History informs us that the reduction in crime rates is dependant on policy makers, who informed by political ideology reform the Criminal Justice System accordingly. It seems apt therefore that the above statement is taken from the current prime minister Theresa May's speech to the National Policing Conference in 2010. However, given the limitations of the word count, I will omit discussions of politics and the impact that this can have on “cutting crime”. Instead I aim to focus on what constitutes the role of the police according to relevant criminological theory, which specific reference to rational choice theory and relative deprivation, and finally conclude that the role of the police extends beyond merely cutting crime.
According to public expectation the police have a “responsibility to prevent the very occurrence of crime”. Subsequently, within the United Kingdom the police are assigned a plethora of roles that ranges from “controlling traffic to controlling terrorism” (Bittner, 1973). With the new pressure of a growing social media the police are under immense pressure and scrutiny from the wider public, calling the fulfilment of their roles into question. In order to satisfy public expectation, the police have to juggle with responsibilities in patrol, criminal investigation, social control, apprehending offenders and emergency management. Resulting in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” attitude in an age of austerity.
What constitutes the role of the police is highly dependant on which theoretical perspective you choose to adopt. For Cornish and Clarke the role of the police is to patrol. This is because for Rational Choice Theorists the police are to act as “scarecrow function” in order to deter people from committing crime. The main premise behind this theory build’s on Beccaria’s principles of utilitarianism; regarding a person as a rational actor in their lives, who through free will can assess whether the cost of committing a crime will outweigh the potential benefits. (Beccaria, C; 1764) (Clarke, D., Cornish, R; 2014). The police play a central role in this theory by ensuring that the potential offender is aware of the “cost”. Their mere presence elicits a threat, being “at power to enforce the law” at their discretion (Bittner, E; 1973). Their role in this instance is to act as a force of discipline that represents “a system of consequences which ensures the proper behaviour”. Rational Choice Theory also encompasses the idea of surveillance, Foucault (1975) theorises that in modern society the way in which the police exercise their power has begun to move from ‘sovereign power’ – the threat of force for social control, to ‘disciplinary power’ – the monitoring or surveillance of people. The notion here is that people are afraid to be seen doing something wrong, and thereby will refrain from committing crime. The police here play a symbolic role within civilised society. Merely knowing that policemen are doing their job through either patrol or surveillance allows the wider public to feel that they are safe through their “impartial service to the law” (Peel, R; 1829).
To imply that the role of the police is only to cut crime has a serious repercussion, it invalidates all other aspects of policing. The role of the police in ‘cutting crime’ may lead to the targeting of usual categories in order to increase numbers and efficiency. However, if efficiency is all that the police will be judged on this leads to an increase in the number of petty crimes recorded. Simply put, ‘target driven policing’ ignores large scale crimes such as Tax Evasion because it is easier and less time consuming to hit your target by patrolling streets in search of minor drug offences.
Left Realist’s argue that policing is “inefficient, undemocratic and in need of chance”, because if ‘target driven policing’, as suggested by Theresa May, is used- it does very little to reduce actual causes and instances of crime (Lea and Young, 1983). Instead the focus should be on the community and the cause of crime, with the role of the police being more pastoral. Building on the Peelian principle of “maintaining respect”, modern policing should have a role in the socialisation of young people (Peel, R.,1844)(Lyons, P., 2015). Partly due to the history of ostracisation of young people by the police and the subsequent connotations associated with this, the police are not held in a particularly high regard by these communities. In an attempt to amend this the police should offer assistance and support in order to create a united community. This notion builds on Durkheim’s work, examining crime as a “community and social problem rather than an individual problem”. Though the police are an unlikely source of socialisation, they form the fabric of contemporary society and the public rely on their dedication to fair service.
For Marxist criminologist’s the cause of crime is capitalism and inequality, and so the role of the police is to act as a function of state control, through focusing on the powerless working class. The evidentiary support for this theory is rooted in statistics that show lower socio-economic class is often linked with higher crime rates in a given area (Miethe, T., Meier, R., 1994) For Marxist’s the police are a function of capitalism and merely exert their power to enforce the law on ‘easy targets’, and ignore the instances of white collar crime committed by the bourgeoisie. In the Marxist perspective of criminology the role of the police is to be an agent of the state, they are not to be trusted by the pubic because they are ultimately governed by policy makers and the bourgeoisie. Although these notions have some merit especially when cross-referenced with current crime statistics, however these notions have little bearing when discretion is taken into consideration. The high level of discretion given to ‘bobby’s on the beat’ allows for individual constables to make a judgement on whether a minor drug offence in a deprived area is worth pursuing. Discretion is what makes the police unique and in this instance the ‘role of the police’ can be interpreted as being to use their discretion to either respond or abstain with reasonable force in order to ensure the reproduction of the social order.
Ultimately the police are one aspect of social control who keep the peace in the interest or on the behalf of the state (Barton, A., Johns, N., 2013). Depending on the nature of the states request, the police are responsible for: public presence, keeping public order, investigating serious crimes and using armed force to address offending. Public expectation of the police hold them inherently responsible for peacekeeping, crime control and apprehending dangerous offenders yet increasingly we see the police taking responsibility for aiding and assisting people in their everyday lives. If a mentally ill person is walking the street for example and a member of the public alerts the police to this, their duty of care compels them to respond. Though this is not directly related to cutting crime they are responding to “something which ought not to be happening, but about which someone ought to do something now”, (Bittner, 1973). With reference to May’s claim that the role of the police is ‘to cut crime nothing more, nothing less’, it is clear that whilst crime control is defined as central to police work, it is “minimal and often absent aspect of a days work” (Holdaway, 2016). The role is more mundane, with inner city police officers reporting “at best arresting an offender or taking details from a victim”. In order to adequately cut crime, the police are likely to seek out criminal activity that will allow them to hit their target for the day, which is an ineffective strategy for cutting crime. I propose that the role of the police in communities should be to reach out to minorities that feel ostracised from society, the root cause of criminal activity should be addressed and thereby there will be a reduction in crime rates. Perhaps a more holistic view should be taken of police work, making it all encompassing peacekeeping rather than target-oriented crime cutting. However, I understand that there is little funding and the police within the UK are stretched thinly at present and so community outreach programmes are not always feasible. However, despite this I still vehemently disagree that the role of the police is merely to cut crime, they form the very fabric of civilised society signifying nobility, morality and social structure and their role is to impartially serve the public, however that might be. The important point here is, that impartially serving the public is not exclusively through cutting crime.