[English] Interview: Prof. Ben Bradford – University College London

We’ve talked about “Police Legitimacy” and police force’s universe with Mr. Prof. Ben Bradford from University College London. Prior to sharing our fruitful dialog, let me briefly introduce him… Who is Prof. Ben Bradford?

Ben Bradford is Professor of Global City Policing at the Department of Security and Crime Science, where he is Director of the Centre for Global City Policing. Ben’s research interests include public trust, police legitimacy, cooperation and compliance in justice settings, and social identity as a factor in all these processes. He has also published on organisational justice within police agencies, ethnic and other disparities in policing, and elements of public-facing police work such as neighbourhood patrol, community engagement and stop and search. Ben has collaborated with organisations including the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the College of Policing, Police Scotland, and West Midlands Police on a wide variety of projects. His book, Stop and Search and Police Legitimacy, was published by Routledge in 2017. He is also co-author, with Kevin Morrell, of Policing and Public Management (Routledge 2018), co-editor, with Beatrice Jauregui, Ian Loader and Jonny Steinberg, of the SAGE Handbook of Global Policing (2016), and co-editor, with Clifford Stott, Matt Rayburn and Leanne Saviour-Shaw, of Making an Impact on Policing and Crime: Psychological Research, Policy, and Practice (2020).

—
Att. Semih Temizer: Can we assume that the police force is sufficiently trained in criminal procedure and rules of procedure? Assuming that there is ignorance in this respect, does this seriously undermine the proceedings?

Prof. Ben Bradford: We can’t assume this, no, and of course in many jurisdictions this is not the case. In which case it presumably does undermine criminal proceedings that rely on police evidence. However, this is primarily an issue of training and resources, rather than something to do with the inherent nature of policing.

Att. Semih Temizer: Due to the close relationship of the police organization with the executive power, can it be argued that police organizations all over the world are “inherently” under the influence of politics? In many countries, in order to become a police officer, you need to show references (or get support) from politicians.

Prof. Ben Bradford: Policing is inherently under the influence of politics, and in democratic societies this is, broadly, a good thing. The idea that police can exist outside of politics and political debate is a chimera. It is simply not possible. Nor is it desirable, give the right forms of political system and culture, since we want the police to be democratically accountable. The trick is to get the balance right, and to avoid undue political interference (which is what requiring applicants gain support from politicians seems to be). In the UK we talk about operational independence within structures of democratic governance – so police leaders decide how to respond to specific events and crimes, and manage internal organisational issues and the like, but elected politicians set the budgets (obviously), and set the strategy and high level priorities. It’s very far from a perfect system, but it captures something of the kind of balancing act that’s required.

Att. Semih Temizer: Police organizations often claim that their powers are insufficient and that legislation prevents them from doing their job. Is there any truth to this claim? What should be the limits of police powers?

Prof. Ben Bradford: They might be some truth in some times and places, but my general view is that police in most developed democracies, as well as other contexts, already have the powers they need and, aside from what’s required to deal with genuinely new crime and security threats, rarely truly need more. By which I mean they rarely truly need new weapons, surveillance powers, etc, because they have enough already. As an aside, in the UK it has often been the case in recent years that governments have given police powers they didn’t particularly need or ask for. Giving extra powers to the police looks like ‘doing something’ about crime. Usually, as has been the case in the UK, it is budget constraints and wider social problems that prevent police from doing the sorts of things they might like to, not the absence of particular powers or capabilities.

The question of the limits of police powers is very tricky as it’s all so context dependent. To take step back, I’m limit police activity (not powers) broadly to (a) emergency and other responses to crime, harm and accidents, (b) investigating crimes that have already taken place, and (c) guardianship roles. If police concentrated primarily on these three things, then fears of over-powerful policing would become less salient. They wouldn’t disappear, though, since we’d still need some sort of response to ‘bigger’ issues like terrorism, organized and transnational crime, which would probably mean police, and would probably involve use of e.g. surveillance powers that make some people very uncomfortable.

Att. Semih Temizer: Is a universalizable solution possible in 2024, with advanced technology, to prevent bribery and corruption allegations about the police force?

Prof. Ben Bradford: No. Not least because bribery and corruption are societal issues, not limited to police, and police will continue to behave in ways aligned with wider social norms and practices (i.e. if you have widespread corruption in a particular social context, you will see it in the police there).

Att. Semih Temizer: Is privatization of police departments conceivable?

Prof. Ben Bradford: This already exists, of course. In countries like Brazil and South Africa much policing is done by private actors. In the US, you could make the case that many Sheriff’s departments are essentially privatised, since they serve only one community and are subservient to it – more widely, private contractors are deeply embedded in the internal and particularly the external security apparatus.

Att. Semih Temizer: While the police should also assist lawyers during criminal proceedings, is it detrimental to the proceedings for police organizations to be under the influence of the prosecutor’s office?

Prof. Ben Bradford: Again, depends on the system in place, how cases are investigated and trials managed, etc. For example, the French system is very different to the UK system, but it’s hard to say which is the better (or worse).

Att. Semih Temizer: Finally, what is your ideal definition, position and role of the police force?

Prof. Ben Bradford: We did some focus group work recently which looked at how people thought about local policing, and this is the ‘definition’ the focus groups drew up:

Local policing should consistently ensure the safety of the local community while ensuring fair treatment by:

• Being available at any time
• Being visible (including in-person or via phone)
• Having good communication
• Contactable at a local level
• Being respectful and empathetic
• Building and establishing themselves as trustworthy.

They should uphold the law and respond to incidents in a proportionate and appropriate manner depending on the circumstances at hand.  They should investigate and solve crimes, while providing adequate follow-up, crime prevention, and meaningful engagement to all people in the community.

Local police should be present, know their diverse community, and understand the community context and values, including fostering ongoing communication and collaboration with all areas of the community.

Att. Semih Temizer: Thank you for all dear professor…