Accountability in the aftermath of police related deaths in the US and England and Wales: processes and outcomes

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Pub Date : 2022-05-26 DOI:10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0115
D. Baker
{"title":"Accountability in the aftermath of police related deaths in the US and England and Wales: processes and outcomes","authors":"D. Baker","doi":"10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe article examines the apparent absence of accountability in the aftermath of police related deaths (PRDs) in the US and England and Wales. It considers regulatory mechanisms such as investigations by independent regulators and internal affairs departments; and legal mechanisms such as cases heard in criminal, civil and coroners' courts. The processes used by these approaches, and outcomes produced are examined in terms of their perceived effectiveness in holding police to account.Design/methodology/approachThe article considers qualitative research based on interviews undertaken with the relatives of 59 people who died as a result of police contact in both countries. The research examined how families attempted to pursue justice and accountability in the aftermath of the death of a relative.FindingsWhilst the mechanisms of legal and regulatory accountability employed in each country are somewhat different, the outcomes they produce are remarkably similar: few officers are sanctioned in the aftermath of such deaths in either country. The article argues these mechanisms can provide a façade of accountability in terms of process, but not in terms of outcome. They enable systemic issues that produce police related deaths to go more or less unchanged.Research limitations/implicationsAs the research project is highly original, there are necessarily limitations in terms of the generalisability of its findings because it represents the subjective views of participants affected by PRDs. The article suggests that further research be conducted to extend our understanding of issues related to PRDs.Practical implicationsThe article argues that the investigation and regulation of PRDs in both countries is essentially flawed. Consequently, there needs to be a fundamental rethink of how such deaths are investigated, and how police could be better held to account for PRDs.Social implicationsWithout significant change to the processes and outcomes that occur in the aftermath of PRDs, it is argued that the legitimacy of police and the criminal justice system will continue to be questioned.Originality/valueThere is no known empirical academic research into PRDs that considers the views of family members in both the US and England and Wales. As such, the article produces unique insights from the perspectives of relatives of those who have died following contact with the police.","PeriodicalId":47881,"journal":{"name":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0115","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe article examines the apparent absence of accountability in the aftermath of police related deaths (PRDs) in the US and England and Wales. It considers regulatory mechanisms such as investigations by independent regulators and internal affairs departments; and legal mechanisms such as cases heard in criminal, civil and coroners' courts. The processes used by these approaches, and outcomes produced are examined in terms of their perceived effectiveness in holding police to account.Design/methodology/approachThe article considers qualitative research based on interviews undertaken with the relatives of 59 people who died as a result of police contact in both countries. The research examined how families attempted to pursue justice and accountability in the aftermath of the death of a relative.FindingsWhilst the mechanisms of legal and regulatory accountability employed in each country are somewhat different, the outcomes they produce are remarkably similar: few officers are sanctioned in the aftermath of such deaths in either country. The article argues these mechanisms can provide a façade of accountability in terms of process, but not in terms of outcome. They enable systemic issues that produce police related deaths to go more or less unchanged.Research limitations/implicationsAs the research project is highly original, there are necessarily limitations in terms of the generalisability of its findings because it represents the subjective views of participants affected by PRDs. The article suggests that further research be conducted to extend our understanding of issues related to PRDs.Practical implicationsThe article argues that the investigation and regulation of PRDs in both countries is essentially flawed. Consequently, there needs to be a fundamental rethink of how such deaths are investigated, and how police could be better held to account for PRDs.Social implicationsWithout significant change to the processes and outcomes that occur in the aftermath of PRDs, it is argued that the legitimacy of police and the criminal justice system will continue to be questioned.Originality/valueThere is no known empirical academic research into PRDs that considers the views of family members in both the US and England and Wales. As such, the article produces unique insights from the perspectives of relatives of those who have died following contact with the police.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国、英格兰和威尔士警察死亡事件后的问责:过程和结果
目的本文考察了美国、英格兰和威尔士警察相关死亡事件(PRDs)后明显缺乏问责。它考虑了监管机制,如独立监管机构和内部事务部门的调查;以及法律机制,如刑事、民事和验尸法庭审理的案件。这些方法所使用的程序和产生的结果将根据其在追究警察责任方面的感知有效性进行审查。设计/方法/方法本文基于对两国59名因警察接触而死亡的人的亲属进行的访谈进行定性研究。该研究调查了亲属死亡后家庭如何寻求正义和问责。虽然每个国家采用的法律和监管问责机制有些不同,但它们产生的结果却非常相似:在这两个国家,在此类死亡事件发生后,很少有官员受到制裁。文章认为,这些机制可以在过程方面提供一种问责制的假象,而不是在结果方面。它们使导致警察相关死亡的系统性问题或多或少保持不变。研究局限/影响由于研究项目具有高度原创性,研究结果的普遍性必然受到限制,因为它代表受珠三角影响的参与者的主观意见。本文建议进行进一步的研究,以扩大我们对珠三角相关问题的理解。本文认为,两国对珠三角的调查和监管存在本质缺陷。因此,需要从根本上重新思考如何调查这类死亡,以及如何更好地追究警察的责任。社会影响如果在PRDs之后发生的过程和结果没有重大改变,有人认为警察和刑事司法系统的合法性将继续受到质疑。原创性/价值在美国、英格兰和威尔士,还没有针对prd的实证学术研究考虑到家庭成员的观点。因此,这篇文章从那些与警方接触后死亡的人的亲属的角度提供了独特的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: ■Community policing ■Managerial styles and leadership ■Performance measurement and accountability ■Pursuit guidelines ■Crime trends and analysis ■Crisis negotiation ■Civil disorder ■Organized crime ■Victimology ■Crime prevention ■Career development ■High risk police activities ■Routine policing ■Traffic enforcement ■Civil litigation.
期刊最新文献
How can we help law enforcement agencies learn? A look at CALEA police accreditation Crime on the mass transit system in Hong Kong: a hotspots and harmspots trajectory approach Does Weisburd's law of crime concentration apply to traffic crashes? Implications for policing and traffic law enforcement How the police conceptualise and view the relevance of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) for policing: a qualitative investigation Compliments or complaints: an evaluation of a community oriented policing practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1