TEDxSalford

“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot! I Can’t Breathe!” Why We STILL Need to Fight Against Racial Profiling

The recent shooting of unarmed black teenager Mike Brown by police offer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, USA, has slashed open the scars of the racial profiling debate. “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” have been the rally cries from the alarmed citizens of Ferguson. Moreover, crowds of protesters gathered in New York to protest the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man who was killed by after being locked in a chokehold by a white police officer. This time, demonstrators were chanting “I can’t breathe”. The horrific story seems so familiar, though – unarmed black person killed by white law enforcement figure – and it’s so familiar that one protestor bore the sign “I can’t believe I still have to protest this shit”. The examples are from United States, but the problem isn’t unique to America; it’s a global issue. However, on Tuesday 26th August, 43 police forces in England and Wales adopted a new code of conduct on the use of their power to ‘stop and search’ members of the public.

 

 

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling and institutional racism have long been a thorn in the side of the police service in England and Wales. It was the murder of Stephen Lawrence that actually brought these serious issues to the attention of the nation, and even to this day, Stephen’s name echoes throughout the police service, media, politics, courts and the public. Since his death in 1993, the police service have since sought forgiveness and tried to amend the error of its ways by putting procedures in place in eradicate institutional racism. However, despite the internal policies and legislations put in place, statistics continually prove that the heart of racism still beats within the force. Statistics are the main weapon in demonstrating the racial profiling of the police in terms of its decision of who they stop and search. As of 2010, the total use of stop and search has risen from 818,000 occasions five years ago to 1,142,763. The statistics from research over many years suggests that the police are selective in terms of the civilians they stop and search.  

Racial profiling refers to police interventions that depend on someone’s race, ethnicity or national origin, rather than their actual behaviour, or on verifiable information that leads the police to someone that’s been identified as engaging in criminal activity. However, the police service has often been criticised, not only by the national media, but also by academics, for this alleged behaviour.

Many argue that race cannot be a reasonable factor in which to judge a person, not just in terms of criminality but also in every aspect of a person’s life. The same can be said for a person’s ethnicity, religion and gender. All of which are very socially tender topics that most people don’t feel comfortable talking about, and the fact that the police service are making decisions influenced by these aspects of a person is very concerning. In terms of evolutionary psychology, it has become human nature to stereotype and label people; it makes it easier to understand people as a collective, but can overlook the individual characteristics that make people unique.  This is why society may find it alarming that the police force are making subjective stereotypical decisions rather than rational and objective ones.

Many would counter that argument, though, to say that police officers must make many discretionary decisions in the course of a working day. Statistically, it is impossible to make the correct decision every time, although you could debate what that actually is. But the police need to be able to make good decisions based on knowledge and evidence rather than a hunch or a belief that a certain minority partake in particular criminal activities. So does racial profiling actually achieve results or just alienate ethnic minorities and lower class communities?

“They feel if they don’t get justice, everything will just erupt. Do they want it? Absolutely not. But they fear that if people don’t get justice that it will.” – Cheppelle-Nadal (in The Guardian)

The murder of Stephen Lawrence raised awareness and placed a magnifying glass over the entire police force of the country. It was the police’s inefficiency to deal with this case seriously that led to the birth of the phrase institutional racism, which applies to all organisations, but it is the police service that will be subject to the sharpest scrutiny – for its failings have been mercilessly exposed and the consequences of discrimination in policing are particularly malicious. Although institutional racism may be a broad term complicated by other social forces, it is one that refers to corporate outputs rather than individual feelings. The murder of Lawrence has cast a shadow on a part of the history of the police service in which it has constantly tried to rectify, and the force, as well as other public services, are still coming to terms with its implications.

Stop and Search

 

Stop and Search has been described as the “litmus test” of equality in policing. Stop and Search orders are exercised under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows an officer who has ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ to stop and search a person or vehicle to look for stolen or prohibited items. In fact, power to stop and search individuals lies in a multitude of different pieces of government legislation.

The Metropolitan Police Service states that the police have the legal right to stop members of the public and search them for a variety of reasons and using a number of powers, including, Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, giving police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that: there is the possibility of serious violence; or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon; or that an incident involving serious violence has taken place and a dangerous instrument or offensive weapon used in the incident is being carried out in the locality. This law has to be authorised by a senior officer and is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights.

The Metropolitan Police continue by adding “The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime and anti-social behavior, and to prevent more serious crimes occurring”. Interestingly, the new changes highlight that officers will need higher authorisation than at present to deploy Section 60 powers, under which someone may be stopped without grounds for suspicion in a situation where serious violence is anticipated. This new rule sounds a lot like the old one, don’t you think?

Lastly, section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows an officer to stop and search persons and vehicles – at a time and place where an appropriate authorisation exists – to look for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism whether or not there are reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of such articles”. The Code of Practice says that:

“Where an officer has reasonable grounds for suspicion necessary to exercise the power of stop and search, he may detain the person concerned for the purpose of and with a view to searching him. There is no power to stop or detain a person against his will in order to find grounds for a search”.

It is argued profusely that the very existence of section 60 should be critically reviewed and, if it is found to be necessary, increased safeguards and strict criteria should be put in place, including judicial authorisation, before the power can be mobilised. These legislations are borne from a belief to do the right thing and protect the public – however, what is written and what is being practiced are two completely different things. The recent changes are being implemented after Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that 27% of stop and searches did not satisfy the requirement that there be “reasonable grounds for suspicion”, meaning more than 250,000 of the one million searches conducted last year could have been illegal.

 

---

 

The largest critique of stop and search emerges from its subjective legislation, predominantly, the term “good reason”. What are the concepts that define good reason? Does the colour of somebody’s skin define good reason? Or does the God people choose to worship provide a rational decision to stop and search somebody? According to the Codes of Practice, “A person’s colour itself can never be reasonable grounds for suspicion. The mere fact alone that a person is carrying a particular kind of property or is dressed in a certain way or has a certain hairstyle is likewise not in itself sufficient”. There is recent evidence to suggest that this piece of advice is not being adhered to.

Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System illustrate that black people are five times more likely to be stopped and searched more than white people. Young people, the unemployed, and socially excluded citizens of England and Wales already feel an uneasy suspicion of the police and their motives. The excessiveness of stop and search towards ethnic communities and various sub-cultures has led to the alienation and marginalisation of minority and ethnic communities. This has culminated with them losing faith and respect for the service that has been created to protect them, but has actually led them to feel stereotyped and victimised. What the police have failed to realise yet is that stereotypical focussing leads to low yields of information for the police because it alienates the very people it who possess information about crime. It could be argued that it’s these prejudicial decisions and actions by the police that drive a wedge between the trust of ethnic communities and the police.

Next year, police will start mapping where the practice is used so people can see if one area is targeted more than others, and the public will be entitled to know why this is the case.

Reasonable Suspicion

 

Another worrying phrase similar in terms of its ambiguous definition is “reasonable suspicion.” It’s a subjective term which often relies on discretion which can be viewed a multitude of ways. Civil Libertarians would say that reasonable suspicion is too imprecise, but might feel that sufficient grounds for stop and search could be seen as fair – one couldn’t be searched without a valid reason, which the officer would need to express before carrying out the operation. So effectively one could not be detained until the officer had found something in which to justify the search. It has often been viewed as a tool employed by the police of England and Wales to bastardise the stop and search legislation, and to manipulate its definitions, to utilise radical racist attitudes against members of the public.

The police generally feel that stop and search is an essential element to their work in the fight against crime. Conversely, civil libertarians ponder the real effectiveness of these powers given to the police, allowing a constable on the street to confront, question and basically interrogate a citizen before deciding if they would be detained, arrested or even prosecuted. This idea that anybody can randomly be stopped for no apparent reason can be viewed by some as an infringement of their civil liberties and freedoms.

To be stopped for no reason is wrong. However, it could be argued that if you have nothing to hide, what’s the big deal? Where’s the problem? Perhaps the way in which the procedure is carried out is what makes a person feel singled out or victimised? In the UK legal system, the main philosophy is that one is “innocent until proven guilty”, although it is often viewed by some that stop and search is deployed in the opposite way, making the searched party guilty until proven innocent.

 

Best Use of Stop and Search code

Record the outcome of stops in more detail to allow assessment of how forces interpret the rules

Record a broader range of outcomes, including penalty notices and cautions, to help understand how successful each stop and search is

Allow members of the public to apply to accompany officers on patrols

Make forces explain publicly how stops are used if they receive complaints over a set “trigger” level

Only use the “no suspicion” Section 60 power when it is “necessary” to prevent serious violence

Raise the level of authorisation required for Section 60 powers from police inspector to an officer above the rank of chief superintendent

Limit the initial use of Section 60 powers to 15 hours, from the existing 24 hours, and “communicate with communities” about the purpose and success of such use

Rights

 

Many believe that Stop and Search is an infringement of human rights. The Equality and Human Rights Commission believes the use of Section 60 is unlawful. This leads to another issue; which has most authority? Which has the highest priority to law? Human Rights are a universal declaration, is this more important? Or do domestic national laws and legislations have more importance and concern of the domestic police force? The major problem is that many articles of human rights are often violated by governments and legislation around the world. Some argue that violations are not always intentional but are the product of human, industrial, world trade, government debt, or transitions of democracy and social advancement.

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing, or under any limitation of sovereignty”.

Bearing in mind the statistics that argue that police do racially stereotype, it does give evidence that UK laws contradict certain human rights. This adds more fuel to the fire of confusion. The people who are subjected to Stop and Search feel that their basic human rights are being breached, but the police feel that there is nothing wrong with what they’re doing, and after all, it’s their job. Who is right? It’s hard to tell. The pendulum of moral ambiguity swings both ways with much velocity, giving credence to both sides.

In the interest of balance, it is important to try to see these issues from a police perspective. There is an overwhelming amount of pressure resting on the shoulders of the force. Met Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, insists “the definition of a successful Stop and Search is one that results in an arrest. Arrest rates from all stop and searches carried out to increase from the current rate of 6% to 20%”. That definition is flawed. There is already enough pressure on the police to get serious results, but is that pressure too much? Is that what’s leading police officers to make lazy, stereotypical decisions on stop and checks? Arrest rates?

It’s these arbitrary rules that add pressure to the job which many feel could be the reason for targeting ethnic minorities, causing those particular communities to be over-populated in these statistics. It could be argued that the stress caused to meet targets means that interpreting a piece of legislation and bending it to meet their needs is the problem. Complaints against police should also be removed as an indicator of performance. This would allow for a more transparent and honest reporting system.  It seems as if the government put these figures in place, and if no criminal activity is taking place, the police are having to resort to finding uninformed ways to not only increase the number of offences, but also finding ways to criminalise individuals. During the Lawrence Inquiry, one senior detective appeared not to recognise a basic tenet of criminal law relating to reasonable grounds for suspicion. This demonstrated that the legislation is not as easy as it looks and can appear to be rather complex. Moreover, it could be argued that a lack of training and practical understanding could be part of the answer to the high volume of civil actions being made annually by displeased accusers.

 

 

Conclusion

Stop and search has the potential to be a very effective tool for the police in order to combat crime. It has taken a very long time for the police to realise that to be more effective they need to work with the public in all socio-economic communities, to establish a high level of trust and common ground. What the police will receive from this will be invaluable to their knowledge of street, drugs, gun and gang related crimes throughout England and Wales. Craig Mackay has made the first positive step towards the police making more rational decisions in relation to stop and search. He wrote

“permission has now been granted for a judicial review of the power, based on its incompatibility with the Human Rights Act. The case that has led to this action is based in London and I am working with colleagues from the MPS to ensure that the challenge is appropriately addressed. However, it is clear that the Review will examine the use of the power nationally. At this time, however, the legislation is still in force and is still available for use in line with the guidance previously issued”.

Of course nothing is set in stone and no promises have been made. But the police are beginning to acknowledge that their way of policing is not as effective as it could be. The Metropolitan Police website states “You should not be stopped just because of your age, race, ethnic background, nationality, faith, the language you speak or because you have committed a crime in the past”. If the police simply adhere to the rule they have created, then maybe ethnic minorities will not be over-represented statistically and won’t give the impression of racial prejudicing by the police of the proud multicultural societies that help make up England, Wales and the rest of the world.