also connected as Bradford and Quinton (2014) found that aspects of organisational justice (e.g. officers’ perceptions of how procedurally just police leaders are) were important in understanding self-legitimacy, which in turn was linked to more democratic modes of policing. Despite a long history of problematic relations with certain communities—which have often not been policed by consent—there seems little doubt that police in England, Scotland and Wales command widespread public support. However, police legitimacy is currently being put to the test by various societal challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the consequent financial recession and the now global Black Lives Matter movement. It is thus an important time to reflect on what we know about the various factors that create and sustain police legitimacy, and this must now include a consideration of the role and potential implications of technology as an increasingly frequent additional presence in police-public encounters. Abstract Police Terpstra et al. (2019) introduced the concept of ‘the abstract police’ to illustrate broad trends resulting from the police centralisation and reform projects in Scotland and The Netherlands in 2013. Their thesis is that, as a result of efforts to enhance effectiveness and efficiency, and to reduce organisational fragmentation, these police forces were becoming more distanced, both internally (among police) and externally (from the publics they serve), more impersonal and formal, less direct and more decontextualised. The reorientation, they argue, has implications not just for external relationships with the public but also for internal relationships. The local knowledge of officers is devalued in favour of ‘system knowledge’, and informal methods of communication are replaced with more formalised processes. In their Dutch case study, there were problems with fragmented work processes, over-reliance on IT communication and the effectiveness of computer systems. Terpstra et  al. (2019) argue that whilst these trends towards a more removed, distant and abstract police have been observed in Scotland and The Netherlands specifically, similar patterns are emerging in other Western democracies. Some of the drivers of the unintended consequences they identified include New Public Management and austerity,

50 

E. ASTON ET AL.

intelligence-­led policing, a focus on the ‘core tasks’ of policing and a gradual process of modernisation, rationalisation and ‘McDonaldisation’ (Ritzer, 1993). They also note that ‘one may wonder what consequences the increasing abstractness of the police may have from the perspective of citizens’ (Terpstra et  al., 2019: 353). Whilst emerging communication technologies hold the promise of increasing the diversity and reach of contact points with the police, there is a potential to increase the ‘abstractness’ of these agencies and thus in fact keep the public at a greater distance. The concept of the abstract police is useful to explore the potential impact of technology on internal and external legitimacy. What Do We Know About Technologically Mediated Contact and Police Legitimacy? Initial considerations regarding the potential impact of incorporating technology on police legitimacy now appear overly positive, for example, in terms of its potential to be non-discriminatory (Joh, 2007), and operate without regard to demographic characteristics and social divisions (Lianos & Douglas, 2000). The suggestion was that increased automation, and potentially technological mediation, may further aspects of procedural justice such as consistency, neutrality and impartiality. Yet, whilst human-­ machine interactions have been the subject of much research in contexts beyond policing, there is a ‘dearth of academic research on the implications of digital technology for procedural justice theory’ (Rabinovich-Einy & Katsh, 2014: 35). In the context of the workplace, Zuboff (2001) argued that as work becomes more computer-mediated, it is separated from physical cues, and therefore abstract thinking is needed to consider what information separated from the concrete world might mean. Given the status of the police as a powerful authority, how might members of the public react when human representatives of that authority may be unseen, ‘abstract’, augmented by technology or indeed not actually human at all? The context of online dispute resolution may be a relevant point of comparison here, as it introduces virtual or digitised elements and involves seeking a resolution to some form of disagreement or conflict. Rabinovich-Einy and Katsh’s research (2014: 7) suggests that introducing technology may be disruptive and that the reason for contact is relevant to the experience of technologically mediated encounters. We cannot assume that the development of legitimacy will be constructed in the same way in a digital context. By

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

51

contrast, Creutzfeldt and Bradford (Creuztfeldt & Bradford, 2016; Bradford & Creutzfeldt, 2018) found that in the almost entirely mediated process of dealing with ombuds services in the UK and Germany, users’ perceptions of procedural justice were still an important factor predicting satisfaction with the service and willingness to accept the decisions reached. Similarly, Tyler and colleagues (2021) demonstrated that users of a social media site who had had content removed because it violated ‘community standards’ (e.g. including nudity, hate speech or bullying) responded positively to a notification and appeal process they perceived to be procedurally fair. Essentially, though, we know very little about the impact of technologically mediated contact on legitimacy in the often ‘symbolically loaded’ context of policing. As Norman points out: ‘technology is not neutral. Each technology has properties…. Each has constraints, preconditions, and side effects that impose requirements and changes on the things with which it interacts, be they other technology, people or human society at large’ (Norman, 1993: 243). We now go on to explore an example of the use of mobile-enabled technology in policing and its implications for police legitimacy.

Mobile Data Terminals in Frontline Policing Povey (2001) suggests that the introduction of mobile technology is one of the most significant developments in modern policing. This has moved beyond ‘e-policing’ (where information is made available to officers via mobile devices) and into ‘mobile policing’—that is where all policing tasks can theoretically be completed whilst an officer is out of the station (Carter & Grommon, 2015). Technologies such as mobile data terminals (MDTs) appeal as ‘force multipliers’ (Nunn & Quinet, 2002: 84), offering to extend the physical capacity of officers to remember, recognise, confirm, query and communicate data (Haggerty & Ericson, 1999: 237). However, as Koper et al. note, it would be a mistake to presume that technology can simply be ‘added’ to policing without affecting what policing ‘is’ and how it is ‘done’: Technology adoption is not only a long and continuous process of its own, but one that is highly connected to many other aspects of policing, including daily routines and deployments, job satisfaction, interaction with the community, internal relationships, and crime control. (Koper et al., 2014: 7)

52 

E. ASTON ET AL.

Graham et al. (2021) identified a number of potential long-term benefits of MDTs including productivity, connectivity and communication, well-being and culture change, but their recommendations for the second phase of implementation in Scotland drew attention to the value of further engagement of officers in device development and communication on timelines, which we would suggest may highlight importance of organisational justice. The introduction of MDTs to frontline policing is significant both in terms of external relationships with the public and as an intra-organisational process. Both are of relevance to legitimacy—of policing to the public, and of officers to their organisation. In order to explore some of the potential implications of mobile-enabled technology, we present a case study examining research findings from an English police force. Within this force, the roll-out of mobile-enabled technology to frontline officers was seen as enabling a fundamental shift in the way in which policing was done on the ground, offering the potential for reduced costs, increased visibility and maximised efficiency. The research was commissioned by the force Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and took place between September 2015 and September 2016, within the context of significant cuts to police budgets. Three sweeps of focus groups, with a total of 117 officers, were conducted immediately prior to their MDT training, three months after officers had received MDTs and again after another seven months (Wells & Prince, 2016). MDTs, Organisational Justice and Internal Legitimacy Frontline officers in this English case study were well aware that MDTs were seen by leaders within their forces, as well as the PCC’s office, as beneficial in terms of their potential to make officers more visible at a time of reduced budgets and declining officer numbers. Officers were thus particularly sensitive as to whether or not the devices actually enabled them to be out of the police station. However, as the devices did not initially have the functionality (internet access) for this mobility to be realistic, some officers felt that the expectations of police leaders and the PCC’s office were unfair, posing a risk to their sense of organisational justice. This was despite the fact that the force reassured them that the devices would not be used in this way. Anxieties about visibility were related to a range of psychological, physical and practical issues. From a practical perspective, officer comments in the early months of the roll-out focused on the basic capabilities of the technology, such as

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

53

battery life, and their compatibility with the perceived goal of visibility for the majority of a shift. Many officers feared that being ‘out’ would become all that mattered in terms of judging their performance, and devices would simultaneously be the cause of their apparent poor performance and the source of data that held them accountable for it. The absence of Internet connectivity was perceived as the most significant practical failing of the devices when they were first introduced, although it had been addressed by the end of the research. Senior management was presumed, by some, to have refused to allow officers Internet access—something they felt was essential to their effectiveness as officers as well as to their ‘visibility’—because they could not be trusted to use it safely or appropriately. This perception of distrust allowed some officers to believe that ‘the bosses’ would rather they not do their job well, than risk inappropriate use, and that visibility was more important than their actual effectiveness. This presents a clear example of the way a sense of organisational injustice can undermine an officer’s sense of self-legitimacy (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Trinkner et al., 2016). Some officers in the case study site were also concerned that the intrinsic value of the police station was not appreciated amidst efforts to increase their visibility and that (in the mind of police leaders) the station was the antithesis of mobility and equated with idleness. They feared a situation where a police car provides power, doubles as a desk, a restaurant provides food and a radio offers the same benefits as a conversation. In Allen and Wilson’s research, in-person information sharing with peers was highly valued, with officers placing ‘a great deal of importance on co-location’ (2005: 29). Some tasks, officers suggested, could not be effectively completed ‘out and about’, while others should not. This connects to concerns raised by Terpstra et al. (2019) regarding the ‘abstract police’ and increased reliance on ‘system knowledge’ potentially having undesired operational consequences, as well as the negative impacts of distance between officers. At the same time, some officers identified what they felt was the human need to be out of sight at some point during the shift, not to hide or avoid work, but simply to ‘recharge’ or ‘breathe’. Therefore, as well as being a place to concentrate on paperwork and think without interruption, the station was also place for legitimate ‘down time’. Many officers, however, perceived that non-frontline observers would not necessarily appreciate this and might, along with Agrawal et al., perceive it as expendable ‘non-­ value-­added time’ (2003: 78). Visibility was therefore often described in negative terms more reminiscent of exposure, suggesting that officers felt

54 

E. ASTON ET AL.

that they could be denied valuable opportunities to regroup, recharge and refocus by being permanently available. This therefore connects discussions of internal legitimacy to external legitimacy and the ways the general public may understand officer visibility and how MDTs are used. MDTs and External Legitimacy Whilst difficulty in balancing visibility and other organisational priorities was evident internally, similar tensions may also exist in relation to the effect of MDTs on legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The English force in question was certainly not alone in being concerned with officer visibility. The reassurance potential of having officers on the beat and visible for a higher proportion of their shift is a common motivation behind the roll-­ out of mobile devices (Karanasios et  al., 2009). As Ioimo and Aronson note, ‘[o]ne of the strong industry arguments in favour of field computing is that it will free officers’ time and allow them to spend more time on community policing issues’ (2004: 418), yet they found the opposite was true. Carter and Grommon’s (2015) research also gives reason for caution, noting that any gains in time from technology occur only in small increments between tasks and in total may equate to half an hour over the course of a shift. Despite the optimism about their introduction, it is not certain that the arrival of MDTs will actually bring the police closer to the public. In an effort to do their job without the support of a station, some officers in this research had found ways (such as ‘hiding’ in their vehicle in back alleys or corners of car parks) to try and limit their accessibility in order to perform better at record keeping tasks whilst nonetheless being recorded by the technology as ‘out of the station’. Whilst officers doing essential paperwork out of sight in their car might be recorded as ‘visible’, they were concerned that they would neither be accessible to the public nor be aware of what was going on around them. Some participants also felt that the devices had changed their interactions with the public. They maintained that they could communicate better with the public, particularly with someone who was not that keen on talking to them, if they were writing by hand, rather than looking at the device. They could still maintain eye contact when writing but had to look away when typing. Eye contact is an example where the potential impact of technologically mediated contact should be explored further in terms of procedural justice, for example, in terms of demonstrating respect, politeness and voice (being heard).

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

55

Officers were also aware of how their ‘absent presence’ might appear to the public, who would not necessarily understand why they were apparently sitting in their vehicles ‘on their phones’. This suggests that police forces need to consider the messages that MDTs (and other technological mediation) send out to the public and pay more attention to communicating with the public prior to the roll-out of new technologies. As Agrawal et al. (2003) notes, the impact of mobile data on, and opinions of, various publics (as key stakeholders in this process) must be included in future research. MDTs and Social Media Visibility Social media visibility was raised as an issue by Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) participants in this research, who felt a tension between an expectation that they were physically visible in their communities and a need to be visible in a virtual sense via social media. This was particularly the case when the absence of Internet connectivity prevented them from doing both at the same time. As some officers who took part in the research noted, there is a difference between being visible because you are completing a patrol on foot, being visible because a video or other piece of information you posted recently can be seen online and then being visible because you are driving through an area at speed with sirens sounding and lights flashing en route to an emergency. It should not be assumed that the messages being read off from each method of ‘being present’ are the same, but all three types of visibility will send off ‘control signals’ (Innes, 2004) of some sort. Little research has engaged with the issue of the type and form of ‘presence’ of the police within a community, and the meaning that it may have. The now dated Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment found that ‘routine preventative patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe’ (Kelling et al., 1974, cited in Millie, 2014: 4328) but that ‘the best way to provide reassurance, to make the public feel safer, was through visible and accessible police patrol’ (Millie, 2014: 4328). The ideas of visibility and accessibility need to be separated when we consider officers physically present but hunched over an MDT engrossed in paperwork, or officers whose social media profiles can be seen (by some) from within local communities but who are not necessarily accessible. Further research is needed to explore whether or not the messages being received by the public about officer ‘visibility’

56 

E. ASTON ET AL.

actually correlate with those messages that are intended to be transmitted. One of the key elements of reassurance policing is familiarity (Barker, 2014), and it is far from clear that that can be achieved by the presence of a car or a Twitter account. MDTs, ‘Big Data’ and Artificial Intelligence for Predictive Policing Purposes Whilst our focus on the intended outcomes of police use of MDTs has thus far been on reducing inefficiencies (e.g. related to form filling at the office), visibility and intended improvements to reassurance and public confidence, it is worth briefly considering further potential uses of MDTs linked to other policing purposes. Technology use cases also exist beyond access to information and recording of information for investigating and solving crimes. These technology use cases are, at least in part, related to efficiencies, for example, for tasking and demand management, but also to effectiveness and potentially to predictive policing through the use of ‘big data’ and artificial intelligence. ‘Big data’ refers to the collection and analysis of very large data sets, which capture a wide range of behaviour and activity. These data are built from many areas of daily life such as driving habits, fitness trackers, social media usage, insurance claims, medical records, tax records, facial recognition software, GPS software and shopping habits to name a few (Sanders & Sheptycki, 2017). Members of the public gain access to helpful smartphone apps and other technologies in exchange for sharing personal data. These and other data sets can be mined and analysed for a variety of purposes in the private and public sectors. In the case of policing, recorded crimes, calls for service, stop and search records as well as other types of criminal justice and ‘open source’ data sets can be utilised for predictive policing through artificial intelligence (Sanders & Sheptycki, 2017). Due to the size and complexity of these data sets, algorithms are employed to detect patterns and suggest responses to pre-empt possible criminal outcomes (Dencik et al., 2018). The use of artificial intelligence for predictive policing purposes raises significant concerns in terms of both police legitimacy externally and perceptions of organisational justice and self-legitimacy internally. Predictive policing technologies, for example, due to increased reliance on automation and ‘system knowledge’ to influence decision-making, are likely to be perceived by officers as eroding their discretion and signifying to them

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

57

that their professional judgement is being questioned, which we argue may impact self-legitimacy. Whilst technology is often introduced with the promise of being a ‘rationalising’ force with potential to reduce bias, increase efficiency and improve prediction accuracy, public concerns may centre on its potential to ‘reify bias and deepen existing patterns of inequality’ (Brayne, 2017: 978). Brayne conducted ethnographic research in the Los Angeles Police Department and found that discretionary risk assessments were supplemented and quantified using risk scores, which became a self-perpetuating cycle in which technology was deepening inequality and algorithms were also linked to deskilling (Brayne, 2017). ‘Automated data grazing’ of data from public and private services beyond policing was a further concern, with larger numbers of people being surveyed and at a lower threshold, which suggests both net-widening and deepening which is likely to have significant implications for legitimacy. Dencik et al. (2018) found a significant degree of human assessment of the automated analysis of big data in their research of protest policing, but did highlight the significant role of private and commercial companies in these technologies. This raises concerns in terms of accountability, to both the public and the police, as the ‘science’ behind the algorithms is largely obscured. As CDEI (2020) point out, in order to maintain public confidence, the police must be transparent regarding their usage of data analytics tools. A final note of caution here is the risk of ‘net widening’ for already marginalised individuals when multiple partners in the criminal justice system compile their data sets in the interests of communication and efficiency (O’Neill & Loftus, 2013).

Public Use of Mobile Devices as Related to Policing In this section, we consider several ways in which the public may use mobile devices in connection with policing: firstly, in relation to social media usage which has been growing rapidly in the twenty-first century and, secondly, considering the move to online contact and reporting, which is a more recent development. Social Media Public use of mobile devices for policing purposes includes online exchange of information and contact via various social media platforms. Research into social media use suggests that the public follow police accounts for

58 

E. ASTON ET AL.

various reasons, including accessing public safety information from trusted official sources (Myles & Ralph, 2020). Intended reasons for police engaging with the public via social media link to various purposes of policing. Activities could include sharing information with the public in order to enhance compliance (e.g. with COVID-19 regulations); feeding back to the public, for example, about community policing activities; seeking information from the public, for instance, to aid an investigation; demonstrating efficacy in a crime control sense; growing a ‘follower’ base so information can be shared or people can be engaged with in a crisis situation; displaying online visibility; or building relationships in order to enhance public confidence. This suggests that social media may be a means by which technology can reduce the ‘distance’ between the police and the public and enhance legitimacy. However, much research suggests that police communication via social media tends to be one directional, rather than a two-way conversation with the public (e.g. Bullock, 2018). Ralph’s (2020) Scottish research highlights the interaction between instrumental (crime fighting) and relational (or due process) models of policing in social media usage. Ralph found that both police and public narratives featured procedural justice, along with crime-fighting roles. Ralph’s findings suggested that the public may hold more power than usual on social media, rendering police legitimacy as an ongoing conversation between the police and public, akin to Bottoms and Tankebe’s (2012) dialogic model. Online Contact and Reporting The understanding of the National Police Chief’s Council in England and Wales is that the public now expect the police to have a ‘significant online presence, with a similar level of functionality and ease of use to other services they access on a daily basis’ (NPCC, n.d.). In order to ensure that the public are ‘digitally enabled’ and kept informed, the NPCC Digital Public Contact (DPC) portfolio includes plans to provide a ‘simple, well known and reliable digital contact service between the public and the police’ (ibid.). This includes online reporting and tracking, with the intention of helping to improve the police response and quality of support to victims. These moves seem to be underpinned by increased ‘standardisation’ and ‘consistency’ in police-public encounters, in order to enhance the quality of contacts and relationships. In certain forces, moves towards digital

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

59

working have been explicitly linked to increasing ‘public confidence, participation and satisfaction’ and police legitimacy (Accenture, n.d.). In 2018, the Digital Policing Portfolio advertised for a supplier to complete a ‘discovery exercise’ to identify the scope of a public customer portal for policing. The project included ‘eliciting, testing and prioritising customer/business requirements and expanding hypotheses to develop a clear vision and strategic case for change’ (Gov.uk, 2018). Whilst the public were represented as having a variety of practical needs, it was the police role that, as well as having practical elements, included a responsibility for the creation of relationships built on trust. Counterintuitively, the public was not represented as having a need for such relationships. On the account presented, the public user of police services looks very similar to the public user of any number of services from supermarkets to local government sites, holiday booking websites to dating apps. There is a lack of any suggestions that policing is different, that it may have a symbolism or emotive resonance different to other types of organisations or authority that may need to be reflected in the way that it translates online. However, Nass and Moon’s research shows that interactions with digital systems cannot be regarded as neutral input-output exercises—social context must be considered. They found that people ‘mindlessly apply social rules and expectations to computers’ (2000: 81), and they read off and even display social behaviours like politeness and reciprocity to computers. This means that emotions are relevant, especially in the context of policing where a user needs assistance and the computer system acts as an intermediary between a symbolically loaded institution and a potentially emotional user. Whilst we may hope to learn something about how people experience technological mediation from studies of human-machine interaction, we must acknowledge that the symbolic loading of the policing context is different. We do not know whether visibility and accessibility, for example, can be enhanced digitally, or easily moved ‘online’ without potentially impacting trust and confidence. The shift to technologically facilitated contact may not be problematic across many sectors, but we must consider its impact on public trust and legitimacy in this context, because of the unique symbolism and functions of the police. Maintaining legitimacy and providing visibility and accessibility in both physical and virtual spaces is a challenge for policing. According to the company who competed for the DDP tender, the original brief was ‘to deliver the most significant change in UK policing

60 

E. ASTON ET AL.

since the 999-emergency number was rolled out across the UK in 1976…a Single Online Home (SOH) for all UK police services to provide nationally consistent, locally branded services, brought together in a single “digital police station”’ (CDS website). However, can a police station be replicated by an ‘online shopfront’ (Trendall, 2018)? Millie (2014) encourages us to consider whether a police station is primarily a place where information is exchanged, or if the physical presence of the building and officers offers more than that. Is it the case that the ‘experience of connecting with police through digital channels will be as helpful, personal and reassuring as approaching an officer on the street’ (CDS, n.d.)? Millie’s questions are important in considering the kind of experience that is offered via an online reporting portal and the anticipated impact on outcomes like accessibility and legitimacy. Indeed Terpstra et al. (2019) raise similar concerns regarding the ‘Multichannel Model’ in the Netherlands, where citizens (as ‘customers’) are expected to contact the police online or via telephone, and only in exceptional circumstances is there room for direct and personal contact.

Conclusion The expansion of the use of technology in policing brings opportunities, but also raises concerns in increasingly globalised and interconnected smart societies, particularly given a context where new threats to social order (e.g. terrorist threats and more recently pandemics) provide justifications for extending its use, including for surveillance purposes. Technology is not neutral and should always be examined through a lens of ethics and values. This is particularly relevant when it comes to the use of technology in policing, by organisations with the power to use force and restrict liberty. Ethics panels are increasingly used in policing to provide advice and guidance on proportionate and rights-based approaches (e.g. considering human rights, equalities and data protection). An evidence-­based approach should be taken to facilitating informed public debate when consideration is being given to introducing new technologies into policing, particularly given the fact that public confidence and police legitimacy are at stake. Whilst the use of technology in police contact may have the potential to assist with accessibility, we need to consider digital exclusion and implications for equity, given that people will have different needs. We know very little about how technologically mediated contact is experienced, and

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

61

further research is required to explore procedural justice in this context. Indeed, our discussion above was weighted towards research which focuses on the police point of view due to the current lack of studies with the public. Depending on how it is deployed technology could facilitate equal treatment by police, rather than equitable treatment, with equity being a more desirable outcome. The potential of some forms of technology, for example, automation, to exacerbate biases that may already exist in the data or system, must also be considered. When it comes to ‘big data’ and the merging of data sets, this might support crime prevention and partnership working, but the implementation may increase inequalities by exacerbating discriminatory practices within the criminal justice system, widening the net of social control and extending social control capacities into other institutions. As Babuta (2017) argues, further research is required to explore the potential use of big data by police. As demonstrated above, most research on procedural justice theory is based on co-presence—and we know that people do not interact with technology in the same ways as they interact with other people. Likewise, we know that symbolically loaded contexts like policing do not ‘behave’ in the same way as other contexts, so we need to explore procedural justice in technologically mediated interactions and consider the implications of technology for police legitimacy. The use of mobile devices in policing may enhance visibility, but not necessarily accessibility and familiarity. Whilst a large body of research focuses on external police legitimacy more generally, we know more about police-driven developments when it comes to the impact of technology on police legitimacy, and much less about the perspective of the public. Given that the shifts described in the ‘abstract police’ thesis to a large extent mirror previous technological shifts and twentieth-century changes to policing practice (such as the introduction of radios and cars), Terpstra et al. (2019) could be accused of historical amnesia. However, the twenty-­ first century has brought new all-encompassing systems and technology which transcend micro, meso and macro scales at the click of a button. Through our exploration of mobile devices, we have discussed the trends they describe involving a move from ‘street-level’ bureaucracy to screen-­ level and system-level bureaucracy (e.g. public interacting with computer systems and/or to take this further AI application in policing). What is the impact of increased distance between symbols of the state and the public, and of increased use of technology in smart societies and sousveillance (Mann, 2004) on how people feel about the police? The impact of the

62 

E. ASTON ET AL.

‘abstract police’ and associated shifts on legitimacy is yet to be fully explored. As Terpstra et al. (2019) point out, the police work for communities, and they are dependent on the ‘human factor’, so the consequences of increasing distance from the public should be considered in order to shape the future of the police, including models of policing, relations with the public and police legitimacy. For example, we know that engagement methods are more associated with public confidence than with enforcement methods (Hail et al., 2018), and direct personal relations between the public and the police are important in terms of building trust and facilitating information sharing, including online (Aston et al., 2021). We must also consider the impact of an increased reliance on technology on police organisations and individuals. Mobile devices facilitate mobile working and simultaneously enable surveillance of officers’ movements, which may have an impact on officer wellbeing and internal relations within the police. It is also worth considering the implications of increased reliance on technology for decision-making and perceptions of organisational justice, or how fairly officers feel they are treated. As Ritzer (1993) points out, technological processes intended to bring efficiency, calculability, predictability and control can become irrational and have unintended consequences. With automation replacing human judgement, organisations become less dependent on human skills, abilities and knowledge, which has a dehumanising and deskilling impact, in this case for police organisations and officers. This may potentially result in an ‘iron cage’ (Weber 1905, cited in Terpstra et al., 2019) where we suggest police may even begin to accept the abstractness of their tasks, responsibilities and even of communities themselves. Developments in automation and AI in policing chime with Terpstra et  al.’s (2019) thesis that policing is becoming less personal, less direct and more dependent on abstract police information systems, which de-values professional knowledge, police craft and discretion in handling practical situations and problems. This is likely to have negative impacts on officers’ sense of organisational justice and self-legitimacy. We have identified various research gaps in the field of technology and police legitimacy above. In conclusion, although we know more about external (than internal) police legitimacy (as there is more research on citizen perceptions, Noppe et al., 2017), when it comes to technology and police legitimacy, there is a need for more research exploring public perceptions. Also, despite a volume of research on procedural justice in

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

63

face-­to-­face encounters, we know very little about how legitimacy ‘works’ in an online space in the symbolically loaded context of policing. We will shortly commence research exploring the impact of technologically mediated contact on police legitimacy through INTERACT (Investigating New Types of Engagement, Response and Contact Technology in Policing), a three-year Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded project (Aston, 2021). We recommend that research is conducted on this topic in a number of jurisdictions internationally, with a variety of publics, involving a holistic exploration of experiences of various forms of technology (face-to-face and online), and with consideration of organisational justice and the interplay between internal and external legitimacy. Taking into account the technological shifts, the ‘abstract police’ thesis, increased systems reliance and potential impacts on officer wellbeing, sousveillance, self-legitimacy and organisational justice, and acknowledging the importance of organisational justice to self-legitimacy and the impact on how officers police their communities (Bradford & Quinton, 2014), exploring technology and organisational justice becomes particularly important as these internal factors also have implications for street policing in smart societies, and hence external legitimacy. As we consider legitimacy to be dialogic and relational (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012), we should be concerned about the impact of increasing reliance on technology on legitimacy, as the same exchange (iterative process of claim and response) through ongoing relations may not be possible, disrupting the ability of police to maintain legitimacy and the idea of policing by consent. It may be that certain technologies penetrating on micro, meso and macro levels are disruptive and accelerate ‘abstract policing’, but perhaps if technology is adopted in an organisationally just manner, it can be used to aid communication, connectivity and transparency, for example, and foster internal and external legitimacy—but more research is required to explore this. It is helpful to adopt a dynamic model of organisational justice (Aston et  al., 2019) and consider legitimacy as dialogic and relational when exploring the impact of technology and the abstract police. This is the case both internally within the policing organisation on self-legitimacy and externally given the potential impact of technology on relations between the public and the police in a smart society. It is difficult to scale technology back (Brayne, 2017), and technological shifts bring unintended consequences, but human actors (police officers and the public) are important and have the agency and ability to question and resist. Adopting an

64 

E. ASTON ET AL.

organisationally just approach, which prioritises engagement and communication, to incorporate new technologies in policing can facilitate the careful, evidence-based, ethical, accountable and purposeful introduction of technological advances in a manner which seeks to protect police legitimacy, both internally and externally.

References Agrawal, M., Rao, H. R., & Sanders, G. L. (2003). Impact of mobile computing terminals in police work. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 13(2), 73–89. Allen, D., & Wilson, T. (2005). Action, interaction and the role of ambiguity in the introduction of mobile information systems in a UK police force. Mobile Information Systems, 158, 15–36. Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 509–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-­014-­9236-­3 Ariel, B., et  al. (2018). Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: Testing the effect of police body-worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 19–47. Aston, E. (2021). Investigating new types of engagement, response and contact technology in policing. Edinburgh Napier University School of Applied Sciences Blog. https://blogs.napier.ac.uk/enuapplyscience/2021/01/29/ investigating-­new-­types-­of-­engagement-­response%E2%80%AFand%E2%80%A Fcontact-­technology%E2%80%AFin-­policing/ Aston, E., Murray, K., & O’Neill, M. (2019). Achieving cultural change through organizational justice: The case of stop and search in Scotland. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 21(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1748895819839751 Aston, L., O’Neill, M., Hail, Y., & Wooff, A. (2021). Information sharing in community policing in Europe: Building public confidence. European Journal of Criminology. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/ 14773708211037902 Babuta, A. (2017). Big data and policing an assessment of law enforcement requirements, expectations and priorities. RUSI. https://rusi.org/sites/ default/files/201709_rusi_big_data_and_policing_babuta_web.pdf Barker, A. (2014). Communicating security? Policing urban spaces and control signals. Urban Studies, 51(14), 3046–3061. Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society. Pine Forge Press.

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

65

Bottoms, A.  E., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102, 119–170. Bradford, B., & Creutzfeldt, N. (2018). Procedural justice in alternative dispute resolution: Fairness judgments among users of Financial Ombudsman services in Germany and the United Kingdom. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 5(5), 188–200. Bradford, B., & Quinton, P. (2014). Self-legitimacy, police culture and support for democratic policing in an English constabulary. British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1023–1046. Bradford, B., Yesberg, J. A., Jackson, J., & Dawson, P. (2020). Live facial recognition: Trust and legitimacy as predictors of public support for police use of new technology. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(6), 1502–1522. Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417725865 Bullock, K. (2018). The police use of social media: Transformation or normalisation? Social Policy and Society, 17(2), 245–258. Carter, J., & Grommon, E. (2015). Officer perceptions of the impact of mobile broadband technology on police operations. Policing and Society. Cassandras, C. G. (2016). Smart cities as cyber-physical social systems. Engineering, 2(2), 156–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2016.02.012 CDS. (n.d.). The single online home: The future of policing. CDS.  Available at https://www.cds.co.uk/our-­work/single-­online-­home. Accessed 12 Feb 2021. Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. (2020). Review into bias in algorithmic decision-making. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957259/Review_into_bias_ in_algorithmic_decision-­making.pdf Creutzfeldt, N., & Bradford, B. (2016). Dispute resolution outside of courts: Procedural justice and decision acceptance among users of Ombuds services in the UK. Law and Society Review, 50(4), 985–1016. Dencik, L., Hintz, A., & Carey, Z. (2018). Prediction, pre-emption and limits to dissent: Social media and big data uses for policing protests in the United Kingdom. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1433–1450. Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing. University Press. Gov.uk. (2018). DPP/DPC – Policing portal – Customer/business requirements and strategy study. https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/digital-­ outcomes-­and-­specialists/opportunities/7716 Graham, W., Diack, L., & Gallagher, M. (2021). Benefits of implementation of mobile devices with frontline officers in Police Scotland 2019–2020. SIPR briefing no. 13 http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/assets/files/Graham,%20 Diack,%20Gallagher%20-­%20SIPR%20Breifing%20Issue%2013.pdf Haggerty, K., & Ericson, R. (1999). The militarization of policing in the information age. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 27(2), 233–255.

66 

E. ASTON ET AL.

Hail, Y., Aston, L., & O’Neill, M. (2018). Review of Evidence: What effect do enforcement-orientated and engagement-orientated methods of visible policing have on public confidence? SIPR. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/ assets/files/Review_methods_of_visible_policing_and_public_confidence_ Hail_%20Aston_%20O'Neill.pdf Heen, M. S., Lieberman, J. D., & Miethe, T. D. (2018). The thin blue line meets the big blue sky: Perceptions of police legitimacy and public attitudes towards aerial drones. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 18–37. Higginson, A., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Legitimacy policing of places: The impact on crime and disorder. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 429–457. HMICFRS. (2018). PEEL: Police legitimacy 2018. A national overview. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services. Innes, M. (2004). Signal crimes and signal disorders: Notes on deviance as communicative action. British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 335–355. Ioimo, R., & Aronson, J. (2004). Police field mobile computing: Applying the theory of task-technology fit. Police Quarterly, 7(4), 403–428. Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Rana, N. P., et al. (2020). Security, privacy and risks within smart cities: Literature review and development of a smart city interaction framework. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10796-­020-­10044-­1 Joh, E. E. (2007). Discretionless policing: Technology and the fourth amendment. California Law Review, 95, 199. Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. (2020). Facial recognition: How policing in Scotland makes use of this technology. The Scottish Parliament Paper 678 1st Report, 2020 (Session 5). https://sp-­bpr-­en-­prod-­cdnep.azureedge.net/published/JSP/2020/2/11/Facial-­r ecognition%2D%2Dhow-­p olicing-­i n-­ Scotland-­makes-­use-­of-­this-­technology/JSPS0520R01.pdf Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. (2021). Police Scotland’s use of remote piloted aircraft systems and body worn video cameras. The Scottish Parliament Paper 988 1st Report, 2021 (Session 5). https://sp-­bpr-­en-­prod-­cdnep.azureedge. net/published/JSP/2021/3/18/b8a4803a-­6f9a-­4a77-­9ff0-­3d75251934c1-­1 /JSPS0521R01.pdf Karanasios, S., Vardaxoglou, G., & Allen, D.. (2009). Innovation in UK law enforcement: the emergence of mobile data. AMCIA 2009 Proceedings, Paper 135. Kemp, S. (2020) Digital 2020: October Global Statshot. DataReportal. https:// datareportal.com/reports/digital-­2020-­october-­global-­statshot Koper, C., Lum, C., & Willis, J. (2014). Optimizing the use of technology in policing: Results and implications from a multi-site study of the social, organizational, and behavioural aspects of implementing police technologies. Policing, 8(2), 212–221. Lianos, M., & Mary Douglas, M. (2000). Dangerization and the end of deviance: The institutional environment. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 261–278.

  TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE LEGITIMACY 

67

Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Wilson, D. B., et al. (2020). Body-worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1112 Mann, S. (2004). “Sousveillance”: Inverse surveillance in multimedia imaging. In Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 620–627). doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1027527.1027673. Martin, R., & Bradford, B. (2019). The anatomy of police legitimacy: Dialogue, power and procedural justice. Theoretical Criminology. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362480619890605 Millie, A. (2014). Reassurance policing and signal crimes. In G.  Bruinsma & D.  Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 4327–4335). Springer. Myles, H., & Ralph, R. (2020). Increasing communication and engagement through social media during a pandemic: A review and recommendations. Research evidence in policing pandemics: Scottish Institute for Policing Research. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/assets/files/Myles_Ralph%20-­ %20Social%20Media%20and%20Policing%20during%20a%20Pandemic.pdf Nikolovska, M., Johnson, S.  D., & Ekblom, P. (2020). “Show this thread”: Policing, disruption and mobilisation through Twitter. An analysis of UK law enforcement tweeting practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. Crime Science, 9(1), 1–16. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. Noppe, J., Verhage, A., & Van Damme, A. (2017). Police legitimacy: An introduction. Policing: An International Journal., 40(3), 474–479. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Addison-Wesley. NPCC. (n.d.). Digital policing. https://www.npcc.police.uk/NPCCBusinessAreas/ ReformandTransformation/Digitalpolicing.aspx. Accessed 8 Mar 2021. Nunn, S., & Quinet, K. (2002). Evaluating the effects of information technology on problem-oriented policing. Evaluation Review, 26, 81–108. O’Neill, M., & Loftus, B. (2013). Policing and the surveillance of the marginal: Everyday contexts of social control. Theoretical Criminology, 17(4), 437–454. Povey, K. (2001). Open all hours – A thematic inspection report on the role of police visibility and accessibility in public reassurance. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). Rabinovich-Einy, O., & Katsh, E. (2014). Digital justice: Reshaping boundaries in an online dispute resolution environment. IJODR, 1, 5. Ralph, L. (2020). The dynamics of police legitimacy and social media in Scotland. PhD thesis. https://www.napier.ac.uk/~/media/worktribe/output-­2701783/ the-­dynamics-­of-­police-­legitimacy-­and-­social-­media-­in-­scotland.pdf Rowe, M., Pearson, G., & Turner, L. (2017). Body-worn cameras and the law of unintended consequences: Some questions arising from emergent practice. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice., 12(1), 83–90.

68 

E. ASTON ET AL.

Sanders, C. B., & Sheptycki, J. (2017). Policing, crime and ‘big data’; towards a critique of the moral economy of stochastic governance. Crime Law Soc Change, 68, 1–15. Sousa, W. H., Miethe, T. D., & Sakiyama, M. (2018). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police–citizen relationships. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pax015 Tankebe, J. (2014). The making of democracy’s champions: Police support for democracy in Ghana. Special Issue of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895812469380 Terpstra, J., Fyfe, N.  R., & Salet, R. (2019). The abstract police: A conceptual exploration of unintended changes of police organisations. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles., 92(4), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0032258X18817999 Trendall, S. (2018). Police chiefs to explore ‘single online home’ to standardise all forces’ interactions with public. Public Technology. Available at https://www. publictechnology.net/articles/news/police-­chiefs-­explore-­%E2%80%98single-­ online-­h ome%E2%80%99-­s tandardise-­a ll-­f orces%E2%80%99-­i nteractions-­ public. Accessed 12 Feb 21. Trinkner, R., Tyler, T. R., & Goff, P. A. (2016). Justice from within: The relations between a procedurally just organizational climate and police organizational efficiency, endorsement of democratic policing, and officer well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 158. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. Tyler, T., Katsaros, M., Meares, T., & Venkatesh, S. (2021). Social media governance: Can social media companies motivate voluntary rule following behavior among their users?. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(1), 109–127. Vitale, A. S. (2019). The end of policing. Verso. Walters, G. D., & Bolger, P. C. (2019). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-­018-­9338-­2 Wells, H., & Prince, J. (2016) How does mobile technology facilitate a more agile force? Unpublished report. Wells, H., Aston, E., O’Neill, M., & Bradford, B. (2020). The rise of technologically-­ mediated police contact: the potential consequences of ‘socially-distanced policing’. British Society of Criminology Policing Network Blog. https:// bscpolicingnetwork.com/2020/04/29/the-­rise-­of-­technologically-­mediated-­ police-­contact-­the-­potential-­consequences-­of-­socially-­distanced-­policing/ Zuboff S. (2001). Automate/informate: The two faces of intelligent technology. Organizational Dynamic, 14, 5–18.

Plural Policing and the Abstract Police Megan O’Neill

Abstract  Terpstra, Fyfe and Salet (Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 92(4), 339–359, 2019) introduced the concept of ‘the abstract police’ to explore how policing in many countries has become more distanced and formalised. What is missing from this analysis is the role of the private sector and other policing actors. This chapter will explore the ‘abstract police’ concept, describe some of the main features of pluralisation in policing and postulate what the outcome might be as these two systems interact. This chapter will argue that the role of neoliberalism has been overlooked, which may be an equally significant driver of change. It is through a consideration of pluralised policing that the importance of neoliberalism in the changes that the ‘abstract police’ are intended to identify becomes more apparent. Keywords  Plural policing • Neoliberalism • Abstract police

M. O’Neill (*) School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_5

69

70 

M. O’NEILL

Introduction Public police agencies in many Western democracies have been experiencing significant challenges and reforms in recent decades. In the UK, this has included the establishment of a national police force in Scotland in 2013, the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales in 2012 (along with a significant reduction in government funding) and the effects of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement in 2020. Prior to this was the introduction of ‘New Public Management’ to policing in the 1990s, which sought to bring a private sector management style to the organisations’ finances and performance. Policing in other nations has also experienced significant reform, such as recent centralisation processes in The Netherlands, France, Belgium and Sweden (Fyfe et al., 2013). In an effort to make sense of these developments, Terpstra et  al. (2019) introduced the concept of ‘the abstract police’. As will be discussed in the chapter, this is an ‘ideal type’ to explore how policing in many countries, but especially in Scotland and The Netherlands, has become more distanced and formalised, in both external and internal systems, processes and relationships. As a result, the distance between the police and communities that they serve is widening. However, what is missing from this analysis is the role of the private sector and other policing actors in this process. Policing in some countries, England and Wales in particular, relies to a large extent on private sector involvement (a component of neoliberal policymaking; e.g. see Van Steden & De Waard, 2013) as well as a pluralisation of its own provision. This chapter will explore the ‘abstract police’ concept in more detail, describe some of the main features of pluralisation in policing and postulate what the outcome might be as these two systems interact. The ‘abstract police’ thesis, as described by Terpstra et al. (2019), focuses on the influence of rationalisation as one of the main drivers for change. This chapter will argue that the role of neoliberalism has been overlooked here, which may be an equally significant driver of change. It is through a consideration of pluralised policing that the importance of neoliberalism in the changes that the ‘abstract police’ are intended to identify becomes more apparent.

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

71

The Abstract Police The core components of the abstract police (Terpstra et al., 2019) are that they are more distanced from the general public, from local communities and from their partner organisations (especially in the public sector). These police services tend to be more formal in their manner of operation, tend to be more impersonal, have fewer systems of direct contact and are more decontextualised in their work. Personal knowledge of police officers is replaced by ‘system knowledge’, usually facilitated by large data systems. Together, these developments signify that the police are increasingly ‘abstracted’ from the communities that they serve as well as from each other (as will be discussed in more detail later). Terpstra et al. (2019) argue that these processes occur in several Western European countries as an unintended outcome of prevailing rationalisation and modernisation movements. These systems encourage a focus on economies of scale and tight bureaucratic processes to enable greater efficiencies, predictability and control of police organisations. However, they argue that rationalisation and modernisation have been accelerated and have been made more prominent in Scotland and The Netherlands due to the introduction of a single national police force in each country in 2013. However, despite the numerous examples and level of detail that they bring to this analysis, Terpstra et al. (2019) position the abstract police as an ‘ideal type’ which deliberately highlights certain perspectives on social reality. They acknowledge that the empirical reality will be somewhat different and more complex. The exact systems and trends that they identify in their paper will not be replicated in the exact same way or to the same extremes in all police forces or jurisdictions. Their analysis of policing ‘abstractness’ is split into internal and external processes, to be described next. Internal Relations Terpstra et al. (2019) argue that the increasing abstractness of the police has had effects on the organisation both internally and externally. In terms of internal changes, they point to a fragmentation of both horizontal and vertical relationships. In the case of The Netherlands, horizontal relationships have been fragmented due to a reduction of small, local police units and the formation of larger, regional teams in the name of efficiency. Scotland has seen the introduction of nationally based specialised units in an effort to improve access to these services. The consequence of this is

72 

M. O’NEILL

that officers in local teams must now follow formalised procedures to activate these services, rather than the informal methods of contact from before, which has brought about challenges in coordination and boundary conflicts. Related to this are more complex internal vertical structures than may have been the case before the nationalisation of policing in these countries. Terpstra et al. (2019) describe a gap of understanding of local conditions and priorities between local officers and centralised contact centres, for example. They also point to a growing chasm between the ‘rank-and-­ file’ and senior officers, who can now be located at a great distance from some of the local teams in their regions. There are also more formalised systems and processes to navigate than was previously the case, enhancing a sense of distance between the operational and the strategic levels of the organisation. One example highlighted is the increased use of email as a method of internal communication, rather than the more informal face-­ to-­face contact that used to be the case before. External Relations In terms of external relationships with communities, the public and public sector partners, further processes of abstractness can be noted. The reduction or loss of local policing teams was mentioned above in terms of the internal impact this caused. Of course, these changes also have an external consequence in that smaller police stations have closed, forcing the public to go to larger regional police stations or use online systems to contact the police. This has added a level of formalisation to contact processes that Terpstra et al. (2019) argue was not in place before. In some cases, people who come to police stations in person are turned away and told to make an appointment by telephone or online first. Terpstra et al. (2019) argue that a consequence of these developments is that the gap between police organisations and the communities they serve has widened, which has led to a loss of information sharing from the public. There has also been an effect on relationships with partner agencies in the public sector due to reduced communication between them and the police as well as reduced resources for partnership working. Local police officers have less information about their beat areas and thus a reduced sense of moral ownership of those areas. The systems of trust and informality which had previously characterised these working practices have been greatly diminished. Terpstra et  al. (2019) argue that direct

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

73

personal contact between the police and the public is now the exception rather than the norm. This reveals a reliance on ‘system information’ over ‘personal information’. Critiques of the Concept The abstract police concept and the examples used to illustrate it are indeed compelling. Anyone who has had contact with the police in recent years, in either personal or professional capacities, will be aware of the reliance on formal systems of contact and centralised processes. While mindful that Terpstra et al. (2019) present the abstract police as an ‘ideal type’ and thus a particular way of seeing the ongoing processes that they have recorded, there are certain flaws in the model which are worth exploring in more detail. This section of the chapter will explore issues relating to the fragmentation of internal vertical relationships, the emphasis on modernisation and rationalisation and the lack of consideration of neoliberalism, before examining later in the chapter how the abstract police concept relates to the processes of pluralisation in policing. Terpstra et al. (2019) argue that one of the primary outcomes of the move towards the abstract police is the damage this has caused to internal relationships in police organisations due to more formalised methods of communication. They cite how lower-ranking officers are now more physically or organisationally distanced from senior-ranking officers than was previously the case. They feel this has led to a fragmentation of vertical relationships in the organisation which will inhibit police solidarity. My concern with this is that vertical relationships in the police have always been fragmented. This is often cited as a core component of police occupational culture, first explored in detail by Ianni (1983) with her ‘street cops’ and ‘management cops’ categorisations. While Ianni’s typologies are perhaps an over-simplification of informal internal structures in the police (e.g. see Huberts et al., 2007; Farkas & Manning, 1997), it highlights that a gap and a lack of trust between senior- and lower-ranking officers are not new developments. While Terpstra et al. (2019) highlight the formalisation of communication methods, I would question the extent to which internal communication, especially with more senior officers, was ever ‘informal’. In fact, the overall tone of the abstract police concept that ‘things used to be better’ is one that has also been explored in police research before. For example, Loader and Mulcahy (2003) describe in detail the symbolic role that the police have in England and, in particular,

74 

M. O’NEILL

the lasting image of the ‘English Bobby’ from the post-war era which is often seen as part of the lost ‘Golden Age’ of policing. A further critique which could be levelled at the abstract police concept relates to the drivers behind this change. For Terpstra et al. (2019), the primary forces at work here are those of modernisation and rationalisation. They draw on Ritzer’s (1993) concept of ‘McDonaldisation’ to argue that processes of ‘hyper-rationalisation’ which seek to improve efficiency and predictability can become irrational in their consequences. The emphasis on control leads to a dependence on systems and rules at the expense of human judgement and skills. The authors argue that the processes they have observed in Scotland and The Netherlands are similar to this in that the drive for a more efficient and effective service through centralisation has resulted in an organisation that has lost contact with the public, a vital source of information for them, as well as dehumanised and fractured internal systems. They suggest that while these changes happened quickly in Scotland and The Netherlands because of centralisation reforms, similar changes are happening in other jurisdictions, but at a slower pace. They refer to Giddens (1990, 1991) and elements of ‘late modernisation’ such as globalisation, individualisation and time-space distantiation, which are ongoing in many Western democracies. Police forces, they argue, adapt to cope with this new environment in ways that make them more removed from the public and more reliant on IT systems, and large, integrated organisations. One immediate problem with this analysis of rationalisation and modernisation being the drivers behind the rise of the abstract police is the lack of examples to support the argument, especially in relation to the other jurisdictions where these forces are operating at a slower pace. Beyond this, however, is the rather surprising lack of consideration of neoliberalism as a political and economic driver. In its simplest form, neoliberalism argues for a reduction of state-centred control in political and economic systems and a renewed emphasis on the local as the best locus for governance. With this is shift of financial control from the state to local systems and to the private sector, it also advocates for a reduction in regulations and the importance of free-market economics and austerity, especially in public spending (Skinns, 2019). In terms of policing, we can see the influence of neoliberalism in England and Wales epitomised in the election of Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012 and the removal of reserved funding for Neighbourhood Policing. This coincided with the introduction of broad public sector austerity measures, resulting in several forces

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

75

no longer investing in (the resource-intensive) community policing methods. Each police force area now has greater freedom to choose their policing methods, many of which moved them to a greater distance from the public with the closure of local stations and a virtual disbandment of local policing teams, in an effort to save costs in the face of reduced budgets (Greig-Midlane, 2014; Higgins, 2017). Thus, while there was a move away from centralisation in England and Wales, the net result is similar to that experienced in Scotland when it amalgamated its eight forces. Both nations needed to work in a more efficient manner, and while the route towards this differed, the net result is the same—a growing gap between the police and the public and more complex bureaucratic systems. Neoliberalism has been a factor in the UK, and especially in England and Wales, since the 1980s. However, not all Western democracies are influenced by its systems and processes in the same way and to the same extent (Skinns, 2019). Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the ‘abstract police’ will similarly not be as evident in all countries. There may also be some jurisdictions where the police never enjoyed close relationships with their communities or close internal relationships. In order to better understand the role of neoliberalism and the abstract police in policing systems, an examination of the prevalence of plural policing can be useful as an indicator. Elements of plural policing to be explored here are the outsourcing of state policing functions to the private sector, the rise of the private security industry and the diversification of the public sector itself. These developments can be driven by forces such as neoliberalism and will result in a greater tendency for the state police to be abstracted from the communities they serve. These three pluralised policing processes will be explored next, followed by a concluding discussion of the interplay between the abstract police, neoliberalism and plural policing.

The Pluralisation of Policing There can be a tendency in some Western democracies to regard the state police as a body which has held a monopoly over policing for hundreds of years, a sacred institution with a clear identity, purpose and internal coherence (Loader & Mulcahy, 2003; O’Neill, 2010). What is often neglected from this picture is the extent to which policing, and the state police themselves, has always been pluralised. Before the Police Act (1829) was passed in England, activities associated with policing were being conducted by a diverse assemblage of actors: volunteers, reserve officers and privately paid

76 

M. O’NEILL

police forces (Rawlings, 2008). The arrival of Peel’s Bobbies in the early nineteenth century, while providing a recognised body to execute the state’s legitimate use of force, did not end this patchwork of other policing services. Volunteer officers, referred to as the Special Constabulary in the UK, continue to provide additional policing services on a part-time and unpaid basis (Bullock & Millie, 2018; Dickson, 2019). As will be discussed in more detail below, the privately paid policing sector never stopped and is now a large and successful international industry (Button, 2019). We will now explore these elements of pluralisation in contemporary policing and the relationship between pluralisation and the abstract police. We will begin with outsourcing of state police tasks to the private sector. Police Outsourcing to the Private Sector It has become a routine sight in many police stations to see employees of private security companies walking the corridors and staffing particular services. This can include, but is not limited to, cleaning and catering services, staff in detention centres, security at high-risk facilities, staff at police station front counters and prisoner transportation (Skinns, 2019; Mawby et al., 2009). One force, Lincolnshire Police, even went as far as to grant a contract worth £229 million to the security company G4S to design, build and run a police station for 10 years in 2012. This meant that over 500 police staff were transferred to the company to provide a range of ‘middle’ and back-office functions in the largest deal of its kind at the time (White, 2014). Many other police stations have been built through Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) where a private provider owns the land and the building (which it has also built) and leases them to the police force (Button et  al., 2007; Johnston et  al., 2008). These tend to be facilities management agreements, rather than providing policing services as is the case in Lincolnshire. Although outsourcing of some state policing functions or services to the private sector had occurred prior to 2010, the 20% budget reductions introduced by the UK Coalition Government that year gave an added impetus to this trend. Police forces increasingly turned to outsourcing as one method of reducing their costs (White, 2014). This clearly aligns with both neoliberal economic policies and the structures of the abstract police. As was discussed earlier, efficiency and effectiveness are primary concerns for both these movements. Forces which could slice off some of their

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

77

responsibilities, from estate management to aspects of operational work, could reduce some of their operating costs in the now heightened era of austerity. However, by introducing additional parties to the management and operation of policing, internal lines of communication (both horizontal and vertical) could become more complex. The outsourcing of public-­ facing services, such as police station front desks, aspects of crime investigation as well as detention centres, meant that these police forces were also putting a degree of distance between themselves and their publics. A picture thus emerges where processes of neoliberalism, the abstract police and pluralised policing become mutually re-enforcing. The pressure to be effective and efficient drives some forces to outsource aspects of their work. This in turn facilitates greater abstracting of the public police from the public and from each other in internal communication processes. However, we should be careful not to assume that outsourcing is necessarily a negative experience or that the ‘public good’ has been damaged in favour of market logics. As White (2014) argues in the case of Lincolnshire and G4S, many of the staff who were transferred from employment in the police to employment by G4S retained a sense of being members of the state police and continued their loyalty to it and its ethos. Gill (2013) found that some senior staff in forces with PFI arrangements were not only uncritical of the arrangement but accepted it pragmatically or even embraced it. These pose intriguing questions for the abstract police concept about the extent to which it is necessarily a uniformly negative development in policing. Private Security Industry As indicated in the section above, the private security industry pre-dates the creation of the state policing system in the nineteenth century. However, it was not until after the Second World War that the private security market began to grow in earnest in Western democracies, linked in large part to a shift in property relations from public-owned to privately owned spaces and the spread of multi-national corporations (Shearing & Stenning, 1981; Loader & White, 2018). Shearing and Stenning (1981, p.  193) called this a ‘quiet revolution’ in systems of social control. Although the USA was the primary site in which the security market developed, other nations have since followed to the extent that there are an estimated 40 countries in the world where private security staff

78 

M. O’NEILL

outnumber public police officers (Loader & White, 2018). This industry includes a wide range of providers and services, including externally contracted security staff, private investigators, ‘in-house’ security services, door staff in the night-time economy as well as providers and monitors of surveillance systems. Shearing and Stenning (1983) warned of the tendency of these actors to resort to organisational, rather than legal, resources to control behaviour, such as denial of access to property or services for those deemed to have transgressed expected behaviour standards. However, in contrast to their resulting concern for the implications of this on wider systems of social control, Loader and White (2018) argue that security staff are guided by both economic responsibilities and moral obligations, as evidenced by ‘heroic acts’ annually celebrated by the industry. This, they argue, presents a more nuanced and complex narrative about the nature of private security staff labour. A primary site for the enactment of this tension is within the neighbourhood foot patrol market, which has seen a growth in providers since the 2010 budget reductions for public policing came into effect. Many police forces in England and Wales took the step to reduce their community policing function in order to save costs in the context of austerity (Greig-Midlane, 2014; Higgins, 2017). While paid residential policing services have been common in some upper-middle-class neighbourhoods in the USA for many years, this was a new market in the UK context. These providers promise a personalised policing service for those who can afford the weekly or monthly fee. This of course raises moral issues in relation to what happens to residents of a neighbourhood who do not pay the fee but are also victims of crimes happening in the same area. Is there a temptation by less scrupulous providers to exert pressure on some residents to adopt the service? Questions can also be raised as to the moral appropriateness of some people being able to buy policing services when the state police are over-stretched while others cannot (Loader, 1997). Moral arguments aside, the rise of privately funded visible foot patrols in residential areas shows a possible consequence of the influence of neoliberal market forces and a link to the abstract police. Pressures to work more efficiently and effectively have led some services to focus on ‘core’ police functions, mainly emergency response policing. The more ‘proactive’ and thus ‘softer’ methods are reduced, which has the effect of diminishing the opportunities the state police have to make contact with their publics. When contact is made, it can often be through formal channels, such as call-in centres and pre-arranged appointments at police stations.

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

79

Again, we see the mutually re-enforcing systems of neoliberalism and the abstract police through the case of the private security market: state police, under pressure from reduced budgets (neoliberalism), withdraw visible foot patrols, making them more removed from the public (abstract). The market fills the gap with private security services, thus further removing the state from the public and growing the private sector. Pluralisation of the Public Police Often when researchers speak of the pluralisation of policing, it is in reference to the ever-growing and diversifying private security industry. What can easily be overlooked is processes of pluralisation within the public sector itself (O’Neill, 2019). There are several ways in which this pluralisation occurs, at both the local, regional and national levels and will vary from one jurisdiction to the next. In the case of England and Wales, the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) was perhaps the biggest pluralisation development in the past century. PCSOs, which were introduced in 2002, are paid and uniformed members of support staff of police forces who conduct visible foot patrol and focus on community engagement activities with members of the public, community groups and other public (and some private) sector agencies. Although not police officers themselves, they do have a degree of police-like powers, such as the ability to detain a suspect for up to half an hour and the power to issue fines (O’Neill, 2019). The introduction of PCSOs was not mirrored in Scotland, which opted instead for a more scaled-down version in the form of Community Wardens who work for local authorities and operate primarily in areas of high need (such as high crime and high socio-economic deprivation; see Brown, 2017). Community Wardens also focus on community-­facing tasks and have a degree of powers afforded to them, such as the ability to issue fines. Countries beyond the UK have also developed roles which pluralise the public sector of policing. For example, The Netherlands initially adopted a ‘lower-tier’ policing role which was the inspiration for the development of PCSOs in England and Wales (Hofstra & Shapland, 1997; Hauber et al., 1996). The ‘police patroller’ model, operated by local authorities, has now largely disappeared and has been replaced by Municipal Law Enforcement Officers (MLEOs). The police patrollers had no special powers beyond those of ordinary citizens, whereas the MLEOs can issue fines and make arrests. Some also carry protective equipment such as

80 

M. O’NEILL

handcuffs, a baton and pepper spray (van Steden, 2017). A further example are the local policing roles which also exist in France. French municipal areas have the right to establish their own police forces, which must be registered with the national gendarmerie, although they do not work for them. These local forces can apply to have firearms and many of them do. Their exact remit varies from one municipality to another but largely incorporates both community-facing activities and law enforcement functions (Malochet, 2007; de Maillard & Mouhanna, 2017). In addition to fully paid officer and staff roles within public sector policing, there are also opportunities for volunteer policing positions, which further pluralise the public sector of policing. While the office of Special Constable has been in existence since before the formalisation of policing in the UK, there is surprisingly little research on these volunteer officers (Dickson, 2019; Bullock & Leeney, 2016). Special Constables have the same powers and equipment as paid police officers, but a reduced training period, and they also work significantly fewer hours (about one weekend per month). Many British police forces now also utilise a wide range of volunteer support staff positions, who perform duties which range from administrative and front counter work to more operational activities, such as traffic speed checks, reviewing CCTV footage or specialist scientific support (Pepper et al., 2020). Although the exact remit and range of powers for these auxiliary, or pluralised policing, roles vary widely between jurisdictions, in the main these officers and staff are presented as having an enhanced community-­ facing orientation beyond that of the state police. While some may also have the police-like powers of arrest and use of force, their work is largely oriented towards responding to civil infractions and minor crimes, to supplement the work of the state police and to provide a more locally aware response to community issues. This can involve proactive work with local community groups and public sector partner organisations as well as issuing fines and writing tickets. As has been discussed earlier, Terpstra et al. (2019) view the ‘abstract police’ development as a police organisation which operates at an increased distance from the general public and partner agencies. These groups and individuals will find it more difficult at present to contact a local police officer than might have been the case a few decades ago. In addition, the push towards efficiency in contemporary policing means that small-scale, minor crimes and civil infractions are de-prioritised. Abstract police forces

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

81

will operate at a reduced capacity and are thus, in Terpstra et al.’s (2019) estimation, unlikely to respond to calls of this nature. These trends have created a gap in which auxiliary and other types of policing roles can be accommodated in the public sector. Indeed, it is these types of tasks for which many of these pluralised roles were created. However, there is growing evidence that as these ‘not quite’ police officers are adopting more of a police-like approach to their work, one which emphasises the law enforcement elements of their remit over that of community engagement. For example, PCSOs have increasingly found themselves working in such depleted police forces that they are increasingly called to fill in for police constables in tasks which would not have usually been in their remit (O’Neill, 2019). In the case of France, several local mayors have used the promise of a more ‘crime control’ work in their municipal police in a bid to win elections (de Maillard, 2005). In the case of The Netherlands, the MLEOs are presented as a new, improved version of the previous police patroller in that they can act more authoritatively. That they were granted additional enforcement powers was a deliberate move to enhance their credibility with the public and has meant that their image has an enhanced element of law enforcement than was the case for the previous patroller model (Van Steden & Bron, 2012). As was the case with police outsourcing and the rise of the private sector, the emphasis on a more ‘efficient’ public police service which leaves community work to local actors has contributed to a further pluralisation of policing in the public sector. This push for efficiency and removal of national police from local areas can certainly be traced to the influence of neoliberalism as well as contributing towards the ‘abstract police’ concept. Ironically, it seems that these local, community-focused auxiliary roles are feeling pressures to operate more like enforcement-orientated police and thus are themselves becoming more abstracted from their publics.

Conclusion: Neoliberalism, Pluralised Policing and the Abstract Police This chapter has examined the ‘abstract police’ concept in the context of ongoing processes of pluralisation in policing. Terpstra et al. (2019) highlighted that their vision of the ‘abstract police’ is to be taken as an ideal type. It will not exist in its purest form and is primarily useful for highlighting general trends that they have observed. With that understanding

82 

M. O’NEILL

in mind, it is still important to question this concept and the forces which are cited as driving its creation. While some aspects of the concept do indeed have merit, it has been argued here that other elements of the abstract police, such as the increased division between junior and more senior officers, have been overplayed in their analysis as being a relatively new development. In addition, Terpstra et al. (2019) point to the influence of late modernity and processes of rationalisation for bringing about the abstract police. This chapter has argued that a consideration of the role of neoliberalism in this dynamic has been overlooked. The examples that Terpstra et al. (2019) cite to illustrate the abstract police concept are cases where police forces have been centralised. At first glance, this may seem counter to the influence of neoliberalism, which advocates a rolling back of central government in favour of local authorities. However, if we consider the outcomes of these centralisation reforms that Terpstra et  al. (2019) describe, the net result is the same—fewer state police officers on hand to engage with local communities and enhanced pressure to achieve operational efficiencies centrally. Through a careful examination of the pluralisation of policing, expressed here as public sector outsourcing to the private sector, the growth of the private security industry and the increasing pluralisation of the public sector itself, we can detect neoliberal forces at work which are at the very least mutually reinforcing the abstract police process, if not a direct driver for it. Neoliberalism has as its core an emphasis on greater efficiency in the public sector which often sees services handed to the private sector in order to achieve this. By abstracting the police in the way that Terpstra et al. (2019) describe to realise efficiencies and enhance effectiveness, many Western democracies have created a gap in the policing market in which private and pluralised public policing systems can fill. This is a core element of neoliberalism. We must, of course, note some caution in this analysis. The pluralisation of policing noted here is not happening in all contexts, nor at the same pace or in the same way. For example, Terpstra (2017) has considered the broad trends towards pluralisation apparent in many European countries but highlights the case of Austria as a stark contrast. His argument is that proponents of the ‘nodal governance’ perspective (e.g. Shearing & Wood, 2003) miss the historical, legal, political, cultural and symbolic context of policing which in some jurisdictions will slow development of a significant pluralised landscape (Terpstra, 2017). In the case of Austria, this is due to the highly politically sensitive nature of any consideration of privatised policing, stemming from that country’s

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

83

experiences just before and during its membership of the Third Reich (from the late 1930s to 1945). Similarly, the experience of neoliberalism more broadly is also not universal (Skinns, 2019). Singh and Light (2019) trace the lack of development of privatised policing in several countries which can be viewed as either authoritarian states, developing countries or non-Anglosphere industrialised democracies. They argue that while neoliberalism as a political project may be present in some of these jurisdictions, other factors (such as strict legal regulations) will significantly mitigate its influence. Therefore, broad historical trends, such as neoliberalism, will not work as an explanation for the varying growth of the private security market in all contexts. With those qualifications in mind, what this chapter has proposed is that a full appreciation of the ‘abstract police’ (Terpstra et al., 2019) and what drives it can only be achieved with a consideration of pluralisation in policing. The identified outcomes of the abstract police will create a market which pluralised policing systems are well placed to fill. As such, the movement towards the ‘abstract police’ is at the very least mutually reinforcing of neoliberalism, which highlights the benefits of the private sector to meet the efficiency needs of the public sector, if not largely driven by and reflecting its ideologies. Therefore, it is argued here that further movements towards the abstract police will enhance processes of pluralisation.

References Brown, D. M. (2017). Beyond the thin blue line? A critical analysis of Scotland’s Community Warden Scheme. Policing and Society, 27(1), 6–20. Bullock, K., & Leeney, D. (2016). On matters of balance: An examination of the deployment, motivation and management of the special constabulary. Policing and Society, 26(5), 483–502. Bullock, K., & Millie, A. (Eds.). (2018). The special constabulary: Historical context, international comparisons and contemporary themes. Routledge. Button, M. (2019). Private policing (2nd ed.). Routledge. Button, M., Williamson, T., & Johnston, L. (2007). Too many chiefs, not enough chief executives: Barriers to the development of PFI in the police service in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, 287–306. de Maillard, J. (2005). The governance of safety in France. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 325–343.

84 

M. O’NEILL

de Maillard, J., & Mouhanna, C. (2017). Governing metropolises: The false pretences of metropolisation. In E.  Devroe, A.  Edwards, & P.  Ponsaers (Eds.), Policing European metropolises (pp. 77–94). Routledge. Dickson, G. (2019). Bridging the gap? Police volunteering and community policing in Scotland. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi. org/10.1093/police/paz070 Farkas, M. A., & Manning, P. K. (1997). The occupational culture of corrections and police officers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 51–68. Fyfe, N. R., Terpstra, J., & Tops, P. (Eds.). (2013). Centralizing forces: Comparative perspectives on contemporary reforms to policing in northern and Western Europe. Eleven International Publishing. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Polity. Giddens, A. (1991). Self-identity and modernity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity. Gill, M. (2013). Senior police officers’ perspectives on private security: Sceptics, pragmatists and embracers’. Policing and Society. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10439463.2013.865736. (Online First). Greig-Midlane, J. (2014). Changing the beat? The impact of austerity on the neighbourhood policing workforce. UPSI. Hauber, A., Hofstra, B., Toornvliet, L., & Zandbergen, A. (1996). Some new forms of functional social control in the Netherlands and their effects. British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 199–219. Higgins, A. (2017). Neighbourhood policing: A police force typology. The Police Foundation. http://www.police-­foundation.org.uk/2017/wp-­content/ uploads/2017/06/neighbourhood_policing_a_police__force_typology.pdf Hofstra, B., & Shapland, J. (1997). Who is in control? Policing and Society, 6(4), 265–281. Huberts, L. W. J. C., Kaptein, M., & Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study of the impact of three leadership styles on integrity violations committed by police officers. Policing: An International Journal, 30(4), 587–607. Ianni, E.  R. (1983). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. Transaction Books. Johnston, L., Button, M., & Williamson, T. (2008). Police, governance and the private finance initiative. Policing and Society, 18, 225–244. Loader, I. (1997). Private security and the demand for protection in contemporary Britain. Policing and Society, 7, 143–162. Loader, I., & Mulcahy, A. (2003). Policing and the condition of England: Memory, politics and culture. Oxford University Press. Loader, I., & White, A. (2018). Valour for money? Contested commodification in the market for security. British Journal of Criminology, 58, 1401–1419. Malochet, V. (2007). Les policiers municipaux. PUF.

  PLURAL POLICING AND THE ABSTRACT POLICE 

85

Mawby, R. C., Heath, G., & Walley, L. (2009). Workforce modernization, outsourcing and the “permanent revolution” in policing. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11, 34–47. O’Neill, M. (2010). The police response to crime. In S. G. Shoham, P. Knepper, & M. Kett (Eds.), The international handbook of criminology. CRC Press. O’Neill, M. (2019). Police community support officers: Cultures and identities in pluralised policing (Clarendon series in criminology). University of Oxford Press. Pepper, M., Bullock, K., & McCarthy, D. (2020). Exploring the role and contribution of police support volunteers in an English constabulary. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa005 Rawlings, P. (2008). Policing before the police. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (2nd ed.). Willan Publishing. Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society. Pine Forge Press. Shearing, C., & Stenning, P. (1981). Modern private security: Its growth and implications. Crime and Justice, 3, 193–245. Shearing, C., & Stenning, P. (1983). Private security: Implications for social control. Social Problems, 30, 493–506. Shearing, C., & Wood, J. (2003). Nodal governance, democracy, and the new denizen. Journal of Law and Society, 30(3), 400–419. Singh, A.-M., & Light, M. (2019). Constraints on the growth of private policing: A comparative international analysis. Theoretical Criminology, 23(3), 295–314. Skinns, L. (2019). Police powers and citizens’ rights discretionary decision-making in police detention. Routledge. Terpstra, J. (2017). ‘Not just one node among many’ – Plural policing in a state-­ dominated context: The case of Austria. Policing and Society, 27(1), 68–68. Terpstra, J., Fyfe, N.  R., & Salet, R. (2019). The abstract police: A conceptual exploration of unintended changes of police organisations. Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 92(4), 339–359. Van Steden, R. (2017). ‘Municipal law enforcers: towards a new system of local policing in the Netherlands?’ Policing & Society, 27(1), 40–53. Van Steden, R., & Bron, E. (2012). Gemeentelijke handhavers in Amsterdam: een onderzoek naar hun werk op straat [Municipal law enforcers in Amsterdam: Depicting their work on the streets]. The Hague: Boom-Lemma. Van Steden, R., & De Waard, J. (2013). ‘Acting like chameleons’: On the McDonaldization of private security. Security Journal, 26(3), 294–309. White, A. (2014). Post-crisis policing and public-private partnerships: The case of Lincolnshire police and G4S. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 1002–1022.

Do We Need Discretion? Police Decisions and the Limits of the Law Antoinette Verhage

Abstract  In their analysis of the abstract police, Terpstra, Salet and Fyfe point out that they see an evolution from a street-level bureaucracy (with discretion on the level of the police officer on the street) to a system-level bureaucracy (placing discretion in the hands of the computer, away from the police officer). In this chapter, we assess the extent to which discretion as a concept is different in the Belgian police system in comparison with other systems and delve into the pros and cons of discretion as present in the Belgian system. We conclude by reflecting upon the impact of abstractization and technology on discretion. Keywords  Discretion • Police decision-making • Tailor-made decisions • Selectivity in policing

A. Verhage (*) Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Faculty of Law & Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_6

87

88 

A. VERHAGE

Introduction Discretion is an inherent part of police work. It is a structural characteristic of daily police practice and provides room for making tailor-made decisions. It allows police officers the opportunity to react aptly in continuously different and very diverse situations and is important in terms of guaranteeing efficiency in police work. It also makes the execution of policy and priorities possible. After all, if we would expect every police officer to report each and every infraction they encounter in their daily activities, they would not be able to do their work, and they could not drive straight to a police intervention or pursue policy goals. As we know that police officers are active on many fields (such as service provision, social work, information provision and law enforcement), we cannot be surprised that they need to make choices. In literature, as Rowe underlines (Rowe, 2007), many state that discretion is not only an inevitable but also a desirable aspect of policing. He refers to Waddington (Waddington, 1999) and Reiner (Reiner, 2010) who claim that trying to limit discretion is almost impossible, and probably not even wanted either, as it would limit the potential of police officers to provide for tailor-­made solutions. After all, they explain, there is no encyclopaedia of situations that covers all potential interpretations in the diverse contexts a police officer can be confronted with and the specific reaction that is needed in that exact context. Yet (police) professionals often deny the existence of discretion and point to the demands of the law by which they are expected to report every crime that comes to their attention. In academic literature, this discussion is largely behind us, and the existence and use of discretion is widely acknowledged. This is not a recent development; police discretion has been the subject of police research in many studies and contexts for several decades (Bronitt & Stenning, 2011). Discretion in policing was first studied in Anglo-Saxon contexts from the 1950s and 1960s, emphasizing the difference between law in the books and law in action (Goldstein, 1959). Lipsky, in the 1980s, illustrated the use of discretion and the impact of street-level workers, among whom police officers, on policymaking, referring to them as street-level bureaucrats. Street-level bureaucrats, Lipsky stated, are professionals such as welfare workers, teachers or police officers (professions working on a ‘street level’), who dispose of a large amount of room for manoeuvre in their daily practice and as such add to the development of policy of their professional group in practice (Lipsky,

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

89

2010). Street-level bureaucrats enable bottom-up policymaking by making daily decisions and developing policy from the street level up instead of top-down (Akosa & Asare, 2017). Following up on their reflection on the recent developments in policing and the presentation of the ideal type of abstract policing, Terpstra and colleagues (Terpstra et al., 2021) state in their chapter in this book that the police and judicial organization in the Netherlands and Scotland have transformed into a system-level bureaucracy instead of a street-level bureaucracy. This transformation is, so the authors state, the result of the more intense reliance on digital information and data in recent years and the decline of reliance on personal contact. As such, they argue, computer systems decrease the level of police discretion for street cops, turning police decisions into ‘computer says no’ choices. This is not an entirely conscious process; it is also a result of a process of adaptation to new societal circumstances (such as an increased demand for and supply of online services by the police (e.g. online reporting of victimization of crime)). We might indeed expect that in times of COVID where social distancing has become the norm, and alternative ways to contact the police are replacing or limiting face-to-face contact between police and the public, the system-­level bureaucracy has the potential to thrive.1 However, in a system-­level bureaucracy, we would expect a limitation (or even a fading away) of the room for discretion as individual officers no longer have to make decisions—they just need to follow the system. The increased reliance on system information and decreased value of personal contacts can as such have an effect on the extent to which police officers are granted room for decisions. We assume that the extent, content and execution of discretion and its margins are inherently different in every country and closely related to the national criminal justice system and procedure. After all, law in the books is different in every country as a result of different traditions, legislations and principles and also impacts upon law in action. This gives police officers different (margins of) powers and room to decide. After all, in both the Netherlands and Scotland, the police had or have the official means to dismiss cases (police dismissal), in contrast with Belgium, where a police dismissal has never been and still is not legally allowed (Van Daele, 1997).

1  As the chapter by Aston et al. goes into the impact of technology, we will not discuss this topic extensively here.

90 

A. VERHAGE

As a result, the extent of controls on discretion might also be different, in terms of official and officious room for manoeuvre. In this chapter, we aim to reflect upon the evolutions of police discretion and the practical application of police discretion in Belgium through the analysis of literature on police discretion and the application thereof in Belgium. The chapter sets off by discussing the concept of discretion and mapping the advantages and pitfalls of police discretion. We will then reflect upon the way in which discretion is shaped. The aim of this exercise is to examine the room for discretion in Belgium (as a country that is relatively strict in this sense, based on its fundaments of the French penal system, characterized by a strong legalistic approach (Goossens, 2006)) and to analyse how the concepts described by Terpstra and colleagues fit into this evolution and domain.

Room for Manoeuvre: The Basics of Police Discretion Making use of discretion implies going through a decision-making process (Worden & McLean, 2014): police officers (and their supervisors and policymakers2) make choices and tailor-made decisions in very different circumstances. This also implies that they will sometimes decide not to enforce the law. Although this seems obvious today, and is generally accepted in literature, this has not always been a mainstream view on police work. Discovering Discretion In their overview article in the 2014 Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Cordner and Scott (Cordner & Scott, 2014) show that the early interest in discretion in policing started in the 1960s, referring to the work of Goldstein (1959, 1963), LaFave (1965) and Davis (1975). Prior to this interest, the conventional view on policing and the criminal procedure in general was that the police only made decisions under the authorization or mandate of their authorities, such as the public prosecutor’s office. Police work was to carry out what was described in laws and 2  The broad approach to discretion also includes legislative and policy decisions (Gundhus, 2017), yet in this chapter, we will focus on the street-level officers due to the link the chapter by Terpstra et al., Chap. 2, this volume, in which they focus on street-level bureaucracy.

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

91

regulations, implying no room for decision or discretion at all (i.e. lawful policing (Ponsaers, 2001)). Yet Goldstein challenged this view. He wrote his article in 1960 under the title ‘Police discretion not to invoke the criminal process: low visibility decisions in the administration of justice’ (Goldstein 1960, 543). In this article, based on the analysis of confidential reports of day-to-day decisions by police officers of a large police force, it is emphasized that decisions ‘not to invoke’ are unavoidable: time, staff and material limitations push police officers and forces towards the development of enforcement priorities. In short: reality drives police officers towards selectivity. Based on this assessment, discretionary decisions are needed, but also problematic because of their ‘extremely low visibility’ and the fact that they are ‘seldom the subject of review’ (Goldstein, 1960, p. 543). They are not visible to the public, nor to the rest of the police force or their authorities. Not evoking the criminal process by police officers, as Goldstein describes police discretion, is a potential ‘failure of service’ (Goldstein, 1960, 552): there is a lack of systematic means to review or evaluate this decision. This not only implies that we do not have a clue which decisions were made and why, nor do we know anything about how the police (inter)acted in that situation and which interactions have taken place with whom. The result is that discretionary decisions escape any form of control. This is also why philosophers have described discretion as the famous hole in the doughnut, implying that discretion is reflected by the hole in the middle of a doughnut, while the doughnut illustrates policies and procedures (Dworkin, 1977). Furthermore, in these day-to-day decisions, the author discerns a decision-­making programme (or, in other words, a policy). This does not have to be problematic; in general terms, this policy seems to be based on good intentions by the police officers in question. This policy is not always an individual decision-making process; the ‘programme’ is either prescribed by the police department or condoned by it. Goldstein refers to them as ‘non-enforcement programmes’ and claims that they have been developed undercover (Goldstein 1960, 586). These programmes can be more problematic than individual powers of discretion as they are of a more structural nature and can thus have more structural consequences. As stated earlier, today, the existence of discretion is no longer a point of dispute, as discretion is seen as a ‘legitimate aspect of modern policing’ (Bronitt & Stenning, 2011, p. 319). Yet these same authors underline the fact that the concept of discretion exemplifies the politicality of the police

92 

A. VERHAGE

(Manning, 1978). Politicality implies that the position of the police in society is reflected in the extent of discretion that is granted. In other words, the extent of discretion in a police state will be inherently different from the amount of discretion that is granted in a democratic society. It reflects the amount of control that the state strives for on the one hand and the amount of responsibility granted to a professional force on the other. This will be illustrated more specifically later on in the comparison of country profiles. Impacts on Discretion Research points at a number of factors impacting on the use of discretion. The way in which police officers deal with their power to decide is after all different and multifaceted and related not only to the individual characteristics of police officers but to an interplay between a multitude of factors. Worden and McLean (2014) identify five overarching factors that influence discretion in decision-making: (1) situational factors (the context, external to the decision-maker); (2) officer characteristics (individual factors); (3) neighbourhood characteristics (social contexts of interactions between police and citizen); (4) organizational factors (formal and informal organization of the police force or the police in a broader sense); and (5) legal requirements and criminal procedure. Each of these factors can have a specific influence throughout the decision-making process. Situational factors can shape a police officer’s opinion and are difficult to control as they are by definition external. Officer characteristics are influential in the sense that it influences both the extent to which officers make use of their powers of discretion on the one hand and the content and aim of their decisions. The neighbourhood can impact on the decision process by means of the type of interactions that are generally taking place and that shape officer’s views on the area. The police organization can be influential, in the sense that police forces that have strict guidelines, debriefings, review procedures or follow-up are more able to steer their officers in certain directions. We also derive from earlier research that the influence of peers (colleagues) can be very influential in police decision-making (Noppe, 2020). And finally, legal requirements and the functioning of the criminal procedure can be of influence in several manners; for example, when police officers are of the opinion or have the supposition that certain cases will never be followed up by the criminal justice system, they may be

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

93

more inclined to make use of their discretion and avoid the fuss of making an official report. Advocates and Adversaries of Discretion Although the first assessments and conclusions on police discretion were drawn over 60 years ago, the discussion on police discretion is still ongoing, pointing at the same problematic features of discretion on the one hand but emphasizing the need for discretion on the other hand. For some authors, the use of discretion can be useful, and less problematic in some types of decisions (e.g. arrests and identity checks), but for other types of decisions (e.g. the use of force; see Noppe, 2020), the room for discretion needs to be minimized (Brooks et al., 2015). Other research also points at the need for having room to make creative decisions in order to cope with the diversity of situations that police officers encounter. Discretion also allows for the application of police powers as they see fit, which allows for a humane touch in policing and often implies that the allocated room for decision stays within the boundaries of the law (van Halderen & Lasthuizen, 2013). On the other end of the spectrum, however, the need for checks and balances, as exemplified in Goldstein’s article, is underlined today and stretches even further in the discussion on pandemic policing and ethnic profiling (Jones, 2020; Van der Leun et al., 2014). We will discuss both sides shortly in the coming paragraphs.  otential Downsides: Selectivity and Overpolicing P Gilleir (2013) describes the room for discretion as a promising quality of police work that enables tailor-made decisions taking into account different contexts and circumstances. When applied in a good way, the use of discretion can lead to the fulfilment of procedural justice and hence result in increased police legitimacy (Jackson et al., 2012; Tyler, 2006). This is another reason why we should be concerned about the way in which discretion is applied in police practice. This is also why some refer to the enhancement of control on police practices, as too much discretion without oversight carries with it the danger for selectivity and partiality, power play and potential corruption and abuse. Structural focus on specific groups or persons as part of discretion might have major negative impact on principles of equality and might turn the attention towards specific groups, specific neighbourhoods or districts, ending in systemic racism

94 

A. VERHAGE

(also referred to as ‘overpolicing’; Easton & Ponsaers, 2010; Jackson et al., 2021). As Saudelli (2021) very rightly points out in her PhD on stop and search practices in the Belgian police, discretionary decisions do not need to be problematic per se, but can become problematic in cases where objective criteria are not the basis of the decision. She refers to the ‘gut feeling’ that police officers fall back on when deciding on who will be stopped and searched on the one hand and who will be unseen on the other hand. This ‘gut feeling’ of police officers was also described earlier (Çankaya, 2012; Gilleir, 2013) and is discussed extensively in the literature on ethnic profiling (Van der Leun et al., 2014). Although developing police experience and expertise throughout the years is without any doubt very valuable in daily police practice, making police decisions on the basis of unconscious triggers or feelings or ‘intuitive policing’ (Pinizzotto et al., 2004) without any objective foundation is to be avoided. Yet this use of intuitive policing is not as random as it may seem: police officers develop operational ‘working rules’ that help them make daily decisions (Stroshine et al., 2008). In literature on police culture, it is shown that in some cases, these working rules are shaped by police occupational culture, building on general sets of norms and values that steer individual behaviour (Loftus, 2009, 3). When these working rules reflect structural biases and inappropriate attitudes, some plead for the enhancement of external control— while others aim for the development of internal standards and professional deontology and ethics (Gundhus, 2017, p. 260). That the way in which authority is exercised matters is what a massive number of studies on police legitimacy and procedural justice have told us (Bradford et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2012). This however also implies that the way in which unseen interactions with police officers are carried out matters. Even more so, the ‘wise’ exercise of discretion can have positive effects on police-citizen relations. As such, discretion is a central component of police legitimacy. As Tyler and Jackson state, ‘police legitimacy is a belief about the right of the police to possess and exercise discretionary power and influence’ (Tyler & Jackson, 2014, p. 14). The way in which the police behaves in situations that are not seen, not registered or recorded, may be as (or even more) important for the belief and view on the police by the public than the formal interactions between police and public. Perceptions of police legitimacy are based on the extent to which the police are seen as acting in a fair manner. Applying principles of procedural

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

95

justice to police interactions helps build trust and generates legitimacy. If we want to work on cooperation with the public and compliance, we need a police that is granted legitimacy so discretionary powers can be exercised in a democratic manner (Epiphanio, 2020; Murphy et al., 2008). If this is not the case, for example, in situations in which police discretion is misused, this impacts negatively on police legitimacy resulting in unwillingness to cooperate, public unrest and protest. The way in which the use of discretion is communicated then also matters (as we will get back to later in the context of police discretion in Scotland): explaining the use of discretion and considering that discretion might be more socially concerned than total and blind law enforcement is of utmost importance. The professionalization in policing, a debate described by Cockcroft (Cockcroft, 2015), is also important in this respect as well-educated police officers are probably better armed to deal with complex and multifaceted situations. In this respect, Goldstein states that police officers should be able to enforce ‘the spirit of the law’, instead of the law in the books (Goldstein, 1963, p. 143). This does require police officers that know the spirit of the law, understand how the legislator has intended this specific legislation and are able to translate this into specific situations (Gundhus, 2017).  otential Advantages: Police Work as Craftmanship P A control-oriented view on police discretion is based on the idea that when granted discretion, police officers might cross the boundaries and overstep their authority. However, discretion can also mean that there is a decision to scale down, to do a little less instead of a little more and to turn a blind eye. Wise application of discretion can then help build relations with the community. As such, discretion does not have to equal the loss of trust and legitimacy; it can also help in building trust. Emphasizing this view, Worden and Mclean (2014) highlight that exercising discretion by street-level police officers does not only entail dangers; it also opens up opportunities. In their view, police work does not necessarily imply the use of ‘authority’, the use of ‘more’ police influence. In some cases, ‘less’ can also be a useful response. They refer to Bittner (1983) who stated that police ‘workmanship’ is also a way to judge the performance of the police. In other words, apart from legality as a central core in police work (in terms of applying the rules of the law), also ‘workmanship’ should be a mechanism to measure police work: are police officers able to use their skills, knowledge and judgement to deal with

96 

A. VERHAGE

situations in a competent manner? This workmanship is also—so we claim—mainly to be recognized in dealing with discretion: in those cases where the law may be less clear or where the room for manoeuvre is present. Also here, training and education are of utmost importance, but also peer evaluation and community feedback are essential. By giving feedback on actions and decisions, such as through intervisions (Saudelli, 2021), police officers can learn to identify good practices and use feedback from peers and supervisors as a touchstone for their own decisions and behaviour. This also helps develop ‘craft standards’ (Klockars, 1996) on how to deal with similar situations in an optimal way. What would a colleague that you look up to have done? This can also assist police officers to identify the decision that they are morally comfortable with (Muir, 1979). The system-level bureaucracy as described by Terpstra and colleagues in this book leads to the vanishing or limitation of the room for discretion— as human decisions (that can be flawed or biased) are replaced by systemic decisions. The question is to which extent this also results in the vanishing of the pros of craftmanship: the option to do less than is legally prescribed and the development of smart cops that are able to translate complex legislation into daily decisions.

Discretion and National Contexts of Policing Discretion in Different Settings When looking at different Western European countries, we see that the way in which the penal chain functions and the role that is allocated to the different actors and echelons can be very diverse. Western European countries have very different views on police discretion and the room that can be granted to this first echelon of the penal chain. In each system, the centre of gravity in terms of decision-making within the penal chain is placed in a specific echelon. For example, in the Belgian criminal justice system, the centre of gravity is placed on the level of the public prosecutor’s office, while in the Netherlands, for a long time, a lot of room for decision was adhered to the level of the police (through the informal approval of the police dismissal). The countries included in the analysis on abstract policing, the Netherlands and Scotland, have both undergone a thorough police reform recently, which might have functioned as an impetus for change on the level of discretion. In Belgium, this police reform dates from over 20 years

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

97

ago, and we might in some respects be on the verge of a new police reform. Terpstra and colleagues state that the birth of a new police system (e.g. the police reforms in 2013 in the Netherlands and Scotland) leads to speeding up of the process of developments in the police organization and the increased visibility thereof (Terpstra & Salet, 2020). They refer to the scale enlargement of both police forces leading to the foundation of a national police in both countries. Yet the police reform in Belgium dates from the very early 2000s and has indeed resulted in a fundamental organizational change as it resulted in an integrated police force (after decades of at least three separate police forces), but also left room for a high number of local police forces. As such, the nationalization and enlargement process is not as outspoken as in the two other countries. The impact on the level of police culture and methods of working may have been less visible. Today, as the Belgian reform is now more than 20 years ago, we can no longer say that this is a recent turnaround. In the following paragraphs, we will take a short look at the Netherlands and Scotland and their policy on police discretion and dismissal, before we take a closer look at the Belgian view on police discretion and decision-making. Discretion in the Netherlands and Scotland Both countries that have provided input for the view on system-level bureaucracy have long shared a view on the police as decision-makers that were allowed autonomy and room for dismissal. In the Netherlands, the police dismissal exemplified the room for discretion (Soudijn, 2016). For a long time, police officers disposed of the possibility to deal with criminal cases and decide on dismissal, transaction and, in case of minors, a referral or a warning. A police dismissal had no consequences in terms of criminal procedure: no police report is made, and no prosecution will follow. The police officer could make a note in the police administrative system (Van der Leij, 2010). This was a non-official and widely accepted practice. However, in 2012, the Rekenkamer assessed that the police is formally not in the position to decide on a dismissal, even though this happens in practice and the dismissals are registered in the police systems. Therefore, in 2013, the prosecutor’s office decided that there was no legal ground for the police dismissal in Article 152 Sv and stated that dismissals could only be decided upon formally by the public prosecutor’s office. This resulted in a shift in the statistics from police dismissals to public prosecutor’s

98 

A. VERHAGE

dismissals (Openbaar Ministerie, 2018) as the police dismissal was no longer possible in practice. This implies that what was previously seen as police dismissal now falls under the category of ‘police discretion’. Police decision-making is hence formally denied, potentially resulting in a larger grey area of police discretion, where the application of checks and balances is made more difficult. In Scotland, police dismissal is acknowledged in policy documents, and police officers are encouraged to develop methods that allow them to deal with this discretion. As such, discretion is officially acknowledged, in policy documents, and referred to as one of the tools for police officers. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are published on the website of the police, illustrating a will for transparency and issuing of guidelines for police activity. Even more so, the Scottish police publish information on ‘professional judgement or discretion’ on their website, explaining to the public that there may be circumstances that will demand the use of discretion by police officers. This room for manoeuvre is acknowledged in spite of the processes and procedures that were developed. On the website, it is emphasized that police staff are meant to use this discretion in a fair manner and that they are accountable for their decisions and ‘may be called upon to justify their actions’ (Scotland police, 20213). In addition, in a recent interview on the application of COVID measures, a police chief referred to the use of discretion and ‘common sense’ as one of the reasons for a successful approach of pandemic policing.4 As such, the advantages of discretion (in contrast with strict rules and guidelines when to intervene) are underlined, also by the public that in general assessed the approach positively. This implies that a transparent policy with regard to the use of discretion, and communication about its use and the accountability that goes with it, can have a positive effect on the way in which the community perceives police decision-making. Discretion in Belgium The Belgian Penal Code5 prescribes that police officers are obliged to send all reports, police reports and other relevant documents to the public 3  See also: https://www.scotland.police.uk/access-to-information/policies-andprocedures/. 4  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55940154 5  Articles 53 and 54.

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

99

prosecutor’s office immediately and without delay.6 This is also implicitly noted in the Law on the Police Function7 (Article 40). The fundaments of this law are based on the legality of police activity and decisions (and respect for individual rights and democratic freedoms) (Goossens, 2006). Even more, ‘when the police is meant to serve citizens and the society at large, it is not just to leave to it up the police to decide when and when not to intervene, which competences and techniques can be applied or what the consequences of their actions may be’ (own translation—Goossens, 2006, p.  3). This should be determined by law, to limit the room for manoeuvre for police officers and citizens on the one hand and to give more legal certainty and insights in what each actor is allowed to do and/ or not on the other hand. After all, the police officer is an officer of the law and hence needs to respect and protect individual rights and freedoms. This requires that they have a legal basis for every police action and/or decision. This implies that, officially, Belgian police officers cannot decide on sending police reports to the next level of the penal chain, as all reports are automatically sent to the public prosecutors. According to these articles, police officers cannot decide on the appropriateness of making a police report when they are confronted with a criminal act, nor can they decide not to send it to the public prosecutor’s office. This is, as Van Daele (1997) notes, in contrast with the special inspection services (such as the customs office) who do have the official possibility to decide not to report an infraction (but can instead give a warning), which would lead to not informing the public prosecutor’s office. Yet police officers are not allowed this room as they are not expected to interfere with the possibility to prosecute (Van Daele, 1997). This does, of course, not imply that a police dismissal is not applied in practice. First steps towards more responsibility for police officers or services were taken in terms of the instalment of new types of police reports (such as APO8 or VPV9), although this is still largely steered by the public prosecutor’s office. APO reports (as an alternative for regular police reports) are dealt with by the police themselves until the investigation is finalized  In Dutch onverwijld (see Article 53).  Law of August 5, 1992, on the Police Function, B.S., December 22, 1992. 8  APO is short for ‘Ambtshalve Politioneel Onderzoek’, loosely translated as ‘Police Investigation Ex Officio’. 9  VPV is short for ‘Vereenvoudigd Proces Verbaal’, loosely translated as ‘Simplified Police Report’. 6 7

100 

A. VERHAGE

and are therefore not subject to the traditional back-and-forth sending of police reports to and from the public prosecutor’s office. In traditional police reports, after all, the police send the report to the public prosecutor’s office. The latter then sends out tasks to police services, who carry out these investigative tasks, until the investigation is finalized and bundled in one file. In APO files, however, the police are made responsible for the finalization of the investigation, and only then the entire file is transmitted to the public prosecutor’s office. This implies a large time gain (no back-and-forth sending of files, especially in a predominantly paper world) but also implies trust in the police’s capability to finalize the investigation. Variations on APO files have grown since its emergence in the 1990s, such as APO-perpetrator unknown or VAPO (a simplified APO), leading to a diversity of police reports (Ponsaers et al., 2003). On the other hand, VPV files are made in those cases that are considered to be of minor importance or that have no information on potential perpetrators. These VPV files are not sent to the public prosecutor’s office, but kept on the level of the police. They are reported in a monthly listing to the public prosecutor, which could allow for a quick check of the VPVs and a further investigation of specific VPVs if deemed necessary. VPV, VAPO and APOperpetrator unknown are only sent to the public prosecutors in the form of a listing, implying immediate dismissal after registration, nor are they part of the public prosecutor’s statistics. Although this kind of police reporting might look like a type of police dismissal, in practice, these are files that are not transmitted to the public prosecutor, though under strict guidance of the public prosecutor’s office. After all, in the guideline on APO that was made by the College of Procurators-­General,10 a list of infractions that may be dealt with as VPV determine the VPV-registrations, while criteria that should lead to a regular police report are also listed. This implies that officially, the room for manoeuvre is relatively limited and VPVs cannot be seen as police dismissals. On the other hand, in comparison with the division of tasks before the instalment of these different types of police reports, this gives police services more responsibility and probably also more job satisfaction as they are now more ‘in charge’ of the investigation. This does however not imply that the adherence to the basic principle of automatic transfer of files to the level of the public prosecutor was left 10  Omzendbrief nr. COL 8/2005 van het College van Procureurs-generaal bij de Hoven van Beroep, gewijzigd op 1/4/2015.

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

101

behind. On the contrary, the idea of the public prosecutor as the leader and authority guiding the investigation, as stated in Article 28bis Sv, was reaffirmed. In practice, of course, police officers and supervisors do dispose over room for discretion, as was established in multiple studies in Belgium (Gilleir, 2013; Noppe, 2016, 2020). After all, if we describe ‘discretion’ as ‘the police decision not to invoke the criminal process’ (Goldstein, 1959, p. 543), all decisions that are taken prior to the invocation of the criminal procedure fall under the term discretion. As such, the decision to report a file in a specific type of police report does not make part of the room for discretion, but is a result of the decision after the discretion phase. As Gilleir (2013) points out, in Belgium, also due to the lack of discussion about the police dismissal, the room for discretion is not acknowledged and hence not transparent. This is in sharp contrast with, for example, the police in Scotland where (as we stated before) discretion is acknowledged, explained and advocated. These different views on police responsibility and position shape the contours of police decision-making and start from very diverse views on the position of policing in the criminal justice system. The Impact of New Public Management A recent common influence on policing in many countries in Western Europe, described by Terpstra et al. (Chap. 2, this volume) is the impact of New Public Management (NPM) on policy and police work. NPM impact stands for the emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency and sometimes goes hand in hand with countable goals and targets. The impact of NPM is visible, according to Terpstra et al. (Chap. 2, this volume) in ‘the closure of police stations, the reduction of opening hours, a stronger reliance on IT, the introduction of impersonal forms of communication with citizens, the centralization of specialist units, the use of centrally-determined Key Performance Indicators and targets, or organizational scale enlargements’ (Terpstra et al., Chap. 2, this volume). These impacts have large consequences for the relations between police and the public. Although many of these characteristics of NPM are to be recognized in different countries, especially in the current COVID-19 situations (such as reduction of opening hours, impersonal communication), not all Western European countries have embraced this philosophy in the same manner. The centralization of special units, for example, was turned

102 

A. VERHAGE

around in Belgium in the process of optimalization in 2014 (Bruggeman, 2013) when decentralization of expertise was carried out within the federal police. The setting of targets was never officially part of the police policy. Scale enlargement is currently stimulated within the local police, but not (yet) formally obliged. There is a strong demand for increased quantification of results, based on the need to measure and evaluate, with a view on optimization and improvement. This is accompanied by a need for more control over discretion by means of ‘performance management’ and ‘management by objectives’ (Gundhus, 2017, p. 261). However, gaining more control over discretion remains difficult: it is hard to control what you cannot see. In that sense, a stimulating approach might also in this domain be more useful than a controlling or sanctioning approach.

Conclusion: How to Deal with Discretion The abstract police include a warning against the reliance on system-level knowledge in police practice, as the increased reliance on technology might lead to a police system in which not the police officer but the ‘computer says no’ (Terpstra et al., Chap. 2, this volume). In this chapter, we reflected upon the extent to which, today, police officers in Belgium are granted discretion and the impact this has on decision-making. Therefore, we asked the question to which extent we actually need discretion, and if so, how can we build in boundaries to this discretion? Which factors allow us to work towards appropriate police practice, with competent, educated and nuanced street-­level bureaucrats? Should we not go for a full-fledged type of system-level decision-making, avoiding subjectivity and bias? Police use of technology today probably does not limit discretion fundamentally. Some types of technology (e.g. the Focus app) do give police officers more information when going to an intervention which might impact on their decision process afterwards. Other types of technology (such as body-worn cameras) can impact upon the interaction between police officer (i.e. when turned on) and citizen and may also (negatively) influence the extent to which police officers are willing to turn a blind eye (after all, it is on camera). This might indeed be perceived as a limitation to the room for manoeuvre. Even more, technology makes visible what police officers are doing and when. As such, it enables more potential for carrying out checks on police staff. Unfortunately, today, we lack academic insights in these effects.

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

103

Although the dangers or pitfalls of discretion are documented repeatedly, as was reflected upon above, the advantages and even necessity of discretion are also often described. Goldstein (1960) already noted that full law enforcement is a myth; hence, police discretion is here to stay. The question is whether that is problematic. Goldstein pointed out that legislators should be aware of the extent of police discretion that is built in into the criminal justice system. They should decide on which extent of discretion (‘if any’) they would like to police to have in terms of invoking the criminal procedure and how we can increase transparency and reviewability of police discretionary decisions (Goldstein, 1960). Ultimately, Goldstein is of the opinion that the room for discretion should be minimized as much as possible, as this is the only way to have an impartial and objective form of policing. After all, he states, we cannot expect individual police officers to translate general values into a street-level decision in using his or her discretion. Yet today, academics are still asking for the same transparency in decision-­making, specifically when it concerns day-to-day decisions such as stop and search decision (Saudelli, 2021). Authors assume that reviewing police discretion is even more difficult in contexts where it is not formally acknowledged (Kolthoff et  al., 2016). Yet limiting discretion by means of strict legislation may not be the optimal solution. As Maesschalck points out in his discussion of police integrity, it may not be needed to limit the room for discretion (e.g. through strict legislation). The essence of dealing with discretion lies in training police officers or supporting them in dealing with their powers of discretion (Maesschalck, 2012; Easton & Ponsaers, 2010). After all, many contemporary police tasks require a certain degree of autonomy (Gundhus 2017). In the application of today’s police models (e.g. intelligence-­led policing and communityoriented policing), we expect a ‘smart cop’ that is able to make use of his skills and knowledge as a professional. What we need is not a ‘snappy, lowlevel, soldier-bureaucrat’ (Bittner, 1990; Mastrofski & Willis, 2010, p. 260), but a professional who is able to make decisions and found these decisions on the spirit of the law. The latter is after all very difficult to do by a computer or a system that is fed with criteria and red flags. As such, police officers can help translate the legislation into police practices on a broader scale. This would imply that we need well-educated and highly skilled police officers that are able and willing to make this translation and are willing to step into a participatory view on rule making

104 

A. VERHAGE

and enforcement, balancing criminal procedure, the public interest and the individual. As Gundhus notes, this might help us develop the appropriate exercise of discretion (Gundhus, 2017). Education is crucial as it helps steer novice police officers in the right direction and supports socialization (adds the blue paint), yet this does not stop once education is over. Also constant feedback and intervision once police officers have entered the field (Saudelli, 2021) remains important, to keep checking whether we are all thinking along the same lines. This might assist us in staying a bit ahead of the system-­level bureaucracy and putting human decision-making central instead of the computer that says yes or no.

References Akosa, F., & Asare, B. E. (2017). Street-level bureaucrats and the exercise of discretion. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp.  1–6). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­31816-­5_3353-­1 Bittner, E. (1983). Legality and workmanship: introduction to control inthe police organization. In Punch M (ed.) Control in the policeorganization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Bittner, E. (1990). Aspects of police work. Northeastern University Press Boston. Bradford, B., Milani, J., & Jackson, J. (2017). Identity, legitimacy and “making sense” of police use of force. Policing: An International Journal, 40(3), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-­06-­2016-­0085 Bronitt, S. H., & Stenning, P. (2011). Understanding discretion in modern policing. Criminal Law Journal, 35(6), 319–332. Brooks, L. W., Dunham, R., & Alpert, G. (2015). Police discretionary behavior. In Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (pp.  122–142). Waveland Press. Bruggeman, W. (2013). Optimalisatie federale politie. Panopticon, 34(6), 508. Çankaya, S. (2012). De controle van marsmannetjes en ander schorriemorrie. Boom Lemma uitgevers. Cockcroft, T. (2015). Golden ages, red herrings and post-Keynesian policing-­ understanding the role of police culture in the police professionalism debate. Nordisk politiforskning, 2(02), 183–196. Cordner, G., & Scott, M.  S. (2014). Police discretion and its control. In G.  Bruinsma & D.  Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp.  3587–3596). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­1-­4614-­5690-­2_414 Davis, K. C. (1975). Police discretion. West Publishing Company.

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

105

Dworkin, R. M. (1977). The philosophy of law. Oxford University Press. Easton, M., & Ponsaers, P. (2010). The view of the police on community policing in Belgian multicultural neighbourhoods. In New empirical data, theories and analyses on safety, societal problems and citizens’ perceptions (pp. 161–182). Maklu. Epiphanio, F. (2020, December 09). Police discretion and procedural justice. Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Segurança Pública (RIBSP), 4, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.36776/ribsp.v4i8.120 Gilleir, F. (2013). Discretionaire ruimte bij de Belgische lokale politie. Maklu. Goldstein, J. (1960). Police discretion not to invoke the criminal process; lowvisibility decisions in the administration of justice. The Yale Law Journal, 69, 543. Goldstein, H. (1963). Police discretion: The ideal versus the real. Public Administration Review, 140–148. Goossens, F. (2006). Politiebevoegdheden en mensenrechten in België. Een rechtsvergelijkend en internationaal onderzoek. Dissertatie KULeuven. Gundhus, H. O. I. (2017). Discretion as an obstacle: Police culture, change, and governance in a Norwegian context. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pax012 Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071. Jackson, J., McKay, T., Cheliotis, L., Bradford, B., Fine, A., & Trinkner, R. (2021). Centering race in procedural justice theory: Systemic racism and the under-policing and over-policing of Black communities. Jones, D. J. (2020). The potential impacts of pandemic policing on police legitimacy: Planning past the COVID-19 crisis. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(3), 579–586. Klockars, C. B. (1996). A theory of excessive force and its control. Police violence: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force, in Geller, W., Toch H., Police violence: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force, Yale University Press, 1–22. Kolthoff, E., Loyens, K., & Verhage, A. (2016). Street-level bureaucracy en actoren in de veiligheidszorg. TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR CRIMINOLOGIE, 58(4), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.5553/tvc/0165182x2016058004001 LaFave, W. (1965). Arrest: The decision to take a suspect into custody. Boston, MA. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation. Loftus, B. (2009). Police culture in a changing world. Oxford University Press, USA. Maesschalck, J. (2012). Kan een integriteitsbeleid in de politie werkelijk een verschil maken op de werkvloer? Cahiers Politiestudies, 24, 111–130. Manning, P. K. (1978). The police and crime: Crime and the police. Sociologische Gids, 25(6), 487–501.

106 

A. VERHAGE

Mastrofski, S. D., & Willis, J. J. (2010). Police organization continuity and change: Into the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 55–144. Muir, W. K. (1979). Police: Streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press. Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2), 136–155. https://doi. org/10.1080/10439460802008660 Noppe, J. (2016). De discretionaire ruimte bij het gebruik van geweld: hoe kleiner, hoe beter? Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 58(4). Noppe, J. (2020). Dealing with the authority to use force: Reflections of Belgian police officers. Policing and Society, 30(5), 502–518. Openbaar Ministerie, P.  G. (2018). Sepots. Trends en ontwikkelingen. https:// w w w. r i j k s o v e r h e i d . n l / d o c u m e n t e n / r a p p o r t e n / 2 0 1 8 / 1 2 / 1 9 / tk-­bijlage-­sepots-­trends-­en-­ontwikkelingen Pinizzotto, A.  J., Davis, E.  F., & Miller, C.  E., III. (2004). Intuitive policing: Emotional/rational decision making in law enforcement. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73, 1. Ponsaers, P. (2001). Reading about “community (oriented) policing” and police models. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24, 470–497. Ponsaers, P., Cartuyvels, Y., Francis, V., Guillain, C., Van Ex, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., Verhage, A., & Vogliotti, M. (2003). Politionele behandeling: relatieve autonomie? Een empirisch onderzoek naar de Autonome Politionele Afhandeling (APA). Academia Press. Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police. Oxford University Press. Rowe, M. (2007). Rendering visible the invisible: Police discretion, professionalism and decision-making. Policing and Society, 17(3), 279–294. https://doi. org/10.1080/10439460701497352 Saudelli, I., (2021). Mag ik uw identiteitskaart zien? Een kwalitatief onderzoek naar identiteitscontroles uitgevoerd door de Belgische lokale politie. PhD, defended on April 23, 2021, VUB, Brussel. Soudijn, M.  R. (2016). Recherche een vorm van street level bureaucray? Een verkenning van de opsporingspraktijk naar georganiseerde misdaad. Stroshine, M., Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (2008). The influence of “working rules” on police suspicion and discretionary decision making. Police Quarterly, 11(3), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611107313029 Terpstra, J., & Salet, R. (2020). Politie in tijden van Corona. Over haar maatschappelijke opdracht in buitengewone omstandigheden. Nationale Politie. Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. Tyler, T.  R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78.

  DO WE NEED DISCRETION? POLICE DECISIONS AND THE LIMITS… 

107

Van Daele, D. (1997). Het politiesepot: een volwaardig afhandelingsmechanisme of een strafvorderlijke vloek? Vigiles: Tijdschrift voor Politierecht, 1, 23–37. Van der Leij, J. (2010). Het Nederlandse strafrechtsssteem. Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving, 21–54. Van der Leun, J., van der Woude, M. A. H., Vijverberg, R., Vrijhoef, R., & Leupen, A. (2014). Etnisch profileren in Den Haag? Een verkennend onderzoek naar beslissingen en opvattingen op straat. Boom Lemma uitgevers. van Halderen, R.  C., & Lasthuizen, K. (2013). Creatief gebruik van bevoegdheden. Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, 12, 1. Waddington, P. A. (1999). Policing citizens: Authority and rights. Psychology Press. Worden, R.  E., & McLean, S.  J. (2014). Police discretion in law enforcement. In G.  Bruinsma & D.  Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp.  3596–3607). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­1-­4614-­5690-­2_415

The Abstract Police: An Exploration of the Concept in the Belgian Local Police Yinthe Feys

Abstract  In this chapter, we explore the concept of the abstract police (Terpstra et al., The Police Journal: Theory, Practice, and Principles, 92(4), 339–359, 2019) in a Belgian context. We draw upon a project concerning police officers’ ethical decision-making processes, more precisely systematic social observations conducted in three Belgian local police forces, including informal conversations with police officers. The examples show that the contacts among police officers and between the police and the public are mainly personal and direct. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, negatively affects these relations in several ways. We discuss the causes of a more abstract police organisation in other countries and reflect to which extent these evolutions are also taking place in Belgium. We conclude that the decentralisation of the local police may be the main reason

Y. Feys (*) Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6_7

109

110 

Y. FEYS

for the personal relations and that the ideal type of the abstract police could be seen as a dystopia (i.e. a scenario that the Belgian police may want to avoid). Keywords  Abstract police • Local police • Belgium • Decentralised • Abstractisation

Introduction In 2019, Terpstra and colleagues introduced the concept of ‘the abstract police’, explaining that the relations among police officers and the relations between police officers and citizens and external partners are becoming more distant and less personal. They describe that the increasingly abstract character resulted in changes in the police’s internal and external relations. These findings are based on research in Scotland and the Netherlands, but it is believed that other police forces are also subject to an abstractisation. The more abstract nature of some police organisations may be the result of the centralisation of these police forces. In a book assembling chapters on the centralisation of police forces in Northern and Western Europe, Tops and Spelier (2013) conclude that most of these countries have been centralised into a national police force, such as France (Mouhanna, 2013), Denmark (Holmberg & Balvig, 2013), Finland (Haraholma & Houtsonen, 2013), Scotland (Fyfe & Scott, 2013), the Netherlands (Terpstra, 2013) and Sweden (Wennström, 2013). Exceptions are England and Wales (Loveday, 2013) and Belgium (Devroe & Ponsaers, 2013). Multiple factors have been identified as having had an influence on the movement towards more centralisation such as international terrorism, economic crises and changes in politics (Fyfe & Scott, 2013; Mouhanna, 2013), but most of these reforms were influenced by New Public Management (NPM) ideas such as optimising cost-effectiveness, effectivity and efficiency. Holmberg and Balvig (2013), who discuss the Danish police reform of 2007, conclude, however, that initiatives to increase the police’s efficiency may have unwanted side effects such as a disconnect between the police and the community. Such a disconnect may negatively affect the bond between the police and the public. This can be challenging as trust in police is important to stimulate citizens to work with the police and obey them. This is also

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

111

related to perceptions of procedural justice (i.e. how a police officer treats citizens, rather than the outcome of their decisions; Antrobus et al., 2019; Blader & Tyler, 2003; Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Research has shown that such perceptions can lead to trust in police, which can then lead to police legitimacy and more cooperation from citizens (e.g. see Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Jackson et  al., 2012; Reisig et  al., 2012; Tyler, 2004, 2006; Van Damme, 2017). Terpstra et al. (2019) argue that the abstractness of police organisations may also impact upon this: “Communities will feel that the police are less accessible and will have less confidence that the police have a good understanding of local problems. This will impact on information sharing and trust, which are vital to police effectiveness and legitimacy” (p. 355). This chapter will explore the concept of abstract police in a Belgian context. We do not aim to corroborate or falsify the concept, but to give some examples to stimulate a discussion on this topic. We start by explaining the concept as introduced by Terpstra et  al. (2019). We will then reflect on these elements with regard to the Belgian, local police. These reflections will be the basis for a discussion on the concept and its causes. We will end with some concluding remarks and a couple of interesting ideas for research on this topic.

The Concept of the Abstract Police Terpstra et  al. (2019) have introduced the idea of the abstract police. Based on research in the Netherlands and Scotland, where police reforms in 2013 have resulted in centralised national forces, they argue that the police have made a shift towards a different kind of organisation, one that became more distant, more impersonal and formal and less direct. These changes occur both within the police organisation and in their external relations. The police are also believed to become less dependent on personal knowledge of officers, as this is increasingly being replaced by system knowledge. In what follows, we summarise the main ideas related to the abstract police as described by Terpstra et al. (2019). Within the police organisation, they argue that the relations among police officers and between police officers and their chiefs have become less personal and direct, more formalised. This is, among others, due to scale enlargement—which resulted in larger teams and larger working areas—the creation of specialist units at the national level and the increasing use of email and Internet communication. Therefore, police officers

112 

Y. FEYS

do not know all of their team members, and their chiefs do not really know with whom they are cooperating and are often not well informed about the local environment. The latter may ultimately lead to the point that police chiefs follow the formal rules and procedures more strictly at the expense of individualising their strategies. Concerning the external relations, they explain that the police and citizens, but also police and (external) partner agencies, are becoming more distant and less personal. This is, among others, due to the closure of police stations, a reduction of opening hours and the different channels through which citizens can contact the police (by the Internet, by phone, by visit—this is called the Multichannel Model). Citizens go to the police station only exceptionally anymore, and contacts are increasingly mediated by computer screens. If citizens do come to the police station spontaneously, they may be refused or asked to make an appointment by phone or through the Internet first. This results in an increase in the number of Internet contacts and a reduction of face-to-face contacts at the police station. These evolutions may eventually result in the police receiving less information from citizens, for instance, concerning what happens in their neighbourhood. As a result, it can be that police officers are less informed, lose their local orientation and local knowledge and may experience difficulties in realising collaborations with citizens and communities, all of which can complicate the personalisation of services for citizens and finding adequate solutions. A similar argument can be made for the relations between police officers and professional agencies, which are also becoming more remote and formal (e.g. email communication). Terpstra et al. (2019) refer to some organisational changes and changing views on policing which may have an impact on the shift towards a more abstract police organisation. With regard to the organisational changes, they refer to scale enlargement of police organisations, fragmentation (i.e. tasks and responsibilities are divided among several actors and units, both horizontal and vertical, which may, for instance, have an effect on feelings of responsibility) and an increasing reliance on IT. Concerning the latter, they argue that the police have become more dependent on computer systems. The police have evolved from street-level bureaucracy over screen-level bureaucracy to system-level bureaucracy, where discretion has been largely replaced by computer specialists, which may be at the expense of personal information. This is also the case in the internal relations of the police: performance management is realised by means of computer systems and formats to measure targets with a minimal personal

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

113

relationship between officers and their chief. Concerning the changing views, three aspects are identified. Firstly, the changes would be the result of the NPM thinking, which focuses on effectiveness and efficiency standards. Examples thereof are the aforementioned scale enlargement, reduction in opening hours and closure of police stations, the centralisation of specialist units and a stronger reliance on IT. Secondly, more focus is put on intelligence-led policing. Collecting and analysing data have become more important, and specialists are recruited for intelligence and crime analysis. These specialists are not directly acquainted with citizens, which also means that street-level police officers receive more abstract information to work with. Thirdly, voices are rising to redefine (or at least discuss) the core tasks of the police, especially in the Netherlands, arguing that the focus should be on criminal law issues and less on community-­oriented policing (COP). Terpstra et al. (2019) believe that this increasingly abstract character of the police—which can ultimately result in a vulnerability of the police— may also be found elsewhere, especially in Western European countries. They explain: “The use of the ideal type of abstract police is not meant to suggest that the empirical reality of the current police completely corresponds with it. The empirical reality is more complex than that. Although the police may be seen as increasingly abstract, elements of former and more traditional organisational types and cultures can still be found, and may be in conflict with the abstract police. As a consequence, the issue is not if the concept of abstract police is (completely) ‘true’; what matters is if the concept is helpful to better understand increasingly dominant elements of contemporary police organisations” (Terpstra et  al., 2019, p. 343).

Exploration of the Belgian Local Police Contrary to the police in the Netherlands and Scotland, the Belgian local police are decentralised. In 2001, the Belgian police were reformed as a result of a ‘police war’. The police previously consisted of three separate forces that were reluctant to work together and withheld criminal information from each other (Devroe & Ponsaers, 2013; Enhus & Ponsaers, 2005). Those forces were brought together in an integrated police force

114 

Y. FEYS

structured at two levels1: the federal police are responsible for law enforcement on the federal level, while local law enforcement is carried out by the local police (see Feys, 2020, for a fuller discussion of the Belgian police organisation). The federal police are headed by a General Commissioner, whereas each local police force is headed by a chief of police. The chiefs of police can decide on local policies, which means that they can take local needs into account and adapt to local events and evolutions. In the following sections, we will explore if the evolutions described in the previous section of this chapter can also be found in the Belgian local police. We will identify and discuss aspects of this police organisation that are both in favour and against the idea of a more abstract police. We will not try to corroborate or falsify the concept of abstract police; rather we want to stimulate the discussion of this ideal type in a Belgian policing context. The examples will show that there are quite some differences between the Belgian local police, which are a decentralised organisation, and the more centralised police organisations on which the idea of abstract police was originally based. Methodology The reflections in this chapter are drawn from literature and a Belgian study concerning the ethical decision-making processes of local, operational police officers. The aim of the project is to explore if there is a gap between the intended decision-making process (how police officers think they make decisions) and the actual decision-making process (how police officers make decisions in practice). We expressly aim to explore which factors have an impact on the decisions made. The study uses a mixed-­ methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative methods (for more information on the project, see Feys, 2020). This chapter is based on the systematic social observations and on informal conversations held with police officers during this observation period, which started in October 2020 just before the second lockdown in Belgium. As such, no observations were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, which will certainly have an effect on the findings. As will already be clear from the description above, the project does not explicitly focus on the topic of abstract police. Nevertheless, many of the ideas 1  Wet van 7 december 1998 tot organisatie van een geïntegreerde politiedienst, gestructureerd op twee niveaus, BS 5 mei 1999, 132.

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

115

related to the concept were directly observed in the daily work of police officers and were informally discussed in between interventions. The observations therefore give an exploratory view on the elements that are related to the abstractisation of police forces. The observations take place in three2 local police forces in Flanders (i.e. the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) and focus on two police functionalities, namely, intervention and criminal investigation. Where the former is a first-line function in which police officers respond to calls of citizens and proactively patrol their territories, the latter is a second-line function that focuses on solving crimes and gathering evidence to bring a case to court. In the course of the observations, however, the author also had the opportunity to observe and talk to police officers working in other functionalities, such as neighbourhood officers. It is important to clarify that the police zones that have participated in the observation phase so far are rather small police forces. As such, the examples presented below may not be extended to the police organisation in general, particularly larger local police forces and the federal police. It would be interesting to explore the similarities and differences between the federal police and the local police and between local police forces of different sizes. This certainly merits attention in future research projects. Internal Relations In all the police forces the author was able to observe, there are no fixed teams in intervention nor criminal investigation.3 This, in combination with the smaller scale of the forces, means that police officers regularly work with each of their colleagues and get to know one another. This exceeds the boundaries of teams (e.g. intervention and criminal investigation) as they regularly cooperate in specific actions or events (e.g. drug actions, traffic actions, festivals or soccer events). Direct lines of contact were observed between street-level police officers and their direct supervisors. Supervisors know with whom they are working and pay attention to direct contact with the people they are supervising. In some police 2  For the interview and observation phases, the author cooperates with five local police forces. However, at the moment of writing this chapter, two police forces had not yet participated in the observations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic measures. 3  In one of these forces, temporarily fixed teams have been created within intervention as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (see later).

116 

Y. FEYS

forces, the direct supervisors accompany street-level officers when intervening; in other forces, there is direct communication at the police station. During the observations, the direct supervisor was nearly always available for questions, feedback and debriefings and usually has their desk close to the street-level officers. Although information is frequently distributed by email, on SharePoint or by means of other platforms, this does not seem to hamper the direct communication lines between police officers and between street-level officers and their direct supervisors much (e.g. briefings held by the chiefs at the beginning of a shift). Despite the positive relations discussed in the previous paragraph, some negative changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have been observed. In one of the participating police forces, flexible teams have (temporarily) changed into fixed teams. These fixed teams are little groups of police officers who work together all the time to avoid contamination with the virus between groups should one of the team members be infected. This will probably enhance the bond between those police officers in-group, but may create more distance between police officers from different teams. Moreover, it is clearly defined how many police officers can be in a certain room at the same time. During the observations, it regularly happened that police officers could not eat together or have informal conversations as the maximum number of people allowed in that room was already reached. Additionally, police officers were stimulated to work from home whenever possible, especially within criminal investigation, which creates a certain distance between colleagues and results in less opportunities for informal conversations in between breaks and by means of personal, face-­ to-­face contact. Cooperation between teams goes beyond the boundaries of local police forces. Different local forces cooperate on a regular basis, for instance, in the context of large-scale events (e.g. sports matches), concerning the organisation of violence trainings (e.g. to combine the expertise of the persons responsible for these trainings and to share the costs of providing it), and in regard to the detention of persons (e.g. so that only one police force in the area has to provide staff to secure police cells at night). Every local police force in Belgium must provide in the HyCAP system, in which they have to reserve part of their operational capacity for other police forces to help them with large administrative police tasks that require additional manpower. Thus, the HyCAP system provides a formal framework

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

117

for cooperation between police forces.4 The author has not been able to observe cooperation in the course of HyCAP as there have not been any large-scale events because of the pandemic, but she has been able to observe collaboration regarding violence trainings, jointly conducting interrogations and (urgent) assistance for neighbouring police forces. Moreover, the author has also seen different informal drinks among police officers of different police zones at the police station to catch up with each other. These initiatives allow police officers to get to know their colleagues in other, mainly surrounding, police forces as well. In principle, there is a clear delineation of tasks between the federal and local police. Nevertheless, there is cooperation between both levels. There is a law5 that explicitly states that the local police are also responsible for certain tasks of a federal nature. Reversely, the federal police also assist the local police. For instance, the Directorate of Special Units of the federal police, which is among others responsible for special arrests, technical support provision and specific tasks such as hostage-takings (Federale Politie, 2020), can also act at the request of a mayor. Such forms of cooperation have been observed by the author on multiple occasions. For example, one of the local police forces provided assistance to the federal police for a large-scale action by conducting house searches on their territory. The federal intervention team provided assistance to a local police zone when they were temporarily underequipped due to quarantine procedures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These forms of cooperation may take place infrequently, but they do enable personal contacts between police officers of the federal police and the local police. External Relations The Belgian police have decisively chosen to work according to the COP-­ philosophy, aiming at building trust and developing good relations between the police and citizens (Easton & Ponsaers, 2010). This is also reflected in one of the obligated functionalities that every local police force needs to offer: neighbourhood policing. Police officers working as 4  Ministeriële richtlijn MFO-2 van 23 november 2017 betreffende het solidariteitsmechanisme tussen de politiezones inzake versterkingen voor opdrachten van bestuurlijke politie, BS 6 december 2017, 107.803. 5  Wet van 7 december 1998 tot organisatie van een geïntegreerde politiedienst, gestructureerd op twee niveaus, BS 5 januari 1999, 132.

118 

Y. FEYS

neighbourhood officers are in close interaction with the neighbourhood and are a point of contact for citizens, trying to make and maintain a bond between the police and citizens. Neighbourhood officers should be well aware of the problems in their neighbourhood and are usually a rather informal point of contact for the residents. By developing a good relationship with citizens, the police can count more on their cooperation, for example, to obtain information about certain events or issues. One of the neighbourhood officers that the author spoke with explained that (preCOVID-19) he just sat and drank a coffee in a local café so that residents could directly talk to him and discuss problems or just have a nice, rather informal conversation. An intervention officer working in that same police force reflected on the role of neighbourhood officers and explicitly said that their primary goal is not to be repressive but to make sure that the bond with the public is uphold and that they can provide information when necessary. As an example, he referred to house searches, which are normally conducted by other police officers than the neighbourhood officer. If the neighbourhood officer is aware of the person and his/her living situation, he can inform his colleagues about the expected behaviour of the citizen in question, whether or not he has animals and so on. Despite the difference in focus between neighbourhood officers and police officers working in other functions, even the latter appear to have good knowledge about their territory and its local residents. For instance, during one of the observation shifts, a citizen called the emergency services saying that he was going to blow up a building. One of the police officers, who had been working in the police zone for a longer time, had already had contact with that citizen several times and was convinced that the threat was not real. He explained that the man usually just calls in when he has a hard time and wants to talk to the police. When the man’s phone call to the call-taker was finished, the police officers immediately called the man to ask what was going on. As it turned out, the man was indeed just looking for a conversation with the police and never intended to cause any harm. At the time of this incident, however, there had just been multiple terrorist threats that lead to large-scale police actions. Had the police officer not known the citizen in question, it could have been decided to apprehend the man in question despite there being no threat at all. As such, thanks to the policeman’s knowledge of one of their local residents, unnecessary police actions were avoided, and in the end, the citizen was happy with the police officers’ intervention and their willingness to talk him through his problems.

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

119

The police cooperate with citizens on different levels, for instance, in the course of neighbourhood watches, which involve a structural cooperation between local citizens and the local police. A neighbourhood watch focuses on prevention and aims to promote social control (Easton & Van Ryckeghem, 2012; Veiligheid en Preventie, 2020). They exchange information about what is happening in the neighbourhood. A coordinator (elected local resident) and a mandatary of the local police head the neighbourhood watch together. This is an example of a direct line of contact between citizens and the police, with the explicit aim of gathering and sharing information on local problems and situations. During the observations, some evolutions have been noticed that may increase the abstractness of the local police. In some local forces, citizens have to make an appointment before they can come to the police station. Although some police forces had already established such a policy pre-­ corona, the COVID-19 pandemic has enlarged this because of health concerns. Working on appointment may create a threshold for citizens to contact the police and come to the police station and, as such, create a kind of distance between the police and citizens (or a more screen-­ mediated contact). However, when citizens do make an appointment, they can come to the police station and talk to a police officer in person. During the observations, citizens sometimes showed up at the police station without an appointment. In all the cases observed, the police helped out the citizen immediately. The COVID-19 pandemic also created other negative effects. The use of face masks and social distancing literally creates distance between the police and the public. Travel restrictions, especially for incidents involving Belgian citizens who work in a foreign country, can complicate the police’s work and contacts. The author observed a case in which a couple’s house was burgled, but because of the travel restrictions, they were unable to come to their home as they were working in another country. Digitalisation The Belgian police are gradually becoming more digital, for instance, in terms of disseminating information (e.g. mail, SharePoint and Teams). During the observations, many police officers referred to the increasing amount of information that is found on digital platforms. Other forms of technology that are increasingly used by the Belgian police are, among others, body cams, the FocusApp and PACOS.  In the police forces in

120 

Y. FEYS

which the observations were conducted, body cams were used only exceptionally. Body cams may have an impact on the interaction between the police and citizens (e.g. Ariel et al., 2016; Cubitt et al., 2017; Koen et al., 2018; McCluskey et al., 2019; Newell & Greidanus, 2018), but there is currently no evidence to suggest that it increases the police’s abstractness. However, it is interesting to note that body cams can positively influence procedural justice (McCluskey et al., 2019), which may ultimately have an impact on the bond between police and citizens. More research on this topic is needed, especially in Belgium where the use of body cams is rarely studied. The FocusApp is an application developed by the local police in Antwerp in collaboration with Digipolis (the ICT-partner of the city of Antwerp). The local police in Antwerp started using the app in the beginning of 2018, but the federal police decided to employ the application for all local and federal police forces. The application shows what is happening in real time with information directly from the dispatch and makes it possible for police officers to process certain official reports, including photos taken at the scene. The application also allows police officers in the field to easily get access to different police databases: one search button allows them to search all available sources at once instead of having to consult all databases separately (Depla, 2019; Federale Politie, 2019). The author has been able to observe lots of interventions in which the FocusApp was used in the field. A major advantage is the efficiency of the application: the application regularly notifies police officers about an incoming intervention a couple of minutes before they are dispatched to the location via the radio. In case of life-threatening situations, these additional minutes could make the difference between life and death. The FocusApp is often used before the encounter with the citizen, which results in little impact on the police-citizen interaction. A third, recently employed IT application is PACOS (Pièces à conviction—Overtuigingsstukken), a system that allows to register seized objects digitally and to simplify tracing these objects (Lemmens, 2018). As the application was enrolled in the police zones during the observation period, it was regularly discussed among colleagues and in conversations with the researcher. Some police officers experience it as an administrative burden that is, especially at first, rather complicated. Some of them felt that it takes away time that should be used to patrol on the streets and connect with citizens.

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

121

Discussion The examples in the previous sections of this chapter show that the internal and external relations of the Belgian, local police forces involved in this project differ from the relations described by Terpstra et  al. (2019) in Scotland and the Netherlands. The internal relations are still rather informal, and there are good contacts among police officers and between the police officers and their direct supervisors (who sometimes accompany police officers on the street). These reflections are based on observations of street-level officers and their direct supervisors. It may be that the relations between street-level officers and the policy level may be more at a distance. Future research could take into account this aspect. Externally, the police appear to remain accessible, locally oriented and locally involved. Because of this local knowledge, they can better anticipate what is the best way to solve citizen’s problems. The relations with external partners such as welfare-oriented organisations, towing services and private policing actors (e.g. security guards) have not been discussed because the author’s observations do not allow to thoroughly reflect on this topic just yet.6 These relations should also be included in future research projects. We believe that many of the differences observed are a result of the decentralisation of the Belgian local police. When writing this article, the author had only been able to observe three out of five participating police forces. These forces were rather small in size, which will definitely have had an effect on the trends observed. For instance, we believe that the contacts between police officers in larger police forces may be less personal (especially when the group is divided into subteams) and that the contacts between the local police and the specialised forces on a supralocal or national level may be less direct and personal. In what follows we will discuss the organisational changes and changing views on policing identified by Terpstra et al. (2019) that may affect the shift towards a more abstract police organisation. We add a new a factor that may accelerate the abstractisation of police organisations: the COVID-19 pandemic.

6  This is, in part, the result of the COVID-19 pandemic as there were initially less calls to the police and less interventions. This was, among others, due to the measures that were in place at that moment (e.g. curfew, prohibition to gather in larger groups or organise events).

122 

Y. FEYS

Organisational Changes One of the organisational changes discussed by Terpstra et al. (2019) is the scale enlargement of the police forces in Scotland and the Netherlands, resulting in nationally oriented police forces. In Belgium, the local police are decentralised, but the scale of the local police forces has been questioned since the police reform on multiple occasions, arguing that not all forces have sufficient capacity to provide the basic functionalities of the local police. This debate is centred around concepts such as efficiency and effectivity. Recently, Cools et  al. (2018) again proposed to reconsider a scale enlargement as some local police forces experience difficulties in providing basic police care. For instance, smaller police forces face problems providing HyCAP—the solidarity mechanism that obligates local police forces to support other local forces or the federal police in administrative tasks—which needs to be compensated by the federal police or other local police forces.7 There are different constructs of scale enlargement that can be followed (fusion, interzonal cooperation agreements, police associations, etc.), but up until now, only a few police forces have used these possibilities. Research has shown that there is only little political support for a scale enlargement and that chiefs of police are not really excited about the idea. The chiefs of police asked to keep the local embedding and to reinforce neighbourhood policing, should there be a scale enlargement (Cools et  al., 2018). The latter is important as neighbourhood officers have direct, personal and rather informal contact with citizens which is essential for maintaining and enhancing the bond between the police and the public. A second organisational change identified is fragmentation, both horizontally and vertically. In principle, there is a clear delineation of tasks between the Belgian federal and local police, but as was explained previously, capacity shortages may hamper this delineation. For instance, the federal judicial police (the federal equivalent of the local criminal investigation services) have deficiencies which results in local police forces taking responsibility for investigations that actually belong to the federal police. On a local level, neighbourhood officers are sometimes used as a backup to fill the needs in other functionalities (Cools et al., 2018). A discussion

7  The federal police also experience difficulties in this regard. They are less able to support local police forces and develop specialisations (Cools et al., 2018).

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

123

about the core tasks of the police (see later) may help refine this delineation and avoid further fragmentation. A third organisational change is the increasing reliance on IT, resulting in a screen-level or system-level bureaucracy. In the latter case, discretion is fundamentally replaced by computer specialists, making the information more abstract. Some examples of IT reliance are, among others, body cams, the FocusApp, PACOS and different platforms to disseminate information. The use of certain technologies, for instance, PACOS, results in additional administrative work, which leaves less time to patrol on the streets and connect with citizens. This again highlights the need for a discussion of the core tasks of the Belgian (local) police and to which extent administration should be part of an operational police officer’s job. Also related to the digitalisation of the police is the use of social media. Whereas the police have little to no influence on how traditional media such as radio and TV report about the police,8 police forces can use social media such as Facebook pages or Instagram to proactively communicate about their work and try to enhance their contacts with the local residents. It can be assumed that this form of contact reduces direct contact on the one hand but may also lower the threshold of communication on the other. Bullock et al. (2021) summarise that social media can lead to greater visibility for police work, afford editability (improvement of communication quality) and allows to give information, generate connections and ties and facilitate interaction. Hu and Lovrich (2019), who studied the use of social media by small police agencies, report that Facebook can be used to interact with the public and to disseminate and collect information. However, Bullock (2018) conducted interviews to explore police’s use of social media in England (mainly Twitter) and found, among others, that much of the output is one-way and there are difficulties in facilitating interaction between the police and citizens. It would be useful to study the use and impact of social media in police-citizen communication in Belgium as we know little about the different communication strategies of police forces, if it stimulates interaction with the public and whether or not it leads to less face-to-face contact.

8  The Belgian police are regularly scrutinised in the media, for instance, with respect to police use of force (e.g. Indeherberge, 2021; Verberckmoes & De Coninck, 2021) and racist language by police officers in an exposed Facebook group (Vanden Bussche, 2020).

124 

Y. FEYS

Changing Views on Policing Terpstra et al. (2019) identified three changing views on policing that led to a more abstract police in the Netherlands and Scotland. The first one relates to NPM, for instance, by centralising specialist units and a stronger reliance on IT. A Belgian example of more efficient, effective police work is the FocusApp that allows police officers to look up information whenever they deem necessary, to prepare more fully for interventions and to register official reports on the spot. There has, however, not been an intense reduction in opening hours, closure of police stations and scale enlargement as was the case in other countries. Some local police forces in Belgium have joined forces, but they still remain rather small and local. A discussion about the core tasks of the police, especially in the Netherlands, was also identified by Terpstra et  al. (2019) as one of the changing views on policing. In Belgium, such a discussion was also brought up by Cools et al. (2018), who report that the basic functionalities of the local police may need to be evaluated. Are these functionalities still a reflection of what is expected from the local police? Are there any functionalities that need to be added to the basic police care (e.g. a Local Crime Computer Unit)? Do some functionalities need to be organised on a supralocal level (as is already the case with the functionality of victim treatment)? In summary, Cools and colleagues recommend evaluating the basic functionalities with a focus on efficiency wins. A third aspect adding to more abstractness is the evolution towards intelligence-led policing, which is also the case in Belgium as it is considered a pillar of excellent police care (Cachet, 2005; Van Daele & De Raedt, 2013). Based on a Belgian empirical study, Easton et al. (2009b) argue that an intelligence-led policing philosophy can be integrated into a community-­oriented policing model. As intelligence-led policing is related to a proactive approach (i.e. to anticipate, plan and take preventive action; Verfaillie & Vander Beken, 2008), not only surveillance technologies and neighbourhood watches (van Brakel & De Hert, 2011) but also the FocusApp and predictive policing9 fall within this scope. As such, it can be argued that the Belgian police is becoming more intelligence-led and will keep on evolving in that direction.

9  See, for instance, Rummens et al. (2017) who explored the use of predictive policing in a large city in Belgium.

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

125

The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Accelerating Factor? On top of the causes and drivers for an abstractisation of police forces discussed above, we identify another, more recent, evolution that may have an impact on this process: the COVID-19 pandemic. The safety precautions to limit the spread of the virus make it more difficult for police officers to have direct contact with one another but also result in more distance between the police and citizens. Different studies have been initiated to examine the effect of the pandemic on service calls (e.g. Dai et al., 2021), street-level bureaucracy (Alcadipani et al., 2020) and police legitimacy (Jones, 2020). Luong (2020) studied community-based policing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Swolfs and Van Roosbroeck (2021) conducted a scoping review on the impact of the pandemic on the police. The studies included in the review showed three kinds of effects: (1) an impact on police work itself (e.g. higher work pressure, changes in tasks such as additional desk work and hospital escorts), (2) an impact on police officers (e.g. psychologialwellbeing, fear, increased levels of stress, depressions) and (3) an impact on the relations between citizens and the police. Concerning the latter, they found multiple consequences such as rebellion and a lack of respect from citizens, conflicts because certain citizens are not complying with the regulations and violent behaviour from the police when trying to arrest or repel citizens. Despite the growing literature on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on police work, these studies are still fragmented and in their infancy. It is important to monitor the pandemic-­related evolutions, their short-term impact on police-citizen encounters and their long-term impact on the relations between police officers and the public and among police officers themselves. Especially for new police recruits, we can only assume what the impact of the pandemic is on their feelings of solidarity, collegiality and police culture more generally. This definitely merits attention in police research.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have explored the concept of the abstract police in a Belgian setting. We do not make any conclusions about the extent of abstractness of the Belgian police but used this ideal type to reflect on some of the evolutions the Belgian police are going through. We highly recommend future research that specifically takes into account how the police are adapting to a changing society that is becoming more globalised,

126 

Y. FEYS

individualised and less locally dependant and how these changes may influence the potentially abstract character of the police. This is an essential topic to look into as police officers working in an abstract organisation may feel more isolated and abstract police may be less able to come up with adequate solutions (particularly because of the loss of personal knowledge) and to establish COP. An important limitation of this chapter is that the observations did not specifically focus on the elements related to abstract police. We have discussed some aspects that are relevant for a discussion on the topic (e.g. digitalisation and scale), but other interesting elements have not been included in this chapter (e.g. intelligence analyses and big data policing). Therefore, the examples should merely be seen as an exploration of the concept rather than evidence in favour of or against the abstractness of the Belgian local police. Furthermore, the observations were conducted in three smaller police forces.10 The examples presented in this chapter should therefore be looked at with caution. The findings are in no way generalisable to the local police in general or to the federal police. A final important remark concerns the timing of the observations. These were fully conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has an undeniable effect on the interactions among police officers and between the police and the public on the one hand but also on what could be observed on the other hand. For instance, as there used to be a curfew from midnight to five in the morning, there were barely any interactions between the police and citizens at night. Other COVID-19 regulations were, among others, the closure of restaurants and the prohibition of large-scale events. Taken together, this chapter only provides an exploratory view on a limited number of aspects related to the concept of abstract police. Future research is definitely needed to further explore these elements and specifically focus on the topic of abstract police. Different recommendations and ideas for future research have been given throughout this chapter. We conclude that there are fundamental differences between the local police in Belgium and the nationally oriented police forces in Scotland and the Netherlands, despite the presence of similar drivers (e.g. NPM, a 10  Other studies have shown a different image of the police’s internal and external relations (e.g. Easton et al., 2009a). For instance, Ponsaers and Devroe (2016) conclude that there is a growing gap between the police and citizens in Brussels. Van Praet and Tange (2020) found that the mechanisms of police selectivity in one of the biggest police forces in Belgium are sometimes problematic and that this can result in distance between the police and certain origin groups.

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

127

discussion or re-evaluation of the core tasks and a more prominent focus on intelligence-led policing). Because of the decentralisation of the Belgian local police forces, both the internal and external relations of the police still seem quite direct, informal and personal. However, the structure of the Belgian police is being questioned in terms of NPM, capacity deficits and the core tasks of the police, which may eventually result in changes that may increase the police’s abstractness. Moreover, the Belgian police are gradually evolving in other respects (e.g. digitalisation and COVID-19 pandemic), and some of these evolutions may also lead to a more abstract police organisation. We could use the concept of the abstract police as a dystopia, a scenario that the Belgian police may want to avoid. The discussions surrounding the concept show some evolutions that may negatively affect the police’s internal and external relations. Even if these evolutions are not (yet) occurring in the Belgian police, it shows potential risks that need to be taken into account, for instance, with regard to scale enlargement initiatives.11 The Belgian police, but also policymakers and other actors, should be fully aware of the consequences of these evolutions. By continuously assessing these changes and reflecting on their potential impacts, the Belgian police may be able to anticipate how they will affect police work and focus on the direction in which they want to evolve.

References Alcadipani, R., Cabral, S., Fernandes, A., & Lotta, G. (2020). Street-level bureaucrats under COVID-19: Police officers’ responses in constrained settings. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/1084180 6.2020.1771906 Antrobus, E., Thompson, I., & Ariel, B. (2019). Procedural justice training for police recruits: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9331-9 Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against police officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global

11  This does not mean that scale enlargement is necessarily a bad thing but that we should look for an optimal scale to be as cost-effective as possible without endangering the personal contacts between the police and the public and between the police and external partners. As Wennström (2013) argues, certain police duties will require national cooperation, while others will require local support. This is a balance that needs to be sought and discussed.

128 

Y. FEYS

multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816643734 Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006007 Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170. Bullock, K. (2018). The police use of social media: Transformation or normalisation? Social Policy & Society, 17(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1474746417000112 Bullock, K., Garland, J., & Coupar, F. (2021). Police community-engagement and the affordances and constraints of social media. Policing and Society, 31(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1831498 Cachet, L. (2005). Politie onder druk: Ontwikkelingen in België en Nederland. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 47(4), 406–412. Cools, M., Janssens, J., Van Wymersch, G., De Raedt, E., & Koekelberg, F. (2018). Schaalvergroting van de Vlaamse politiezones: Onderzoek naar bestaande en toekomstige samenwerkingsverbanden binnen het Vlaamse politielandschap. Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy. Cubitt, T. I., Lesic, R., Myers, G. L., & Corry, R. (2017). Body-worn video: A systematic review of literature. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816638909 Dai, M., Xia, Y., & Han, R. (2021). The impact of lockdown on police service calls during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Policing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ police/paab007 Depla, T. (2019). App Focus@GPI bij alle politiezones in gebruik tegen halfweg 2020. Polinfo. https://polinfo.kluwer.be/newsview.aspx?contentdomains=PO LINFO&id=VS300728349&lang=nl Devroe, E., & Ponsaers, P. (2013). Reforming the Belgian police system between central and local. In N.  R. Fyfe, J.  Terpstra, & P.  Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 77–98). Eleven International Publishing. Easton, M., & Ponsaers, P. (2010). The view of the police on community policing in Belgian multicultural neighbourhoods. In M.  Cools, B.  De Ruyver, M. Easton, L. Pauwels, G. Vande Walle, P. Ponsaers, T. Vander Beken, F. Vander Laenen, G. Vermeulen, & G. Vynckier (Eds.), Safety, societal problems and citizens’ perceptions: New empirical data, theories and analyses (Vol. 3, pp. 161–182). Maklu. Easton, M., & Van Ryckeghem, D. (2012). Reflections on community policing and citizen participation. In M. Cools, B. De Ruyver, M. Easton, L. Pauwels, P. Ponsaers, G. Vande Walle, T. Vander Beken, F. Vander Laenen, A. Verhage,

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

129

G.  Vermeulen, & G.  Vynckier (Eds.), Social conflicts, citizens and policing (Governance of security research paper series) (Vol. 6, pp. 15–30). Maklu. Easton, M., Ponsaers, P., Demarée, C., Vandevoorde, N., Enhus, E., Elffers, H., Hutsebaut, F., & Gunther-Moor, L. (2009a). Multiple community policing: Hoezo? Academia Press. Easton, M., Vynckier, G., & De Kimpe, S. (2009b). Reflections on the possible integration of intelligence led policing into community policing: The Belgian case. In M.  Cools, S.  De Kimpe, B.  De Ruyver, M.  Easton, L.  Pauwels, P.  Ponsaers, G.  Vande Walle, T.  Vander Beken, F.  Vander Laenen, & G. Vermeulen (Eds.), Readings on criminal justice, criminal law and policing (Vol. 2, pp. 293–310). Maklu. Enhus, E., & Ponsaers, P. (2005). Onmacht tot cultuurverandering: Politiehervorming in België. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 47(4), 345–354. Federale Politie. (2019). Veilig, snel en mobiel politiewerken is een feit. https:// www.politie.be/5998/nl/nieuws/veilig-­s nel-­e n-­m obiel-­p olitiewerken-­ is-­een-­feit Federale Politie. (2020). Centrale directie van de speciale eenheden. https://www. politie.be/5998/nl/over-­ons/centrale-­directies/centrale-­directie-­van-­de-­ speciale-­eenheden Feys, Y. (2020). Studying police officers’ ethical decision-making process: Insights and directions. In G. Meško, J. Shapland, A. Groenemeyer, & C. Gayet-Viaud (Eds.), Challenges of comparative criminological research (pp. 10–54). Maklu. Fyfe, N. R., & Scott, K. B. (2013). In search of sustainable policing? Creating a national police force in Scotland. In N. R. Fyfe, J. Terpstra, & P. Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 119–135). Eleven International Publishing. Haraholma, K., & Houtsonen, J. (2013). Restructuring the Finnish police administration. In N.  R. Fyfe, J.  Terpstra, & P.  Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 59–75). Eleven International Publishing. Holmberg, L., & Balvig, F. (2013). Centralization in disguise – The Danish police reform 2007–2010. In N. R. Fyfe, J. Terpstra, & P. Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 41–57). Eleven International Publishing. Hu, X., & Lovrich, N. P. (2019). Small police agency use of social media: Positive and negative outcomes noted in a case study. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 1584-1599. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz077 Indeherberge, L. (2021, March 3). “Pano” onderzoekt getuigenissen over politiegeweld: “Op dat moment dacht ik dat hij dood was”. VRT NWS. https:// www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/03/02/op-­d at-­m oment-­d acht-­i k-­d at-­h ij-­ dood-­was/

130 

Y. FEYS

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071. Jones, D. J. (2020). The potential impacts of pandemic policing on police legitimacy: Planning past the COVID-19 crisis. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(3), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa026 Koen, M. C., Willis, J. J., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2018). The effects of body-worn cameras on police organization and practice: A theory-based analysis. Policing and Society, 29(8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043946 3.2018.1467907 Lemmens, L. (2018). Beleidsnota Justitie: Veel hot topics voor politie. Polinfo. https://polinfo.kluwer.be/NewsView.aspx?id=VS300651169&contentdomai ns=POLINFO&lang=nl Loveday, B. (2013). Police reform in England and Wales: A new dimension in accountability and service delivery in the 21st century. In N. R. Fyfe, J. Terpstra, & P. Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 99–118). Eleven International Publishing. Luong, H. T. (2020). Community-based policing in COVID-19: A 4-P’s priorities of Vietnam’s police. Policing and Society. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10439463.2020.1860981. McCluskey, J. D., Uchida, C. D., Solomon, S. E., Woodlitch, A., Connor, C., & Revier, L. (2019). Assessing the effects of body-worn cameras on procedural justice in the Los Angeles Police Department. Criminology, 57(2), 208-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-­9125.12201 Mouhanna, C. (2013). Reforms in France: Irreversibly spiralling into (more) centralization. In N.  R. Fyfe, J.  Terpstra, & P.  Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 23–39). Eleven International Publishing. Newell, B.  C., & Greidanus, R. (2018). Officer discretion and the choice to record: Officer attitudes towards body-worn camera activation. North Carolina Law Review, 96(5), 1525–1578. Ponsaers, P., & Devroe, E. (2016). Een nieuwe structuur voor de Brusselse politie? Vigilis, 42(2), 45–50. Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14(2), 147–164. Rummens, A., Hardyns, W., & Pauwels, L. (2017). The use of predictive analysis in spatiotemporal crime forecasting: Building and testing a model in an urban context. Applied Geography, 86, 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apgeog.2017.06.011

  THE ABSTRACT POLICE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CONCEPT… 

131

Swolfs, N., & Van Roosbroeck, D. (2021). Impact van COVID-19 op politie: Een scoping review. Universiteit Gent [unpublished paper]. Terpstra, J. (2013). Towards a national police in the Netherlands – Background of a radical police reform. In N. R. Fyfe, J. Terpstra, & P. Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 137–155). Eleven International Publishing. Terpstra, J., Fyfe, N.  R., & Salet, R. (2019). The abstract police: A conceptual exploration of unintended changes of police organisations. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice, and Principles, 92(4), 339–359. https://doi. org/10.1177/0032258X18817999 Tops, P., & Spelier, R. (2013). The police as a frontline organization – Conditions for successful police reforms. In N.  R. Fyfe, J.  Terpstra, & P.  Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe. Eleven International Publishing. Tyler, T.  R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716203262627 Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. van Brakel, R., & De Hert, P. (2011). Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: Understanding the consequences of technology based strategies. Cahiers Politiestudies, 3(20), 163–192. Van Daele, S., & De Raedt, E. (2013). Het cruciaal belang van de signaalfunctie van politiediensten in de strijd tegen criminaliteit. Panopticon, 34(4), 312–316. Van Damme, A. (2017). The impact of police contact on trust and police legitimacy in Belgium. Policing and Society, 27(2), 205–228. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10439463.2015.1045510 Van Praet, S., & Tange, C. (2020). Identificeren en aanpakken van problemen of misbruiken bij politieselectiviteit: Een actieonderzoek naar problematische praktijken en mechanismes van politieselectiviteit in de politiezone Schaerbeek-Evere-­ Sint-Joost-ten-Node (PolBruNo). NICC. Vanden Bussche, S. (2020, 31 August). Racisme en aanzetten tot geweld in gesloten Facebookgroep politie. Apache. https://www.apache.be/2020/08/31/ rascisme-­en-­aanzetten-­tot-­geweld-­in-­gesloten-­facebookgroep-­politie/?sh=fcc7 c1c5463572814e808-­997090934 Veiligheid en Preventie. (2020). Buurtinformatienetwerk. http://besafe. jdbi.eu/bin Verberckmoes, Y., & De Coninck, D. (2021, 3 March). Onderzoek naar politiegeweld in Antwerpen en Brussel. De Morgen. https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/ onderzoeken-­naar-­politiegeweld-­in-­antwerpen-­en-­brussel~bb7b2ede/ Verfaillie, K., & Vander Beken, T. (2008). Proactive policing and the assessment of organized crime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(4), 534–552.

132 

Y. FEYS

Wennström, B. (2013). Police reform in Sweden: How to make a perfect cup of espresso. In N.  R. Fyfe, J.  Terpstra, & P.  Tops (Eds.), Centralizing forces? Comparative perspectives on contemporary police reform in Northern and Western Europe (pp. 157–172). Eleven International Publishing.

Laws

and

Regulations

Ministeriële richtlijn MFO-2 van 23 november 2017 betreffende het solidariteitsmechanisme tussen de politiezones inzake versterkingen voor opdrachten van bestuurlijke politie, BS 6 december 2017, 107.803. Wet van 7 december 1998 tot organisatie van een geïntegreerde politiedienst, gestructureerd op twee niveaus, BS 5 januari 1999, 132.

Index1

A Abstract police abstraction, 14, 34 abstractisation, 110, 115, 121, 125 Accessibility, see Accessible Accessible, 54, 55, 59–61, 111, 121 APO, 99, 100 Ariel, B., 44, 46, 120 Artificial intelligence, 56–57 Auxiliary officer, 80 B Basic care, see Basic police care Basic functionalities, 122, 124 Basic police care, 122, 124 Belgian, 5, 6, 47, 70, 89, 90, 94, 96–102, 110–127, 126n10 Belgium, see Belgian Big data, 22, 46, 56–57, 61, 126 Body cam, 119, 120, 123

BWV (see Body worn video (BMV)) Bottoms, A. E., 5, 48, 58, 63, 111 Bradford, B., 4, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 63, 94 Brayne, S., 57, 63 Bronitt, S. H., 33, 88, 91 Budget reductions, 76, 78 C Centralised, 15, 16, 72–74, 82, 110, 111, 114 Challenge, 2, 4, 11, 32, 44, 48, 49, 59, 70, 72 Changes centralisation (see Centralised) decontextualisation, 10 digitalisation, 18, 127 distantiation, 74 evolutions, 6, 127 formalisation, 15, 72

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Verhage et al. (eds.), Policing in Smart Societies, Palgrave’s Critical Policing Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83685-6

133

134 

INDEX

Changes (cont.) modernisation, 74 organisational change, 18, 112, 121–123 social developments, 18 societal changes, 2 standardisation, 18 Christensen, 31, 33, 39, 40 Citizen, 4, 6, 13, 17, 19–23, 46, 48, 50, 55, 60, 62, 79, 92, 99, 101, 102, 110–113, 115, 117–123, 125, 126, 126n10 Communicate, 4, 11, 13, 14, 14n1, 16, 18–21, 35, 47–52, 54, 57, 58, 63, 64, 72, 73, 77, 98, 101, 111, 112, 116, 123 Communicating, 11, 13, 14, 14n1, 16, 18–21, 35, 48–50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 72, 73, 77, 98, 101, 111, 112, 116, 123 Communication, see Communicate; Communicating Communities, 4, 16, 21–23, 32, 33, 36, 38, 49, 51, 54, 55, 58, 62, 63, 70–72, 75, 78–81, 95, 96, 98, 110–112 Community-oriented philosophy (COP), 103, 113, 124, 126 Community-oriented policing, see Community-oriented philosophy Community Warden, 79 Concern, 10, 12, 31, 45, 46, 53, 56, 57, 60, 73, 76, 78, 103, 119, 126 Control-oriented view, 95 Cools, M., 122, 122n7, 124 Cooperation, 11, 18, 32, 36, 48, 95, 111, 116–119, 122, 127n11 Core task, 21, 36, 50, 113, 123, 124, 127 COVID-19, 58, 101, 126 corona teams (see COVID-19 pandemic)

COVID-19 pandemic, 44, 49, 114, 115n2, 115n3, 116, 117, 119, 121, 121n6, 125–127 Craftmanship, 95–96 Criminal investigation, 115, 116, 122 Culture, 2, 3, 10, 13, 16, 28, 31, 34, 36, 37, 52, 73, 94, 97, 113, 125 D Decision-making discretionary decision, 91, 94, 103 fairness, 47 impact, 57, 62, 114 moral, 47 police decision (see Police decision-making) tailor-made decision, 88, 90, 93 tailor-made solution, 88 See also Decision making process; Decision-making program Decision-making process, 90–92, 114 Decision-making program, 91 Dialogic, 45, 48, 58, 63 Digipolis, 120 Discretion, see Police discretion Dismissal, see Police dismissal; Public prosecutor’s dismissal Dispatch, 120 Distance, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 14n1, 16, 17, 21, 22, 36, 50, 53, 58, 61, 62, 70, 72, 75, 77, 80, 116, 119, 121, 125, 126n10 E Effective/effectiveness, 2, 13, 20, 35, 36, 49, 53, 56, 76, 77, 82, 101, 110, 111, 113, 122, 124 Effectivity, see Effective/effectiveness

 INDEX 

Efficiency, see Efficient Efficient, 15, 20, 21, 35, 36, 49, 52, 57, 62, 71, 74–77, 80–83, 88, 101, 110, 113, 120, 122, 124 Empirical reality, 29, 30, 34, 37, 71, 113 Ericson, R.V., 4, 10, 19, 51 Ethical, 60, 64, 94, 114 Ethics, see Ethical External external relations (see External partners) external relationships, 49, 52, 72 External partners, 10, 13–18, 23, 35, 36, 72–73, 110–112, 117–119, 121, 126n10, 127, 127n11 External relationships, 49, 52, 72 F Field check, 104 Flanders, 115 FocusApp, 119, 120, 123, 124 Functionalities, 52, 58, 115, 117, 122, 124 Fyfe, N. R., 2–4, 11, 15, 16, 33, 34, 37, 39, 70, 110 G General commissioner, 114 Giddens, A., 14, 21, 22, 74 Gilleir, F., 93, 94, 101 Goldstein, J., 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 101, 103 Good practices, 96 Gundhus, H. O. I., 90n2, 94, 95, 102–104 Gut feeling, 94 See also Intuitive policing

135

H Haggerty, K., 4, 10, 19, 51 Hail, Y., 11, 16–18, 62 Horizontal relations, 71 HyCap, see HyCap system HyCap system, 116, 122 I Ideal-type analytical tool, 28, 30 paradigm, 28, 31 yardstick usage, 29 Impacts, 4, 53, 62, 63, 89, 92–93, 95, 101, 127 Informal, 6, 15, 20, 35, 36, 49, 72, 73, 92, 96, 114, 116–118, 121, 122, 127 Information exchange, 18, 57, 119 Intelligence-led policing, 20, 22, 36, 50, 113, 124, 127 Interaction contact; contact point, 50; technologically mediated contact, 4, 50, 54, 61 digital, 50, 59 face-to-face, 4, 123 online, 4, 59 physical, 45, 59 police-citizen interaction (see Police-public interaction) virtual, 45, 59 Internal internal relations, 15–17, 35, 49, 62, 71–72, 112, 115–117, 121 internal relationships, 51, 73, 75 Internal relationships, 49, 51, 73, 75 Internet access, 52, 53 Intervention, 88, 102, 115, 115n3, 117, 118, 120, 121n6, 124 Intuitive policing, 94 Investigation, 46, 58, 77, 99–101, 122

136 

INDEX

J Jackson, J., 93, 94, 111 K Kalberg, S., 28–30 L Lawful policing model, 31, 38, 39 Legitimacy audience legitimacy, 5, 45, 48 external legitimacy, 48–50, 54–55, 63 internal legitimacy, 48, 52–54 police legitimacy, 4, 44–64, 93–95, 111, 125 power-holder legitimacy, 45, 48 self-legitimacy, 45, 49, 53, 56, 57, 62, 63 Life facial recognition (LFR), 47 Loader, I., 73, 75, 77, 78 Local orientation, 17, 112 Local police forces, 6, 97, 114–117, 115n2, 121, 122, 122n7, 124, 127 M Management cops, 17, 35, 38, 73 McDonaldisation, 21, 50, 74 MDT, see Mobile data terminals Media, 123, 123n8 social media, 45, 46, 51, 55–58, 123 Methodology, 28, 114–115 Military-Bureaucratic model, 31, 32, 39 Millie, A., 55, 60, 76 Mobile data terminals (MDTs), 52–57 Multichannel model, 60, 112 Municipal Law Enforcement Officers (MLEOs), 79, 81

N Neighbourhood foot patrol, 78 Neighbourhood watch, 119, 124 Neoliberal, 5, 70, 73–75, 77, 79, 81–83 Neoliberalism, see Neoliberal Netherlands, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15–18, 35, 37, 39, 49, 60, 70, 71, 74, 79, 81, 89, 96–98, 110, 111, 113, 121, 122, 124, 126 New Public Management (NPM), 36, 38, 49, 70, 101–102, 110, 113, 124, 126, 127 Non-enforcement programs, 91 Noppe, J., 48, 62, 92, 93, 101 NPCC, 58 NPM, see New Public Management O O’Neill, M., 4, 5, 57, 75, 79, 81 Online reporting, 45, 58, 60, 89 Organisational justice, 45, 49, 52–54, 62, 63 Outsourcing, 75–77, 81, 82 Overpolicing, 93–95 P PCSO, see Police Community Support Officer Performance management, 20, 35, 102, 112 Personal information, 73, 112 Pluralisation, see Pluralized Pluralized, 5, 70, 73, 75–83 Police policing; frontline policing, 45, 51–57; intelligence-led policing, 20, 22, 36, 50, 113, 124, 127; neighbourhood policing, 74, 117, 122; pluralised policing, 70, 75, 77,

 INDEX 

80–83; plural policing, 3, 5, 70–83; policing by consent, 45, 48, 63; predictive policing, 44, 46, 56–57, 124; private policing, 121; street policing, 3, 45–47, 63; volunteer policing, 80 public police, 70, 77–81 state police, 75–80, 82 See also Police organisation Police Community Support Officer (PCSO), 79, 81 Police decision-making, 98, 101 Police discretion, 5, 19, 32, 46, 56, 62, 88–104, 112, 123 Police dismissal, 5, 89, 96–101 Police model, 4, 31–33, 38–40, 103 Police organisation, 10–23, 49, 62, 71–73, 80, 110–115, 121, 127 Police public interaction, 32, 54 Police reform federal police, 122 integrated police force, 97, 113 local police; chief of police (see Local police forces) police war, 113 See also Reform Police research, 4, 31–33, 73, 88, 125 Police zone, 115, 117, 118, 120 Politicality, 91, 92 Ponsaers, P., 31–33, 38, 91, 94, 100, 103, 110, 113, 117, 126n10 Privacy, 46 Private sector, 5, 20, 70, 74–77, 79, 81–83 Private security industry, 75, 77–79, 82, 83 Procedural justice, 4, 44, 45, 50, 51, 54, 58, 61, 62, 93, 94, 111, 120 PJT (see Procedural justice theory (PJT)) Procedural justice theory (PJT), 47, 48

137

Process fairness, 47 Public police, 77–81 See also Communities; External relationships; Internal relationships; Management cops; Outsourcing; Street cops Public prosecutor, see Public prosecutor’s office Public prosecutor’s dismissal, 97 Public prosecutor’s office, 90, 96–101 Public-private divide model, 31, 32, 38, 39 Public sector, 56, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79–83 R Rationalisation, 18, 21, 50, 70, 71, 73, 74, 82 Reassurance, 54–56 Reform, 16, 35, 37, 39, 49, 70, 74, 82, 97, 110 Relations, 6, 10, 13–21, 32, 35, 36, 39, 44, 47–49, 54, 57, 62, 63, 74, 77, 78, 94, 95, 101, 110–112, 116, 117, 121, 125 relational, 5, 45, 48, 58, 63 See also Relationships Relationships, 20, 23, 32, 35, 39, 45, 58, 59, 70–72, 75, 76, 112, 118 Ritzer, G., 21, 50, 62, 74 S Salet, R., 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 33, 34, 37, 39, 97 Saudelli, I., 94, 96, 103, 104 Scale enlargement, 15, 16, 18, 20, 35, 36, 97, 101, 102, 111–113, 122, 124, 127, 127n11 Schaap, D., 16

138 

INDEX

Scotland, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15–18, 35, 37, 39, 46, 47, 49, 52, 70, 71, 74, 75, 79, 89, 95–98, 101, 110, 111, 113, 121, 122, 124, 126 Scottish Institute for Policing Research (SIPR), 11, 15, 16, 18 Security private security (see Private security industry) Selectivity, 91, 93–95, 126n10 Skinns, L., 74–76 Smart societies, 2, 3, 6, 45–47, 60, 61, 63 Social reality, 14, 34, 71 Sociology, 28, 30, 39 SOPs, see Standard operating procedures Special Constable, 80 Standard operating procedures (SOPs), 98 Stenning, P., 77, 78, 88, 91 Street cops, 17, 38, 73, 89 Street-level, 4, 35, 36, 88, 90n2, 95, 103, 113, 115, 116, 121 Street-level bureaucracy, 5, 19, 61, 89, 90n2, 112, 125 Structure, 21, 35, 36, 72, 73, 76, 127 Supervisors, 19, 20, 90, 96, 101, 115, 116, 121 Surveillance, 19, 46, 60, 62, 78, 124 Systematic social observations, 114 System information, 19, 21, 73 See also Personal information System-level bureaucracy, 5, 19, 36, 61, 89, 96, 97, 104, 112, 123 T Tankebe, J., 5, 45, 47, 48, 58, 63, 111 Technology drones, 46 LFR (see Life facial recognition (LFR))

mobile devices, 4, 44–47, 61, 62 mobile enabled technology, 51, 52 system knowledge, 56 technologically mediated, 4, 44, 45, 47, 50–51, 54, 60, 61, 63 technological shift, 4, 44, 61, 63 Terpstra and colleagues, 5, 89, 90, 96, 97, 110 Terpstra, J., 2–6, 10, 11, 15–18, 20, 22, 33–35, 37, 39, 45, 49, 50, 53, 60–62, 70–74, 80–83, 89, 90, 90n2, 96, 97, 101, 102, 110–113, 121, 122, 124 See also Fyfe, N. R.; Salet, R.; Schaap, D.; Terpstra and colleagues Trust in police, 110, 111 Turkle, S., 14, 23 Tyler, T. R., 47, 51, 93, 94, 111 V Van Daele, S., 89, 99, 124 Vertical relations, 71, 73 Visibility, see Visible Visible, 18, 21, 22, 28, 52–56, 58, 59, 61, 78, 79, 91, 97, 101, 102, 123 Volunteer Officer, 76, 80 VPV, 99, 100 W Weber, M., 14, 28–30, 62 Western European countries, 2, 10, 18, 20, 21, 34, 71, 96, 101, 113 White, A., 76–78 Working rules, 94 Workmanship, 95, 96 Workplace, 50 WWS and Scotcen, see What Works Scotland (WWS)