Criminal Justice System - Lecture #9

Lecture #9 – Police Models, Community Policing and Intro to Racial Profiling November 15 , 2012 Recap of John Sewell’s Lecture - Main argument: Police Accountability (Police Boards, Complaint Centres) are ineffective - Main reason: ‘Broad blue line’: closed shop culture of police:  Dangerous job = culture of suspicion, lack of trust of ‘outsiders’, reproduced through:  Hiring processes, training processes, intimidation/ harassment How to change closed culture - Diversify recruitment mechanisms - Change training procedures - Change procedures for moving people ‘up the ranks’ - Hire skilled managers from ‘outside’ (ex. Bay Street workers, bankers, lawyers, etc.) How would an effective Police Services Board enhance Accountability? 1. Inform public about policing issues and options (vs. secrecy) 2. Transparent decision making 3. Engage debate about options/ alternatives (rather than ‘leave the chief alone’ approach) 4. Sense of public ownership of the police What could an effective police board do? - Deal with inefficiencies and ask critical questions:  Do we really need more police on the streets? (Kansas City Study, 1970s)  Should they be paid for 18 hours of policing for every 24 hours?  Address issues such as: 1 man car vs. 2, excess strip searches, racial profiling Why should we care so much about police accountability? - “no other public organization can directly impact rights and freedoms of individual citizens” Discretion and the Policing of Wife Assault: The Search for Alternatives - Specialized Domestic Violence Courts - Restorative approaches – ex. community conferencing  Shaming, apology, restoring relationships  Empowers ‘Communities of concern’  Community generated culturally appropriate solutions - Development and enhancement of social services  Shelters, transition houses, affordable housing  Employment training programs/ opportunities  Counselling programs for assaulted women  Treatment programs for violent men  Public education Support - Exposes male violence without forcing women to be re-victimized through CJ process - Encourages women to come forward + recognize women have reasons for not coming forward - Holds offenders accountable  Intervene at earlier stages Cautions and Concerns - Idealized view of community: may not share views on acceptability of violence against women - May not be a ‘safe and supportive’ place for women to come forward - Need to use the CJS to send a strong message and denounce behaviour Integrated Approach - Development and enhancement of social services  Shelters, transition houses, affordable housing  Employment training programs  Counselling programs for assaulted women; treatment