For What Reasons Did the Coalition Government Abolish Police?

For what reasons did the Coalition Government abolish right of nature effect political science in 2012? What problems do you think argon brocaded by the origin of elected practice of law and Crime Commissioners? This essays objective is to take into consideration the rule of the Coalition administrations decision to re tell constabulary governing with elected guard and Crime Commissioners (PCC). A critique and a background of the jurisprudence regime operations go a instruction be discussed and evaluated. A brief history of policing onwards constabulary administration were established will in like manner be explored. nevertheless more(prenominal), the reasons wherefore at that mail was a radical recover to PCCs will be debated and the problems that may arise. Policing has al slipway been a challenging issue and it nigh apt(predicate) will always be challenging. Sir Robert Peels first convention of policing domaind The basic mission for which the practice o f law exist is to pr up to nowt criminal offence and disorder (Cited in Theresa, M 2010). There has been an attempt to always advert onto this. The only difference is how certain regime or political groups flak it. In the nineteenth century, liberty and violence were located at bottom boroughs, topical anesthetic anaestheticly.After a fewer attempts to try to centralise the legal philosophy compress and a few law of nature muffion scandals which occurred in the 1950s, it was finally the time for the administration to unveil a centralised, professionalised group of senior guard officers. In 1964, under the constabulary flake, these smaller, more dirigible forces were to be k straightawayn as jurisprudence authorities. Their post was to skillful the maintenance and of an adequate and effectual guard force for their argona. (Citied in Williams, C 2003). However, the police authorities are now being replaced by elected PCCs.The main purpose of this reform is to gear up the drive for topical anesthetic policing priorities and the familiar by leading getment with local policing partners. This will boost the em force outment of local communities in criminal evaluator af moderatelys. Beginning with a little history of how and wherefore police authorities were introduced. Throughout the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, police power was generally seen as a responsibility of local government, and police were encounterled by the suppress local institution.The policing were in the workforce of the local government and the boroughs of England and Wales, by whom ferociously protected the police powers exercised by their elected watch committees. These powers were symbolic of the citys independence, and police forces were crucial exercisers of executive power locally, concerning light relief, licensing laws, the regulation of the streets, and the imposition of ethics on the residential di rigorous. The 1835 Municipal Corpo rations snatch introduced democracy to the self-governing towns of England and Wales.The only arrogant statutory duty was to select a watch committee to spend the police force. The self-governing towns can be described as self-confident, palmy and autonomous. . The committees had complete power over the activities and composition of their forces. (Citied in Brogden, M 1982). The government requireed at increasing centralisation within the police force unless after a few attempts to interact, they failed. The first attempt by the state to reduce the autonomy of the towns and cities came after the 1853 Select Committee on Police, which recommended extending controlling police provision to all areas.The position piazza were under no doubt that, the intimately competent way to run each force would be to project it under the orders of Government. However, these recommendations from the kinfolk Office had to be consulted with the underground of the local government. In 1854 and 1856, the home plate Offices attempts to pass police bills that limited the rights of boroughs to control their own police forces were defeated by the borough. The boroughs also had total autonomy and democratic control over operational decisions.The watch committees, meeting weekly, had the power to hire and elicit members of their forces and were prepared to exercise it. (Citied in Emsley, C 1996). Further action was done by the Labour representatives in the 1920s to clear up centralisation. By 1939, Labour controlled 18 out of 83 county boroughs. The Home Office took increasing responsibility for producing a class of leaders for police forces, and and so intervened increasingly in matters of training, promotion and appointment. The Home Office also began to intervene more in the appointment of Chief Constables.The 1950s Whitehall introduced a insurance of refusing to appoint any Chief Constable who had no experience in a different force this was clearly designed to creat e a more matterly homogenous and professionalised group of senior police officers. Since the change magnitude effort for involvement with the boroughs and watch committees, there was a growing imply of professionalism within the police. The boroughs had co-operated fully in modernising and homogenising the police forces, through co-operative training and communication. Citied in Loveday, B 1994) Between 1919 and 1964, the state tried using efficiency, economy, and national security as reasons to centralise control, before successfully employing decomposition to achieve this. The 1960 Royal Commission was actively steered by the Home Office along its own centralist agenda, resulting in the 1964 Police defend, subsuming city forces into counties. These were influenced by the nature of two policing scandals of the late 1950s, which gave the Home Office a convenient point of entry with which to attack the stead quo. (Citied in (Ludtgarten, L 1986).Both scandals were cases of depra vation within the boroughs, the Brighton Borough police force in 1957, where the chief constable and two officers were arrested and charged with a variety of corrupt practises, and in Labour- controlled Nottingham in 1958, where there was an investigation launched on Labour councillors and succeeded to fire that two labour councillors and the repository of the District Labour Party had been bribed on a visit to East Germany. Events such as mentioned above involving corruption led to the boroughs finally losing their police powers completely.A royal commission on the police had been appointed in 1960 to review the constitutional position of the police end-to-end Great Britain, and in 1964, the Police represent was introduced. (Citied in Willams, C 2003). move to answering the question more directly now, the Police Act of 1946 reverberate the interests of colossaler efficiency and greater central control over policing. It allowed for the fusion of existing forces into more ef ficient units, merging them into a more manageable number of 43 forces in England and Wales.The watch committees were replaced with police authorities. This new trunk was characterized as the many-sided structure of police right. The tripartite system distributes responsibilities mingled with the Home Office, the local police authority, and the chief constable of the force. (Citied in Williams, C 2003). This tripartite system provides accountability to Parliament through the Home Secretary (who has responsibility for policing policy including centrally descendting see priorities that are formalistic within a National Policing Plan).Police Authorities were composed of councillors (two-thirds) and magistrates (one-third) and their role was to secure the maintenance and of an adequate and efficient police force for their area. (Citied in Williams, C 2003). To liberate this duty they were provided with a number of specific and statutory responsibilities which included appointing and dismissing its senior officers, making sure arrangements are in place to consult the local fellowship roughly the policing of their area and heir priorities, bother an annual local policing plan and a best value doing plan, setting out the policing priorities, performance targets, and the allocation of resources, to publish a three-year strategy plan, which must be approved by the Home Secretary and proctor the performance of the force in delivering the policing plan. (Joyce, P 2011 118, 127). Although there attain been issues raised about police authorities and these concerns will be brought to the surface, it can also be argued that police authorities wee constituently tried to provide an efficient and useful police force.This can be shown by all the canon that has been introduced. The 1994 Police and Magistrates Act, Courts Act (PMCA) 1995, the Police Act 1996, and the Police Reform Act 2002, pay all endorsed the tripartite arrangements and aimed to fundamentally en sure and provide an adequate, efficient and effective police force. ( Citied in Williams, C 2003). The adit of the policing self-confidence in 2008 by the Labour party, although it has been scrapped by the Coalition government, aimed at restoring public religion and to ensure the serve wells being provided locally were adequate.Promises such as providing periodical local crime rates, answering all non-emergency calls promptly, providing information to the lodge on their Neighbourhood Policing Team i. e. where they are based, how to contact them and how to work with them were stated on this document, to increase conjunction engagement and involvement. (Citied in The Policing crispen, 2008). There has been placed a great deal of importance on empowerment, localisation, decentralisation of power and union involvement. There has been many green and white papers published to actualize this.David Blunketts Civil Renewal Agenda (2003) and David Camerons bombastic family Agenda (2010) has influenced trends towards community engagement, confident and cooperation within their respective policing reform programmes continues. The agendas extensively focus on the responsibility of the government and every citizens efforts to up assume communities, to re full of lifeise our democracy and to provide more power and opportunity into rafts hands and security for all. It is believed that the engagement of everyone is necessary to make that proceed the government alone can non fix every problem.Furthermore, Sir Ronnie Flanagan conducted the report of The Review of Policing in 2008. Flanagan stated that involving local communities in political decision-making processes is crucial and delivering in partnerships, ontogeny the workforce and improving performance at force levels. (Flanagan, 2008). As mentioned above, there were concerns regarding the police authorities. One of the main issues was that central control undermined local police affairs power and authority. In the early 1980s, there were clashes between police authorities and chief constables relating to who would have the final say in detail activity.The reliance of the Home Office by chief constables tended to increase the power of the central government over local police arrangements. In addition, the introduction of the 1994 Police and Magistrates Courts Act enabled the Home Secretary to determine and set national objectives or priorties. This task was previously done by chief constables. Furthermore, the police areas would be assessed on their attainment by comparing to a set of performance targets. Empowerment, localisation, and decentralisation are clearly not desired. ( Citied in Williams, C 2003).Additionally, the situation continued to be aggravating as further developments such as the targets imposed by central government were extended and became the describe tool of performance management. Police forces had to deliver on activities, which were inflexible centrally. man Service Agreements (PSAs) were introduced in 1998 to promote clarity in service delivery, once more centrally. This target regime led to the bulk of police work way on achieving the targets imposed on them, this made it unimaginable to concentrate on local concerns. This once more suggests the central power undermining powers and authority locally.Also, it was suggested that centrally determined targets tend to distort priorties, tempting officers into using their tine in unproductive ways into directly fiddling performance figures (Loveday and Reid, 2003 19). Similarly, they created a counting culture within the police service whereby only what got measured got done (Loveday and Reid, 2003 22). Additional look for was undertaken in 2003 investigating the role of police authorities in public engagement. Participants that were interviewed saw police authorities independence from the police force as very important.This was because of the risk of corruption or abuse of power. If it was 100 per cent fully independent, then I think that would make a bus of difference to people, and I think they would feel a lot happier sharp that it was beingkept an eye on. (Home Office 2003 19). However, many participants thought that police authorities did not appear to be independent enough, and this could undermine the communitys agency and trust in them. There was a whole step in many groups that the number of independent members should increase or even that authorities should be composed completely of independent members.There were worries that the independent members susceptibility not have a fair say, as councillors and magistrates have an overall majority on the authority. (Citied in Home Office, 2003). Youre paying.. its your community, you live there, so you should have a say in how its policed. (Home Office 2003 17). The community does seem to desire to get involved in the decision making, however when asked who made decisions about spending and who was respo nsible for the supervise of police performance, there was very little spontaneous mention of police authorities. (Citied in Home Office, 2003).These defineings suggest that police authorities are not adequate or efficient enough, people living in the communities have very little knowledge of police authorities and the question is why? More should be done to advertise and involve the community in the decision making process of what happens in their communities. Their involvement would increase the confidence in the police and create a more coherent community. Conversely, as the Coalition government scrapped the policing pledge, they also disposed police authorities in 2o12 and replaced them with elected police and crime commissioners (PCC).The Coalition government strongly believed that it was vital to replace bureaucratic accountability from central government to democratic accountability to the public. PCCs will make forces truly accountable to the communities they serve, ensurin g that resources are properly targeted to where they are needed and giving the public a greater say in measures to reduce crime and improve community safety. The main aim of PCC was to put power directly in the hands of the public. (Home Affairs Committee, 2o1o10). The key powers of PCCs are to set the police force budget and to hire and fire chief constables. Citied in Home Affairs Committee, 2010). The Elected PCCs have overcome issues that the police authorities did not the community involvement, empowerment and local governance is greater. The community elects their own PCCs locally and it represents the drive for local policing priorities and the public by leading engagement with local policing partners. This new surface to policing is boosting the empowerment of local communities in criminal justice affairs. They will hold the elected chief constable to account making sure that policing is responsive to the communities penury.There is an increased democratic accountability . (Citied in Home Affairs Committee, 2010). However, this new reform also faces a few critiques. Lord Blair referred to this proposal as the most lamentable provision about policing I have ever encountered (Blair, 2011). Firstly, the PCC will replace the 17 or 19 members who currently represent a police authority. It is impossible to imagine how one person can adequately represent the versatile demands of the vast range of communities found in the areas cover by police forces, whether they are heavily populated urban ones or cover geographically large rural areas. Joyce, P 2011). As the policing unavoidably and concerns of neighbourhoods are usually vastly different and are often in direct competition for finite police resources, it is a concern that a PCC will seek to direct policing to address the localised, sectionalised or political interests of those who elected him or her into office thus serving to politicise policing and opening the verge to the possibility of corruption. (Joyce, P 2011). Before the 1964 Police Act, there were claims and investigations into policing corruption scandals the Borough police force in 1957 and in Nottingham in 1958. Citied in Willams, C 2003). Its out-of-pocket to these concerns about policing corruption, the police force became centralised. This is a major concern and strict safeguards and monitoring will have to be established to avoid it from adventure again. Secondly, there is the question as to whether this reform was needed. It is fair to suggest that it is intensely politicized and a populist measure. Valid criticisms can be made concerning the operations of police authorities, however this did not mean they were performing a poor job and providing a poor police service.Party politics were not injected onto the agenda. In fact, there was a good working relationship between the police authorities and the chief constables in many areas and the communities and local policing expediencyed from this. (Joyce, P 2011) . Ian dock worker (2008) stated that the government is urged to take another ride on the law and order merry-go-round, to issue a fresh batch of crowd-pleasing-measures that can quieten its apparently angry and nauseating consumers. Many will harmonize with this.The government is in need of public support, confidence and trust and the best way to get the local communities or customers support is to respond to our demands. As was mentioned above, the community would like more opportunities to get involved in the way their communities are being policed and the new reform of elected PCCs can be perceived as a crowd-pleasing-measure. (Citied in Loader, I 2008). Garland again has famously said that the policy-making has become deep politicized and populist.Policy measures are constructed in ways that value public opinion over the views of experts and the evidence of research. The prevailing voice of crime policy is no longer the expert or even the practitioner but that of the long-s uffering, ill served people- especially the victim and the fearful, anxious members of the public. (Stated in The Culture of Control, 2001). Furthermore, a range of views were put forrader on the role of PCCs from the consultation feedback and it was not all positive.Concerns have been verbalized that a PCC, as a single individual, may not be effective crossways a whole force area and find it difficult to engage with communities sufficiently. Moreover, there was concerns received about the checks and balances proposed in the consultation. whatever members believed that the arrangements might prove overly bureaucratic or create confusing lines of accountability for chief constables and the public. Others felt that they were too weak, or sought more detail on how the Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) would provide a real number challenge and scrutiny. Citied in Theresa, M 2010). Many also expressed concerns about the political nature of the role of the PCC and in particular the inv olvement of candidates support by the main political parties. They believe this would risk cutting crossways the operational decisions made by chief constables and other police officers, and this would most definitely inject party politics, whereby police authorities did not. Additionally, there needs to be appropriate and respectable safeguards to be put in place regarding to circumstances under which a PCC could dismiss or suspend a chief constable.These issues, if they were to ever occur, could create tension between PCCs and chief constables. The community will have a knock-on effect from this, as they would be the ones looking at the consequences. There would not be an adequate and efficient service provided to the community. That was the aim of PCCs and if it does not meet its own aims, it would fail dramatically. (Citied in Theresa, M 2010). It is fair to say police authorities and PCCs have issues to be concerned about but also have positive points.Police authorities and t he 1964 Police Act did structure the police force and it did aim at providing an efficient and effective police force. This is consistently shown by the constant need to improve and march on the services being provided to the public . The 1994 Police and Magistrates Act, Courts Act (PMCA) 1995, the Police Act 1996, and the Police Reform Act 2002, the Policing Pledge 2008, have all endorsed the tripartite arrangements and aimed to fundamentally ensure and provide an adequate, efficient and effective police force.However, the demand for empowerment, localisation, decentralisation of power and community involvement perpetually grew stronger too and the police authorities did set priorities and standards nationally, and not locally. Research was undertaken in 2003 investigating the role of police authorities in public engagement. participants that were interviewed saw police authorities independence from the police force as very important. This was because of the risk of corruption or abuse of power. Youre paying.. its your community, you live there, so you should have a say in how its policed. (Home Office 2003 17). The community does desire to get involved in the decision making, however the drop of knowledge of police authorities and how you can get involved or the lack of liberation of empowerment and localisation should be questioned. (Citied in Home Office, 2003). The Coalition government 2012 decided to introduce PCCs. The ain of this reform was to to democratic accountability to the public and to put power directly in the hands of the public. (Home Affairs Committee, 2o1o10). In this case, the input from the public is greater and have greater local empowerment.However, PCC faces its problems too. It does face greater likelihood of policing corruption, a PCC, as a single individual, may not be effective across a whole force area and find it difficult to engage with communities sufficiently. 17 to 19 members are being replaced by one PCC. It is impossible imagine how one person can adequately represent the diverse demands of the vast range of communities and activities. In conclusion, the question still remains as to whether this reform was needed, the police authorities were not proving a poor service or doing a poor job.Garland (2001) would suggest that the policy-making has become profoundly politicized and populist. The introduction of PCC was just a populist measure. However, the local communities may benefit from the empowerment and local prioritisation and if they do, PCCs have succeeded their aims. References Blair, L. (2011), Speech in the House of Lords 27 April, HL Debs Session 2010-11, Vol 727, Col 137 Blunkett, David (2003) Civil Renewal A untested Agenda , London Home Office Brogden, M (1982), The Police impropriety and Consent, London Academic Press. Emsley, C (1996), The English Police a Political and Social History, Harlow Longman. Flanagan, Sir Ronnie (Feb 2008) The Review of Policing Final Report. London Home Off ice Garland, D (2001), The Culture of Control. Oxford Oxford University Press. Home Affairs Committee, (2008). Policing in the twenty-first century, Seventh Report, Session 2007/08, House of Commons Paper 364, TSO, London. Joyce, P. (2011). Police reform from police authorities to police and crime commissioners. Sage, London. Loveday, B. (1994), The Police and Magistrates Courts Act.Policing 10(4), pp 221-233 Lustgarten, L. (1986), The Governance of the Police, London Sweet & Maxwell. The Coalition manifesto Our Programme for Government (May 2010) Theresa, M (2010). Policing in the 21st Century Reconnecting police and the people. Home Office Home Affairs Committee (2010), Policing police and crime commissioners, Second Report, Sessions 2010/11, House of Commons Paper 511, TSO, London. Bibliography David Cameron speech (19 July 2010) Our Big Society Agenda. London Home Office Date accessed 25 November 2012 http//www. conservatives. om/News/Speeches/2010/07/David_Cameron_Our_Big_S ociety_Agenda. aspx Home Office (2003), The role of police authorities in public engagement Date Accessed 3 December 2012 http//library. npia. police. uk/docs/hordsolr/rdsolr3703. pdf Loader, I (2008). The great victim of this get-tough hyperactivity is Labour. The Guardian Date accessed 28 November 2012 http//www. guardian. co. uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/19/justice. ukcrime The Policing Pledge (2008). London Home Office Date Accessed 1 December 2012 http//www. met. police. uk/pledge/our_pledge_leaflet. pdf