Stakeholder Perspectives on Police Complaints and Discipline: Towards a Civilian Control Model
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
| Published date | 01 April 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1375/acri.37.1.85 |
| Author | Tim Prenzler |
85
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME 37 NUMBER 1 2004 PP.85–113
Address for correspondence: Tim Prenzler, Criminology, Griffith University, Brisbane QLD
4111, Australia. Email: t.prenzler@griffith.edu.au
Stakeholder Perspectives on Police
Complaints and Discipline:
Towards a Civilian Control Model
Tim Prenzler
Griffith University,Australia
This paper examines the case for independent investigation and
adjudication of complaints against police, and the implications for
restructuring of public sector institutions concerned with integrity.The
need for external review of police in-house investigations is well
established. However, there is now an accelerating trend for civilian
agencies to go beyond review to engage directly in investigations and to
have much greater input into disciplinary decisions.This paper reports on
the experiences and principles behind this trend, focusing on the points
of view of specific actors and stakeholders.These include commissions of
inquiry, oversight agencies, complainants, police, the public, civil liberties
groups, government review bodies and miscellaneous bodies. The
perspectives of each of the groups were analysed to develop a distinctive
“civilian control model” for maximising stakeholder confidence in police
integrity.The model entails police management responsibility for primary
misconduct prevention and informal resolution of complaints, with
external agencies having control over the investigation and adjudication
of complaints.The paper also argues for efficiency gains from integrating
police oversight within a larger public sector integrity commission,
especially in countries with large numbers of small police departments.
Civilian Oversight of Police
The last three decades in policing have been characterised by a marked evolution
of accountability away from police control of disciplinary processes towards greater
input from civilian oversight agencies (Goldsmith, 1991a; Walker, 2001). Typically,
oversight agencies have names such as Civilian Review Board, Police Complaints
Authority or Ombudsman. They are normally located in offices apart from police
establishments and are usually managed by personnel who have never been police
— with lawyers, especially public prosecutors, prominent in the staff profile. The
powers and functions of these agencies can vary significantly, but two main types
are apparent. In a minimal “review” model, staff respond to appeals from dissatisfied
complainants, audit selected files, and recommend changes to police procedures or
disciplinary decisions. This has been the main form adopted in the formative
stages, and it has been roundly criticised as too weak (USCCR, 1981). More
advanced agencies obtained powers to conduct their own investigations or super-
vise police investigations in more serious cases (Goldsmith, 1991b). Evolution in
this direction has not been unilinear, with police union and political opposition at
times succeeding in cutting back the powers of agencies or even closing them
down. Nonetheless, the global trend is clearly in the direction of more civilian
review agencies and more powerful agencies, although limited review remains the
norm (Walker, 2001; for profiles of agencies in North America see www.nacole.org
and http://cacole.ca/).
Civilian review was initially developed as a counter to the charge that police
internal investigations were compromised by the natural tendency to close ranks
and cover-up misconduct. The creation of internal affairs departments with specially
selected staff did little to mitigate this. Inquiries have repeatedly condemned
internal affairs as being incompetent, ineffective or complicit in corruption (Lewis,
1999). This failure covered the spectrum of potential deviance in policing, from core
corruption in the form of graft and fabrication of evidence; through excessive force,
brutality and harassment; to customer service issues of tardy response and incivility.
Information about possible misconduct comes from a variety of sources, but the
major quantitative source is complaints. Complaints from the public tend to be
voluminous, and accountability systems need to plan to manage large numbers
(Goldsmith, 1991b). Some complaints are vexatious or trivial or based on misunder-
standings. Many contain little of substance in terms of legally admissible evidence,
primarily because of the absence of independent witnesses. Nonetheless, complaints
need to be taken seriously in any formal system of police accountability. Their
significance receives added weight from the fact many people who have a grievance
against police will not complain — as many as two-thirds or more in some studies
(Adams, 1995, p. 79) — and complainants can face considerable obstacles in simply
lodging a complaint or having it investigated without being subject to harassment
and intimidation (Landau, 1996; Russell, 1976).
The importance of effective police accountability can hardly be overstated. It is a
cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. Following a review of excessive force
cases, the 1998 report by Human Rights Watch, Shielded from Justice, described
police brutality as “one of the most serious, enduring, and divisive human rights
violations in the United States” (1998, p. 1). The 1991 riots in Los Angeles, which
followed the failed prosecution of police in the Rodney King beating, were described
as “arguably the most devastating civil disturbance in the history of the United
States”, with 54 people killed, over 2000 injured and over 800 buildings damaged
(Parks & Smith, 1999, p. 1). The Ramparts Scandal in Los Angeles led to millions
of dollars in lawsuits against the City and undermined the validity of hundreds of
criminal convictions (RIRP, 2000). In New York City — another hot spot for police
conduct issues — despite significant reform, a recent survey found that 67% of the
population believed police brutality was a problem, and 62% felt police failed to
respond appropriately to rape or sexual assault allegations (McGuire Research
Services, 2000, p. 2). These sentiments were stronger amongst minority groups.
86
TIM PRENZLER
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
To continue reading
Request your trial