Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative framework for the powers of police officers in England and Wales to combat crime, as well as providing codes of practice for the exercise of those powers. PACE sets out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the rights and freedoms of the public. Maintaining that balance is a central element of PACE. These powers have been given to the police to insure our safety however how much power the police really hold is limited by the PACE, the police must carry out their duty without breaching the rights of individuals. the question of whether or not these rights should be abolished is a debatable one.
The police stop and search power first came about in 1984 the aim of this act was to protect the rights of the public from the misconduct of police officers. some may argue that they are still not protected by this act.Scottish ministers are under renewed pressure to abolish controversial police stop-and-search powers, after United Nations human rights experts said they were potentially breaching international law.
The UN
Police forces or Law enforcers have been used for centuries all around the world but America took particular interest in the English’s policing system. America’s policing ideas and process began
This essay will introduce two competing perspectives of policing, they are the orthodox and revisionist perspectives. This essay will then relate the orthodox and revisionist perspectives to the themes of lack of structure, industrialisation and finally hostility. It will then discuss whether the creation of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 was an effective solution to the changes within society as well as the challenges brought about through crime and disorder. The orthodox view is that the Metropolitan Police were, in fact, a rational decision made to adapt to the needs of the society. They argue that the establishment of the ‘new’ police was inevitable. The revisionist view would state that the ‘new’ police were not a rational decision. They believed that crime and disorder were not increasing, it was just that the ways of counting crime were largely different to previously. The revisionists also believe that the new system was in part beneficial for which to tackle issues that may have occasioned due to the new ‘dangerous class’ (Monkkonen, 1981, p147). In this essay, there will be reference made to the Brixton Riots in 1981 with a clear explanation as to how the orthodox and revisionist perspectives relate to modern policing activities.
Sir Robert Peel’s London Metropolitan Police Act and his principles of policing have helped modern day policing in many ways. By gaining the public’s trust, enabling them to call local law enforcement when help is needed,
Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.
Starting In 1829, Sir Robert Peel began developing his theory of policing. These nine principles are as relevant today as they were in the 1800's. Peel established the Metropolitan Police when he served as Home Secretary of England. Since Sir Robert Peel introduced his principles of policing in the early 1800's, our country has continued to follow his ideas of effective policing. Community policing is based on Peel's concept of prevention.
Stop & Frisk- if the police officer has reasonable suspicion that a criminal act took place or is about take place he can search the suspect. If the police officer believes they are arm and dangerous. It is a bit less serious than probable cause. An example can be Johnny is walking down the street with a set of pliers in his
The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.
The Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (commonly abbreviated as LEPRA), is a piece of legislation which was introduced into the State of New South Wales in response to the Wood Royal Commission enquiry into NSW Police. The Commission identified that there was a strong reliance on the common law in relation to the powers of law enforcement officers, and recommended that there was enough desirability to have these powers (and as a consequence the rights of ordinary citizens) more clearly defined via statute to protect both parties interests . These recommendations were made in an effort to better achieve social justice, and to ensure that there was a sufficient balance between what the police can legally do, and what
The famous and controversial police practice known as the stop and frisk started on the last sixties. It was known national wide when the case Terry v. Ohio was presented this case was argued on December 12, 1967 it all started when Cleveland detective McFadden was on patrol on a foot post where he noticed the petitioner John W. Terry and another men known as Chilton were acting suspiciously on a street corner the detective noticed both men looking into a store multiple times with an interest to do something, then another men known as Katz showed up to the scene all three men joined and where walking around the store, that's when detective McFadden approached and identified himself as a police officer he started to ask them simple
The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a
Section 24 of PACE (1984) sets out the general powers of arrest which may be exercised by the Police as well as the public. However, S24 of PACE was substantially changed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA, 2005). Section 110 of SOCPA replaced most of the existing powers of arrest with a new general power of arrest. It also created Code G of PACE which sets out when an officer might arrest. This power of arrest is only exercisable if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary.
Stop and Frisk started in New York City in the early 1990’s as a combined response to the “Broken Windows” sociological theory and the ruling in the Terry v. Ohio case. The initial prompt for this policy came from the ruling in the 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The court decided that fourth amendment rights are not violated when the police stop, detain, and search a suspect on the street. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This theory alleges that by reducing petty crime you can also deter more major crime much in the same way as fixing broken windows (which are thought to invite potential thieves) will prevent future crime. Kelling’s theory combined with the Terry v. Ohio ruling eventually led to the implementation of full blown Stop and Frisk in the New York City area during the mayoral term of Rudi Giuliani. The idea behind stop and frisk initially was for police officers to patrol streets in order to stop those they suspected of carrying illegal goods and then frisk them to ascertain if they were indeed breaking any laws. This would serve duel purposes in that those found to be carrying illegal goods would be stopped while letting others in the area who may be participating in illegal activities know that there was an active police presence there, hopefully deterring
The year, 1984 saw the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, also known as the PACE codes. The PACE codes were an act of parliment, the introduction of these codes was to standardise and proffessionalise police work. It basically provides a core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing suspects. Official dissatisfaction with the rules of the criminal process goes back to the mid 1960's when the Home Office asked the Crimial Law Revision Committee to look into the rules of evidence in criminal cases. After their ill fated 11th Report the Home Office shelved the issue until 1977 when the labour government announced that it was to set
Describe the colonial period’s three legacies to contemporary policing. Then list and discuss two powerful trends in England and America that brought about changes in
Policing uses 3 main styles in the UK to oppose crime, the first being legalistic style, secondly the watchman style and lastly the service style. Each of these styles has a different way of enforcing the law. The legalistic style focuses more on the law enforcement; arresting and detaining suspects (Dempsey, J. Forst, L, 2011). This style is mainly used in larger cities due to high crime rates. However, this style mainly concentrates on the law breaking than any social problems that may arise such as anti-social behaviour.