Police Culture and Police Accountability in Ausralia

The police force is one of the most powerful divisions of the government.

Ideally, these powers and duties need to be defined by law – both international and national, as well as policy and civil society debate. Often there is a gap between what the law states and what occurs in practice. It is when the police contradict what the constitution of their countries state, regarding human rights of all citizens that the police begin to lack legitimacy and the public begin to lose faith in the police and consequently the government.Good policing is a fundamental test of democracy” and if the police resort to violent tactics to perform their duties the democratic principles of the country are undermined (Namiseb, 2002). The police have the responsibility to ensure that human rights are upheld, not violated, since many sections of society rely on the police to protect their rights.

The police are thus representative of a democratic order and it is they who are in direct contact with the public.It is therefore imperative that the police are: professional, politically neutral (that is, free from political manipulation), human rights orientated, democratic and obey the laws of the country, community-orientated, and accountable (Namiseb, 2002). In order to define police culture, we must first look into the definition of culture. Brown (1995) describes culture as being a by-product of 'historical process'. Furthermore he made a passing reference to police culture, and put it into the category of the “tough guy” macho culture.Brown has described police culture in terms of operational police reacting quickly to crime on the street, not as a bureaucratic organisation that has operational policing as an arm of its service (Shanahan, 2003).

Police culture is described as something that exists from the perspective of the police officer who frequently deals with both criminals and the public as a part of his or her occupation. Some assumptions in the literature are that police culture has intrinsically negative connotations (Skolnick 1966, Manning 1977, Fitzgerald 1989, Reiner 1992, Skolnick & Fyfe 1993,Chan 1997, Prenzler 1997, Wood 1997).That negative part of police culture which has traditionally been discussed concerns unpalatable conduct or behaviour which leads to unacceptable deviance or criminal behaviour. Skolnick (1966) attributed this behaviour to the police perception that they are in constant danger while working, as well as their need to be suspicious in order to properly carry out their role as protectors. This view of their position is coupled with the authority to use force to achieve the ends expected by society.All of these factors combine to create an environment where behaviour that may be seen as deviant is accepted by the police as a necessary norm, and thus internalised and rationalised.

Skolnick (1966) further contends that these attitudes are passed on to all the new recruits and are promoted as necessary attributes to be had to be successful at the policing craft. The Fitzgerald Report (1989) also pointed out that a specific manifestation of police culture is an unwritten 'police code', which 'exaggerates the need for, and the benefits derived from, mutual loyalty and support'.He describes the code as embracing both an attitude that it is impermissible to criticize other police and a rule of operation that police will not enforce the law against other police, nor cooperate in any attempt to do so, and perhaps even obstruct any such attempt (Fitzgerald, 1989). Over the last two decades, royal commissions and other inquiries have identified and criticized the anti-intellectual, anti-democratic and 'xenophobic' ideology which is collectively known as 'Police Culture' (La Macchia, 2002).Interestingly, many observers have argued that whatever is wrong with the ideas and attitudes of police is common to a significant proportion of Anglo/Celtic or 'mainstream' Australians, regardless of their occupation. There is some basis for this view.

It can be demonstrated that Australian police personnel have been, in the main, the products of working class and lower middle class families, and have thus had their thinking shaped by the concepts of intolerance, prejudice and racism which characterized Australian society until recent times.As was frequently indicated during the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland, it is unlikely that the aspect of police culture which has been described as authoritarian, sexist and 'philistine' will simply fade away (La Macchia, 2002). This police culture transforms the values and perceptions of all but the most resistant and resilient of police during their first few years of service and has become so pervasive that it has been able to reach into almost every corner of every police force in Australia. Fitting in' has meant demonstrating a profound acceptance of police culture. One aspect of police culture of particular relevance to this Commission is the way in which particular stereotypes are passed on from generation to generation within the culture, so that they are unquestioningly accepted as 'knowledge' or 'common sense' (Reconcniliation and Social Justice Library, 1997). Stereotypes commonly relate both to 'drunks' and to Aboriginal people.

In order to fit within the society, aboriginal Australians have 2 options: one option is to choose the 'high road' and become noticeable and even comfortable 'associate members' of the great Australian middle class; the other main option is to take the 'low road'; to stay close to those Australians who least respect them and who deeply resent the progress made by Aboriginal individuals and organisations in recent times.Many social commentators have suggested that less educated Australians - those who have most to do with Aboriginal people - still harbour 'powerful and longheld notions of racial superiority'. . .

and are sometimes subject to evil, violent and irrational passions, when forced to confront the existence of Aboriginal or other indigenous peoples and their cultures. Traditional policing emphasized arrests and charges, fast cars and random patrol, as well as an "us vs them" mentality between the police and the public (Chan, 1995).Allegations of extreme police brutality have been making headlines. in proactive police work officers target suspicious and unusual activities, often by stopping and searching young people from lower socioeconomic groups and minority ethnic communities (Youth Justice Coalition, 1990; Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia, 1991). Intimidation, threat or actual use of force is seen to be an efficient way of obtaining confessions and investigative leads from "known" suspects (Holdaway, 1983).To counter police brutality is the principle of accountability.

It is a fundamental principal of a democratic society that the police should be held to account for their actions (Walker, 2007). Accountability is a necessary adjunct to the power that a government exercises in the society. Accountability defines the expectations of the public concerning the responsible exercise of public power, on matters such as financial probity in government, the behavioural integrity of officials, and the protection of vulnerable members of the community (McMillan, 2007).The purpose of accountability is to facilitate government: not to impede the exercise of public power, but to ensure that it is exercised responsibly.

Agency-level accountability involves the performance of law enforcement agencies with respect to controlling crime and disorder and providing services to the public (Walker, 2007). Individual-level accountability involves the conduct of police officers with respect to lawful, respectful, and equal treatment of citizens. Individual-level accountability procedures fall into two general categories: internal and external.Procedures that are internal to law enforcement agencies include controlling officer conduct through written polities, routine supervision, regular performance evaluations, and the investigation of allegations of misconduct, and early intervention systems (EIS). The form of the assumption that police brutality can best be prevented by the intervention of a fellow officer should be emphasized.

It proposes, for example, that chiefs and supervisors need to counter a drift toward overuse of violence by officers in their departments by holding them to strict accountability.The failure of supervisors to do or say anything about excessive violence is taken as a tacit acceptance (Staub, 2004). Police accountability aims to make the police better able to readily recognize when a fellow officer is about to run the risk of using too much force, and encourage officers to step in to avert it by, for example, quickly explaining to the person being subdued what he needs to do to avoid being the target of even greater violence, or taking command of the situation from the other officer. Given the nature of police culture, this kind of intervention is easier before there is actual violence than once violence has started," said Dr.

Staub (2004). Beyond that, it will help officers understand the forces that make police brutality more likely, such as seeing certain ethnic or racial groups in terms of negative stereotypes. Those attitudes make it easier for the police to justify to the use of excessive force with members of those groups.However, police unions have vigorously defended the fellow police officers under investigation because of the so-called “police code” and a vicious cycle ensues.

The police, in order to be competitive and to attract the resources necessary to fulfill their role for the future, must become outward-looking, increasingly sensitive to developments and trends in their environment, responsive and resilient to change, innovative and creative in their approach to problem solving and idea generation, and more open and accountable to the community and Government (NorthernTerritory Police, 1991). An accountable police force requires a degree of openness and honesty which supports the organisational goal of providing fair and equitable service in accordance with the rule of law. Accessibility and efficiency of avenues for complaints against police misconduct must be part of this openness (Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy; 1990). Members of both communities - Aboriginal and police - must accept the separateness and right of each community to exist.

Each side must learn about the history of the other.A major component of providing accessible and equitable police services to ethnic minorities involves overcoming the language barriers (Chan, 1995). Police must be trained in Aboriginal cultural history and must be offered significant financial and promotional opportunities and benefits in relation to tertiary level Aboriginal studies. Young and old members of Aboriginal communities, both urban and remote, should be taught more about the history of mainstream Australian society; particularly in terms of policing, the law and education.The new vision of policing is increasingly one of being accountable to the community and establishing a partnership with the community in policing. Currently, the long-standing connection between the Anglo/Celtic working class and the nation's police forces is crumbling.

Concern with education, multicultural selection, promotion by merit (rather than by seniority) and an emphasis on verbal and written dexterity, are transforming the police forces of Australia. Substantial changes to the police organization, including recruitment, training, philosophy and style of policing, have been initiated.