Dr.
GEE – UCAM
Dr. Domício Proença Júnior
GEE, University of Brazil (UFRJ)
v. 2
Comparative Models of Accountability Seminar
INACIPE, Ciudad de Mexico, 29-30 October 2003
Introduction
The establishment of mechanisms and routines that will support accountability in general and accountability of police use of force in particular is one of the greatest challenges of contemporary police management. A vast array of arguments can explain this otherwise surprising situation. These would consider the dynamics of civilian-officer interaction on any number of settings, and would assess the effects of horizontal solidarity, tolerance and tacit standards among officers and the political managers that direct them. The various forms of tolerance of police practices by the media and the public would also be relevant. Taken together, they explain the difficulty: a multiplicity of tasks, a multiplicity of actors, and the resulting “(n-1)2 + 1” array of possible perceptions.This text presents the outline of a systemic proposal for police accountability – to whiz, “Full Accountability” – that endeavors to offer a structured approach to the problem. It does so in a series of interlinked steps those, in the interests of brevity, are presented below rather summarily.
In broad terms, this document is divided in two parts. The first part includes: (i) the theoretical framework under which the matter is considered; (ii) the clarification of what is meant by the Mandate of the Use of Force under the Rule of Law and its most important consequence, the idea of police; (iii) the peculiarities of said mandate in a urban environment and the way police activities seek to resolve social conflict are related to both the expectation and the possibility of police use of force. The second part presents the overall structure of Full Accountability: (iv) in terms of its political, tactical and strategic dimensions; (v) in terms of the relations between what one wants to know and what can be measured; (vi) in terms of the material and managerial issues, its problems and challenges; and (vii) the issue of Police Use of Force Accountability within this broadened scope, which serves as a closing set of considerations.
i. Theoretical Framework
The core of police action and thus of police accountability resides in the understanding of a succession of nested contexts and the result of their interlinked appreciation. At its broadest, it corresponds to a subset of the alternatives of relationship among humans that harken back to the Pleistocene Era. On the one hand, there are those relationships that correspond to the issue of otherness, and that produce as a result the security dilemma. On the other hand, there those relationships that correspond to the issue of identity, and produce as a result the mechanism of social relations. Police activities lie, therefore, within the realm of social relations.
Social relations, as they exist within human communities include a number of social mechanisms that seek to produce obedience. They seek to conform individual or group behavior within a community to certain expectations. When other coercive means fail, it may be opportune to compel. It is the use of force and only the use of force that distinguishes the intent to compel from other coercive social mechanisms.
However, the particular nature of the means of force imposes limits to the full expression of coercive aims. Whereas the logic of compelling an individual or group remains subordinate to the logic – and purpose – of social ends, it must defer to the grammar of the means for the action of compelling itself. Thus, not all desirable compelling means may be possible at a given moment in time. Further, even existing alternatives may not be available in any one community when they are called for.
Communities establish differing limitations and preferences in both the kinds of behavior it will compel and the means it will use to do so. Therefore, police activities are a form of social coercion that may compel, that is to say it admits the recourse to force within certain social parameters.
That notwithstanding, both coercion, broadly considered, and compellence strictly understood admit a wide variety of means. In themselves, they pose no limitation to the means of force or methods used in the production of obedience or compliance.
A large part of human historical experience has been associated with the unrestrained use of force, imposing a form of domination that is autarchic and unbounded – and thus, from contemporary perspective, illegal and illegitimate. The invention of the Rule of Law has established limitation over both the ends and the means of coercion, which of course include the perspective of compellence, thus imposing criteria for the propriety and opportunity of use of force. It is this particular social construct – the rule of law – that led to the social distinction of the forces of the State between, e.g., unbounded armed forces seeking to impose control over a territory and bounded police forces that are authorized to use force under the Rule of Law.
It is in this sense that one can clarify the social context of the Police: the sole authority that can compel legally and legitimately. Thus, the authoritative mandate – the essential nature – of the police becomes clear: it is the Mandate for the Use of Force under the Rule of Law.
ii. The Mandate of the Use of Force under the Rule of Law
Whereas the end for which coercive and compelling means are used can be described succinctly as that of conflict resolution within a community, it is necessary to clarify two theoretical consequences of great importance associated with the Mandate for the Use of Force under the Rule of Law. The first has to do with the full understanding of what “use of force” means, and which includes both actual and potential instances of force usage. The second results from the continuity of the mandate itself and corresponds to the prevalence of the idea of police as the prime social mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution and for the preservation of good order.
Use of force must be understood as comprising both actual and potential force usage, or be useless as a category for explaining police action. The issue lies on what use means: within the context of coercevie social relations and the Rule of Law, use of force can only mean the utility of force in terms of its ability to produce obedience and obtain compliance. In broader terms, use of force only has meaning in view of its its ability to modify behavior that would have gone unchecked were it not for the use of force. To that extent, the usage of force of a holstered pistol or of a dominant physical presence is the use of nothing but potential. Yet it must be considered use of force in the resolution of social conflict, as it changes the behavior of those confronted with it. To argue that only actual force usage is use of force is to mistake its actual utility and lead to paradox. Actual and potential force usages are one and the same, that is to say, use of force.
Further, once a legal and legitimate agency for universal enforcement of social behavior – the police – has existed for a sufficiently long time, the prospect of its action becomes a social certainty and modifies the behavior of the community by itself. The expectation of enforcement allows for peaceful conflict resolution within communities, among groups and individuals, and induces a large measure of self-regulation. This self-regulation becomes, in fact, the mainstay of good order in societies that exist under the Rule of Law. Coercion no longer requires the use of force to compel or enforce the great majority of social conflict resolution efforts. It relies instead on the very idea of police, that is to say, the expectation that enforcement will take place if called upon. As a result, the idea of police becomes the primary consideration at all times. The preservation of the idea of police – the expectation of enforcement – becomes the top priority for guiding police activity and thus for public policy decision-making and evaluation.
It becomes possible then to identify the intrinsic priorities that must ordain the preservation of the idea of police, on the one hand; and police use of force, on the other. The following table summarizes these priorities and serves as a basic reference for their relationship. In the interests of brevity, it only expands on the paramount priority of each category.
| Police Use of Force (the possibility of actual or potential
force usage in support of proper social behavior or conflict resolution) | The Idea of Police (the expectation of legal and legitimate
use of force in support of social behavior or conflict resolution) |
| Paramount Priority Sufficiency Above all, police use of force must be capable of producing an acceptable outcome to any one situation. This entails a number of desirable qualities – described below – that will vary, to some extent, from community to community. Nevertheless, this also clarifies the one thing that it cannot do: it cannot fail to produce results for want of effort, even if that effort entails the willing exposure to risk or the choice of accepting collateral effects. In itself, police use of force should always compel the acceptance of its solution, but with just sufficient force to do so. | Paramount Priority Decivisiveness Above all, the idea of police must provide the expectation of a decisive result for social conflict. This entails a number of desirable qualities – described below – that will vary, to some extent, from community to community. Nevertheless, this also clarifies the one thing that it cannot do: it cannot fail to provide for the expectations of the public. In itself, the idea of police should always prove true, delivering force in support of a legal and legitimate need, no matter how far fetched the expectations of the public. |
| Other Priorities v Opportunity v Propriety v Predictability v Self-restraint v Responsibility v Consequence | Other Priorities v Uphold Individual and Collective Guarantees v Expedient conciliation of what is legal and what is legitimate v Universal Reach v Impartial Application v Credibility v Availability |
iii. Conflict Resolution
If for nothing else, the conceptualization of the mutual relationship between police use of force and the idea of police is useful to the extent that it can deal with the categorization of the various dynamics that explain compliance to social expectations and peaceful conflict resolution in contemporary societies. The context of this dynamic is that of the complexity of urban environments, subject, as they are, to the democratic catalyzers of emerging rights (which makes laws and regulations inappropriate or obsolete over time) and of evolving expectations of the public for more and better police service. Its core is the partial superposition of the idea of police (conceptualized as the expectation of police presence) and the possibility of police action (conceptualized as legal and legitimate use of force).
This overlapping allows the recognition of three markedly different processes for the provision of good order, and reveals two arguably surprising results. The first of these is that the role of induced self-control, derived from the expectation of police presence – or, as the case may be, response – accounts for results that are concretely out of any direct action by the police force.
For completeness, sake, on the other hand, the compelling effect of the police, providing for order or repressing disorder/crime, derives but little of that expectation. It is the most sensible understanding of what is police action, and it is to be expected.
What results, however, from their mutual interference is the realization that both dissuasion and prevention are, in fact, two sides of the same coin. Dissuasion works by instilling the expectation of detection, apprehension and so of exposure to coercive social mechanisms – e.g., as in the dissuasion of crime. The credibility of this coercion can derive but in part from the activities of the police or from policy direction; the strength of the idea o police is fundamental for its existence. Similarly, prevention materializes the perspective of police action by suppressing opportunities for anti-social behavior, e.g., the deliberate suppression of criminogenic situations.
iv. Full Accountability:
Political, Tactical and Strategic dimensions
Full Accountability derives from an integral, systemic perspective. Its primary role is that of clarifying the different dimensions of police activity, establishing clear criteria that answer the question: who is accountable for what? It offers a comprehensive way to view, and thus to organize, the responsibilities for the peaceful resolution of conflict and for the legal and legitimate use of force. It addresses the issue of coercion under the Rule of Law at its broadest: the provision by the democratic State of good order or, perhaps more incisively, its role in sustaining public order[*].
Police action is but a means to an end: it follows that to consider the key issue of accountability in isolation risks losing the perspective of the whole, that is to say, the end that police activities seek to fulfill. At the same time, accountability for individual actions – or for groups of similar actions – risks the forfeiture of the connections that link those actions in two important ways. On the one hand, it risks losing the relation among actions – or types of actions. On the other hand, it also risks losing of the relations among those actions and the ends, the possibilities inherent in the means employed in the actions and the various methods that can use the latter to meet the former. Further, it is necessary to provide for the specific needs of accountability itself, that is to say that it is necessary to ensure that there are mechanisms and routines that support such measures as are considered appropriate for accounting for actions.
Accountability as such need not – indeed should not – be limited to a simple assessment of conformity. It should serve as part of a learning strategy that is of particular use and interest to the police, but that also has a critical role in the education of policy formulation and public debate. It should not shy from awarding merit or guilt, praise or condemnation as the case might be. Thus, Full Accountability is the measured, critical conciliation of what is legal, legitimate, appropriate, sufficient and measurable for the whole of the provision of public order and the most direct effort at upholding the Rule of Law.
It is necessary and sufficient to consider three analytical dimensions of accountability in order to address it in a comprehensive, systemic way. These correspond to the recognition of the distinctive nature of ends, means and method. Thus, it is possible to understand dimensions of political accountability that pertains to ends; of tactical accountability that pertains to means; and of strategic accountability that pertains to methods.
Political accountability corresponds to the control of disorder and crime to socially tolerable and politically acceptable levels. It is for this goal that a share of the voting goes to one candidate and not the other. Tactical accountability corresponds to the undertaking of action with appropriate and timely procedures, approaches and use of force. Strategic accountability corresponds to the use of tactical means to political ends, that is to say, to a choice of methods, the timing and form of employment of means over time for given ends. In broad terms, strategic accountability has to do with upholding the confidence of the public and supporting the idea of police through the use of acceptable tactical alternatives and choices under the Rule of Law and in pursuit of government policy.
It cannot be overemphasized that the above structure is but that of an analytical framework, that distinguishes no hierarchy among the three dimensions, any more than there are among the x, y, and z-axis of three-dimensional space. Since this point tends to be open to a serious mistake, it must be repeated: this framework does not establish any seniority, ascendancy or superiority of one dimension over the others.
A remark must clarify that there is a hierarchy in police affairs: it corresponds to that of police organizations. It goes from an elected executive to the line officer. The above framework explains how each of them, and all ranks and posts in-between, contribute to the provision of public order and the functioning of the police in all three dimensions simultaneously. Thus, it clarifies the particular emphasis that each post gives, because of organizational responsibilities, to each of the dimensions accountability.
However, it should be emphasized that any effort towards police accountability deals simultaneously with political, tactical and strategic dimensions, except for the most elementary instances of tactical accountability. This is indeed the cornerstone of its utility: the capability of distinguishing the essentially diverse criteria – political, tactical and strategic – that are present in all but the most elementary efforts of tactical accountability – e.g., the proper handling of a weapon in a confrontation.
This situation, although infrequent in terms of the mass of police activity, offers a profitable expanded example. Usually, an individual officer confronted with armed resistance will use his or her weapon to such an effect as to neutralize his opponent. Shooting can ordinarily take into account only such matters of tactical concern as the range, the visibility, cover etc. However, even in such an elementary act, it is possible to identify circumstances in which political and strategic considerations would come into play. For instance, what if the police is living through a period of severe public criticism at its use of firearms? It may well be that the police executive will adopt a use of firearms policy that requires a police officer to hold position without returning fire. This will take into account the special circumstance in which his or her life, or the life of another, can only be protected by its use. However, in general terms it might command enduring the fire until overwhelming force can be brought to bear and lead to a satsifactory resolution of the incident. For instance, what if the situation is not an isolated instance, but instead a large confrontation in which the officer is insecure as to the sufficiency of his ammunition? Then properly strategic considerations will suggest a more economical use of his or her firearm.
It is the responsibility of those in charge (in the example, the political head of the police or the individual officer) to make sure that proper rules of engagement, or policies of conduct, and actions are faithful to current situations. Similar examples could deal with matters that are more frequent: the handling of a drunk, the assistance of the victim of an accident, the control of a lost child, among others. It seemed appropriate, however, to choose an illustration that would imperil the officer’s life, and that yet would allow the full dimensionality of the matter to appear.
v. What you Want to Know and What is Measurable
The table below shares some of considerations on the accountability gap, so to say, between what you want to know and what is measurable.
| Dimensions | What you want to know | What is measurable |
| Political | § incidence and intensity of disorder § incidence and intensity of crime § feeling of security § satisfaction with Public Security policies | § statistics on disorder § criminal statistics (shadow figures) § worsening or relieving of public fear § opinion pools |
| Tactical | § opportunity of procedures, approaches and use of force § propriety of procedures, approaches and use of force § impact and consequence of procedures, approaches and use of force | § legality and illegality of police action § procedural compliance § approach-related compliance § use of force policy compliance § citizen and police victimization § public receptiveness and consent by the public |
| Strategic | § result of Public Security policies § quality of police action § effectiveness of police action § cost effectiveness of police action § measure of public confidence § reach and effect of the idea of police | § impact on statistics § return of programs and initiatives |
From the above, it becomes clear that one of the central challenges of current day resides in the development of measures, and patterns of measurement, of police strategic performance in order to support strategic accountability.
This in turn, clarifies the requirements of accountability itself in terms of accountability goals as well as accountability methods. Accountability under any definition and full accountability in particular is only possible if you can inspect what you expect. It depends on the identification of patterns of measurement and of forms of assessment that are able to account for the performance, it seeks to evaluate. This requires the development or adaptation of standards of measurement and measures, as well as the establishment of mechanisms that can provide both for the learning process of police activities and for availability proper.
vi. Full Accountability: materiality and management
The material and managerial aspects of accountability comprise a vast field, which must relate to social and organization contexts and deal with legal and administrative constraints to operational needs. The design of police organizations is hostage to the imperative of continuous operation. The creation of new police organizations is comparatively rare, and often follows conservative approaches that overestimate the value of experience over engineering. Most police organizations evolved into their current structure, rather than deliberately seeking a given structure that would suit their task at any one time.
The idiosyncrasies of police departments are legion, and play a role in the sense of corporate identity that exists in any large organization. Peculiarities often reflect experience and the particular context, or relations, of a given department with the community it serves. They can outlive their usefulness, becoming little more than distinctive identity patterns. However, the can also prove to be an important factor in explaining many of contemporary police problems: corruption, excesses and spcefici incapabilities often derive from the continuity of obsolescent or even self-defeating practices and structures. Furthermore, at some point the organizational possibilities of a department become the single most important issue in its quest for competence, budgeting and transparency.
The value of a systemic perspective on complex organizations is widely recognized. The continuous operation of complex organizations is a common enough requirement, and does not present an insurmountable obstacle to police organizational design. Three main interlinked components of the police system have a crucial role and deserve particular attention: command and control structures[†], human resources and organizational learning, the mechanics for procedural development and improvement.
vii. Full Accountability and the Use of Force
Full Accountability corresponds to the analytical result of the understanding of the Mandate for the Use of Force under the Rule of Law as the clearest and most useful expression of the Police Mandate. It is the persistence of this Mandate over time that modifies the central concern of police activity, shifting its primacy from the tangible tasks of conflict resolution, prevention and repression to the intangible service in support of the idea of police. To that extent, the credibility of the police gains in importance as it directly affects the most important and pervasive mechanism that sustains self-imposed restraint among citizens, and leads to peaceful resolution of their differences, producing public order.
Accountability is simultaneously a requirement of democratic governance and one of the most important tools for police improvement. The importance of use of force accountability, in all its dimensions, directly touches the core of the Police Mandate. It does not happen by itself, or as a direct result of the activity of the police. It requires and depends upon on systematic work and proper mechanisms, systemically attuned to the expectations of the public and the state-of-the-art of police technique. The perspective of Full Accountability contextualizes and facilitates Use of Force Accountability, integrating its mechanisms into a system and guiding their application within a conceptual framework.
JM.DPJ/dpj. Nov. 2003.
[*] If there is a point that would do well with inquiry is that of clarifying the de facto role of the New Police and the way it evolved since its inception in 1832. There is much to be learned about the way the New Police evolved. Briefly, it was able to expand its mandate from the strict provision of order in the public space through crime prevention to the three-tiered reality of high police, criminal police and local police.
[†] Command and Control structures should be understood as those information systems that integrate the organization, and as shorthand for “command, control, communications, intelligence and computing systems / surveillance, imaging and reconnaissance assets”.
Postagens
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário