Forthcoming edited collection - Risk

Hello readers,

Apologies for my absence, but I've been on a rainy holiday to the beautiful Ardnamurchan and then the Edinburgh Festival, followed by a wonderful trip to Barcelona.

I've got another book coming out very soon on 31 August. This is an edited collection of essays based on the theme of risk and called rather imaginatively Risk (CUP, 2011).

These essays stem from the Darwin College Lecture Series 2010, which were organised by myself and my two esteemed colleagues, Dr Michael Scott and Dr Tony Cox. This was a project I was involved whilst I was the Adrian Socio-Legal Research Fellow at Darwin College, Cambridge.

We all worked extremely hard to produce a fanastic lecture series. For the uninitiated, the Darwin College Lecture Series are public lectures throughout Lent term. Each year a different theme is chosen by the organisers and speakers from a range of disciplines who are renowned for their ability to communicate in an accessible way are invited to respond to this chosen theme.

Risk proved to be a theme that captured the moment, mired as we were in 2009/10 in the economic down-turn. We also had a great line-up of speakers. One of the lectures, given by Ben Goldacre, was one of the most popular in the 25 year history of the lecture series, rivalling only the lecture given by Desmond Tutu over a decade ago.

Anyway, I think the book makes for a great read. Here's a bit of blurb about it:

Recent events from the economic down-turn to climate change mean that there has never been a better time to be thinking about and trying to better understand the concept for risk. In this book, prominent and eminent speakers from fields as diverse as statistics to classics, neuroscience to criminology, politics to astronomy, as well as speakers embedded in the media and in government have put their ideas down on paper in a series of essays that broaden our understanding of the meaning of risk.

The essays in this book come from the 2010 Darwin College Lecture Series. In each year of this lecture series, distinguished scholars skilled at communicating in an accessible way are invited to respond to a specific theme. In 2010, the chosen theme was risk. After twenty-five years, this lecture series is one of the most popular public lecture series at the University of Cambridge. The risk lectures in 2010 were amongst the most popular yet and, in essay form, they make for a lively and engaging read for specialists and non-specialists alike.

Conference update

I promised an update about how my conferences went, so here it is! The British Society of Criminology Conference (BSC), Northumbria University, Newcastle was a really enjoyable event, not least because there were many interesting policing panels included in the conference programme, as well as the first meeting of the newly established BSC Policing Network. The conference began with Professor Robert Reiner being presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award with many deservedly kind words being said about him. One such comment was that he knows a good thing when he sees it, which filled me with trepidation about what he might say as one of the ‘critics’ of my book. I need not have worried …well, not too much! He and the two other ‘critics’ in my ‘author meets critics panel – Professor David Dixon and Dr Megan O’Neill - were thoughtful and considered, yet probing in their comments.

In sum, the book was described as making “a significant contribution to the field”, particularly in terms of its insightfulness in the comparisons drawn between police custody and prisons. It was also described as “theoretically sophisticated” and that the drawing together of theories about governance and legitimacy were beneficial. However, my ‘critics’ would have liked a more sociological than socio-legal account, with more time being also being devoted to explaining my research methods, as well as to researching the police investigation. The comments of the reviewers should hopefully appear in book reviews in the not to distant future, including in Criminology and Criminal Justice.

After the BSC, I dashed straight off to a stop and search workshop organised by Professor Ben Bowling (KCL) and Dr Leanne Weber (Monash University). This was a truly wonderful and intellectually stimulating event which reminded me of why I am an academic. Speakers from around the world – from Canada, the USA, Japan, The Netherlands, India, South Africa and Australia to name a few - were invited to speak about stop and search practices, linking these micro-level practices to macro-level global trends such as populist punitiveness and the criminalisation of immigrants. The organisers created a truly collegiate and collaborative atmosphere, which prompted a terrific amount of thought-provoking discussion. Look out for the papers from this workshop in a special issue of Policing and Society, which is due out in a few months time.

National Custody Officer Forum – Wymondham, 20 July 2011

Yesterday I gave a talk for the National Custody Officer Forum about findings from my book. Since my talk was shortly before a visit to the nearby Wymondham Police Investigation Centre which is a facility shared by Norfolk/Suffolk Constabularies and has been built through a public finance initiative (PFI), I focused on chapter six of my book on plural policing and police custody. This chapter examines the role of civilians in police custody, who are either employed by the police or by private security companies and work alongside police officers.

The use of PFIs is not unusual in police custody, though as yet I have not come across any research on how many there are up and down the country. A PFI is when the private sector work in partnership with the police to design, build and finance a police custody facility and the police pay to use it. Contracts between the police and the private sector are typically issued for 25-30 years. Sometimes the private sector also provide staff who work in the custody area, alongside custody officers (who are police sergeants). This was certainly the case in Sunnyside, the pseudonym I gave to the PFI site in my research. It contrasted with the second site in my research, Gormiston, which is a police-run custody area, involving custody officers and civilians employed by the police.

PFIs are controversial. Some are in favour, saying that they save money, in part because they open up the public sector to competition. For example, Michael Gove’s has recently supported a £2bn PFI programme for building new schools. Others are not. PFIs have been described as an “elegant piece of hire purchase”, which effectively keeps the cost of facilities ‘off the books’ (Johnston, Buttons and Williamson, 2008: 227). Moreover, there is an assumption that PFIs are cost-effective, but the evidence about whether they yield the anticipated savings remains unclear. Of course, there are also the moral objections about profit being prioritised over justice.

What is curious about these developments in relation to police custody is that they have received little public debate. For example, I just searched ‘Google News’ under the terms ‘PFI and police custody’ and ‘PFI and policing’ and this generated less than 5 ‘hits’. Yet if you search under the terms ‘prisons and privatization UK’ you generate about 18 ‘hits’. Anecdotally, when I talk to taxi-drivers, neighbours or other members of the public about what I do, nearly all are surprised to hear that police custody has been subject to this form of privatization.

Without giving away too much of what I say in my book or of what I said during my presentation yesterday, my research suggests a mixture of findings about the effects of civilianization and privatization on police, civilian police staff and suspects.

Finally, many thanks to the various people that invited me to talk and made me feel welcome yesterday. There was lots of interesting and lively discussion, which showed how fruitful conversations can be between academics and practitioners.

Conference season is nigh

I've got a couple of events coming up over the next few weeks. The first is on Friday 17 June. I am giving a research seminar for the Metropolitan Police Service about the findings from my study of police custody in England, based on my recently published book. The details of this talk are as follows:

The aim of this seminar it to provide feedback to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) from a recent study comparing two police custody suites, one of which is in the MPS Area. This study examined police custody from start to finish, considering who works there and what it is like for them and for the suspects who are detained there. A key focus of the study was the civilianization and privatization of police custody. Consequently, data were collected in the custody suite in the MPS, which was staffed by police officers and non-warranted civilians (designated detention officers), as well as in a custody suite in a different police service area, which had been refurbished and was managed and largely staffed by a private security company as part of a public-finance initiative. The seminar will provide a ‘flavour’ of the findings from the study, exploring conditions in police custody; staff and suspect experiences of working or being detained there; suspect access to their rights and entitlements; police and police staff roles and responsibilities and relationships with each other and with suspects; relationships between the police and other key criminal justice practitioners such as drug legal advisors, medical staff, appropriate adults and drug workers. To conclude, we will examine what can be learned from the study about improving police custody practices.

I have also organised an 'author meets critics' panel at the British Society of Criminology Conference 4-6 July at the University of Northumbria, Newcastle. The 'critics' are Professor David Dixon, University of New South Wales; Dr Megan O'Neill, University of Salford; and Professor Robert Reiner, London School of Economics. They will each offer their comments and critical reflections on my book, Police Custody: Governance, legitimacy and reform in the criminal justice process. 

'Inspecting' the inspectors

The last time I wrote I was about to give a paper at the British Society of Criminology Yorkshire and Humber inaugural event. This seemed to go well. One of the points I made in this conference presentation is that my research showed that decisions about suspects in police custody are made on a much more discretionary basis in the jurisdiction in the U.S., compared to the jurisdiction in Australia and in Ireland and England and Wales. One member of the audience pointed out to me, though, if such decisions are largely made on a discretionary basis, then this probably amounts to no due process at all for suspects.

Since then, I've finished the marking for my new module on policing in a global context. Since this module drew to a close, a few students have reported to me how much they enjoyed it, saying it was one of the most interesting ones that they have taken during their time in Sheffield. I hope this is true across the board. Thanks are definitely due to my colleague, Matthew Bacon, who led all the seminars for the module and who helped enhance students' experiences and understanding no end.

Recently, I also had a great opportunity to shadow a police custody inspection. This involved observing and talking to staff from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, as they went about their business of jointly inspecting police custody facilities in one police service. These inspection processes were not in place when I conducted my research on police custody in 2006/7 and for this reason it was extremely interesting to see how they were approached. Thanks are due to all those who made it possible for me to accompany these inspectors. The reports from all of the inspections conducted over the last three years are publicly available and provide a vital window into this aspect of policing.

Police interviews: information gathering or accusatorial?

Well, it's been a long time since I last posted, not least because I have been engrossed in teaching my new module 'Police and Policing in a Global Context', which is now drawing to a close. The last two lectures are next week.

Next week, I am also presenting a paper at the British Society of Criminology Yorkshire and Humberside branch inaugural meeting, which is being held at the University of Leeds on 11 May (see this link). The paper is about the different rights and entitlements available to police suspects on paper and in practice in four common-law jurisdictions: England and Ireland and jurisdictions in Australia and America. This paper has led me to think about why it is that different police practices become embedded and regarded as acceptable to the police, at least.

I shall give you an example. When it comes to conducting police interviews countries like England and Wales and Australia have begun to adopt an information-gathering approach to conducting police interviews which is known by its acronym, PEACE (which stands for preparation and planning, engage and explain, account, clarifcation and evaluation). Whilst Ireland and America have not, relying instead on an accusatorial approach. Here is an excerpt from one of my field notes from America, which exemplifies what an accusatorial approach means:

Later, I was introduced to one of the other white male detectives. He said to me, “So, what do you wanna know?” I hesitated. I said “what kind of practices do you use when you interview suspects”, he replied “what when we make them confess?” I said, “well, you can tell me about that if you like”. He also said that “sometimes we remove their clothes for evidentiary purposes, if you know what I mean, and leave them sitting there in their underwear. We also try to show them who’s boss because every time they want something they have to ask me. For example, if they want a drink of water they have to ask me or if they want to go to the bathroom they have to ask me.”

I then asked whether they varied their practices between suspects and how they knew which practices to use with which suspects. The detective said to me, “well, with you, for example, I would shout at you until you cried”, then, turning to his female colleague, he said, “with her I would feed her, as she’s a tough cookie and I would tried to persuade her by giving her food”.

I found this conversation extremely intimidating, although at the same time laughable because he was conforming to the stereotypical ‘bad cop’. I’m not sure if he was trying to show-off or intimidate me. Certainly, these detectives had engaged in some leg-pulling earlier, saying “oh, we hold a phone-book to their heads and then hit them”.

Later, I relayed this conversation to one of the young police officers in the custody area and he said that this team of detectives were known as ‘bad asses’

(AMEPO3).

I have whiled away many an hour in a police station as a researcher, nonetheless I found the attitudes of these 'bad ass' detectives difficult to comprehend, not least because of their short-sightedness. As it turns out there is a growing body of evidence that shows that such accusatorial interview methods are more likely to yield false confessions when compared with the information gathering approach (see the systematic review by Redlich et al. 2010).

As to the issue of why such practices had come to be regarded as acceptable in this particular jurisdiction in the US, I am struggling to find the answer. Brodeur (2010: 71) says that discretion is the hallmark of American policing, so this may contribute to a permissive environment in which such practices are allowed to flourish relatively unchecked. Moreover, historically-speaking, there has been a degree of acceptance that the police should be allowed to use some forms of 'persuasion'; the 'third degree' was soon replaced by psychological methods of persuasion and hence to this day some forms of deception are permitted in the police interview (Leo, 2008). However, I am sure there are more reasons. Answers on a postcard .....

Anyway, that's enough of my musings for now. I shall report back on how my conference paper goes down.

police custody as 'miniature prisons'

I've recently come across information about this forthcoming BBC documentary on police custody (see the link below). From the information on the BBC website, it seems that some of the insights contained in the programme may well be accurate. For instance, the idea that police custody is comparable with prison is something I explore in my book (Skinns, 2011: 200-202). In many respects, police custody does resemble prison in that, like prisoners, suspects experience a loss of control and limitations on their freedom. Police custody is also like prison in that they are both volatile and fraught places where staff-suspect relationships are paramount. The main exception to the idea that police custody is like prison can be found in the fact that police custody is not formally a place of punishment. Those in police custody are only suspects after all.

Another idea contained in the information in the programme also seemed to ring true. In this blurb, they say that police officers have to act with humanity yet with authority. My argument on this issue is that police officers found it more difficult to juggle this conflicting role compared to civilian detention officers. Being caring and compassionate has not been found to be a key feature of the occupational culture of rank and file police officers, whilst the use of authority has (see Skinns, 2011: 158).

However, the idea in the programme that custody officers are independent is simply not borne out by the evidence, which shows that custody officers tend to agree with their colleagues, for example, when it comes to authorizing a suspects' detention. Few custody officers reverse the decision of their colleague when a suspect arrives at the police station (Skinns, 2011: 4). This finding it not altogether surprising when one places it in the context of an understanding of the police occupational culture, a key aspect of which is solidarity.

Nonetheless, I remain open-minded about what other insights this programme might yield. Police custody as the key gateway to the criminal justice process deserves to be recognised as such by the wider public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12354714