Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peelian Principles

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Peelian Principles

#11

Post by brg »

pjc50 wrote: post #8
midas007 wrote: post #3

In the US, Europe and elsewhere, the S.O.P. is "Might makes right" => "We're going to beat the shit out of you if we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do about it. Oh and we're going to rob (whatever personal property or money is on you) too.* " * This happens not in a "3rd-world country," but in the U.S. of A.

Some areas of the US are more "3rd-world country" than the people care to acknowledge. Mostly due to the legacy of colonialism. Economy based on manual labour for resource extraction or farming? Yup. History of racial conflict from the time of slavery? Yup. Poor rule of law linked to family and business corruption? Yup. Excessively violent policing as a result of those factors? Yup.

I dispute this claim. In the last two decades, the most high profile cases of police malfeasance are coming from LA and Seattle. These have nothing to do with colonialism, but with complete lack of oversight and responsibility.

Re: Peelian Principles

#12

Post by Pitarou »

I'd draw people's attention, in particular, to this principle:

> Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.

This is in contrast to the US, where a cop's career prospects largely depend on his arrest record. To see where this has led, read Arrest-Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson.

(By the way, I don't actually live in the US, so if you want to tell me I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about I'll have no comeback.)

Re: Peelian Principles

#13

Post by rjknight »

cstross wrote: post #6
midas007 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a book ideal that doesn't recognize reality: the fallibility and self-interests of individuals.

So kindly explain what's wrong, in principle, with defining book ideals and then using these as criteria to evaluate the success of organizations? The Peelian principles have been largely obscured or ignored in recent decades, and arguably they were always a bit hollow -- but the history of British policing since the 1830s has had significantly less emphasis on raw offensive firepower than other police systems: even…

Indeed, I think there's something a bit too fatalistic about the idea that the police must automatically be bad because the very nature of authority is corrupting. It's somewhat similar to genetically-deterministic evo-psych, or arguments that group X will behave in a certain way because of their privileges or sufferings. There might be a tendency toward that pattern of behaviour, but tendencies can be overcome. In social science there are rarely any iron rules of behaviour.

Re: Peelian Principles

#14

Post by anvandare »

Pitarou wrote: post #12

I'd draw people's attention, in particular, to this principle: > Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime. This is in contrast to the US, where a cop's career prospects largely depend on his arrest record. To see where this has led, read Arrest-Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson. (By the way, I don't actually live in the US, so if you want to tell me I'm an idi…

See also Campbell's law, and Goodhart's law.

It's only human. If your employment evaluation depends on a specific statistic (the number of arrests you made, lines of code written, number of pupils passing the test, etc.) then you'll try to keep that statistic on a favourable level; even if doing so fails the original intent behind it all.

Re: Peelian Principles

#15

Post by joe_computer »

threeseed wrote: post #9

One thing people need to remember is that in France, UK, Australia, Canada etc guns are illegal. That makes a big difference since police know that provided they don't invade someone's personal space they aren't at risk of dying. And as such they are able to resolve issues without needing to act with a defensive posture. It may seem arbitrary but you will never think of a policeman as an ordinary citizen if they aren…

Some might argue that more abuses would occur because the police can operate without the fear of being shot back.

Re: Peelian Principles

#16

Post by tim333 »

threeseed wrote: post #9

One thing people need to remember is that in France, UK, Australia, Canada etc guns are illegal. That makes a big difference since police know that provided they don't invade someone's personal space they aren't at risk of dying. And as such they are able to resolve issues without needing to act with a defensive posture. It may seem arbitrary but you will never think of a policeman as an ordinary citizen if they aren…

Well, they are restricted but not totally illegal. Even in the UK people can use shotguns. I'm not sure having guns really effects the Peelian stuff.

Re: Peelian Principles

#17

Post by dobbsbob »

threeseed wrote: post #9

One thing people need to remember is that in France, UK, Australia, Canada etc guns are illegal. That makes a big difference since police know that provided they don't invade someone's personal space they aren't at risk of dying. And as such they are able to resolve issues without needing to act with a defensive posture. It may seem arbitrary but you will never think of a policeman as an ordinary citizen if they aren…

Guns are not illegal in Canada. Criminals have no problems getting guns either. They are starting to force all cops here to wear video cams to weed out idiots, it helps prevent US insanity like where a physics prof called 911 for an ambulance and a cop showed up to smash his face and arrest him instead http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/nyregion/professors-detail...

Re: Peelian Principles

#18

Post by PaulKeeble »

I wouldn't say all these principles are in force in the UK today. The very fact that our police is routinely used to break up peaceful demonstrations, to stop demonstrations from occurring in areas were our politicians might see them is kind of a perversion of one of the key points.

The officers do still wear the numbers but they are routinely covered up to hide their identities, especially when they are dealing with a demonstration.

The police have arrest targets just like everywhere else now, the headline figures are still types of crime per 100k of population but they have other targets within the organisation that are just like everywhere else.

"The police are the public and the public are the police." - What trust there was in the police force has been declining since the break up of the miner protests in the 80's. The unnecessary aggression and brutality of the police force keeps happening and with each violent act they are seen more and more as a gang rather than as other citizens doing what any other citizen can do.

My general feeling is that the police is more and more being used in the UK as a political vehicle to maintain power against an ever annoyed public, its not by consent when they break up a peaceful protest because the government passed laws that said all protests must be registered and agreed to. It might one day have been like that but its not based on these principles today.

Re: Peelian Principles

#19

Post by notdrunkatall »

anvandare wrote: post #14
Pitarou wrote: post #12

I'd draw people's attention, in particular, to this principle: > Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime. This is in contrast to the US, where a cop's career prospects largely depend on his arrest record. To see where this has led, read Arrest-Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson. (By the way, I don't actually live in the US, so if you want to tell me I'm an idi…

See also Campbell's law, and Goodhart's law. It's only human. If your employment evaluation depends on a specific statistic (the number of arrests you made, lines of code written, number of pupils passing the test, etc.) then you'll try to keep that statistic on a favourable level; even if doing so fails the original intent behind it all.

Incentives incentivize things; who knew?

Re: Peelian Principles

#20

Post by cstross »

tim333 wrote: post #16
threeseed wrote: post #9

One thing people need to remember is that in France, UK, Australia, Canada etc guns are illegal. That makes a big difference since police know that provided they don't invade someone's personal space they aren't at risk of dying. And as such they are able to resolve issues without needing to act with a defensive posture. It may seem arbitrary but you will never think of a policeman as an ordinary citizen if they aren…

Well, they are restricted but not totally illegal. Even in the UK people can use shotguns. I'm not sure having guns really effects the Peelian stuff.

Shotguns and bolt-action rifles are licensed in the UK. So are black-powder weapons (mostly muzzle-loaders for re-enactment). Air guns are also allowed, in some categories without a license. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_King...

Note that firearms licenses were pretty much non-existent in Sir Robert Peel's day, and as late as the mid 1980s it was possible to possess an AK-47 or similar (as long as the selector didn't permit burst firing). In spite of which, most police went (and preferred to go) unarmed.

Post reply on HN