Ben Bradford, Jonathan Jackson: Trust in the Police: What is to be Done?

There are some important caveats to the discussion above. While it is fairly clear that improvements in public trust are most likely to be garnered from policing styles that can be glossed as neighbourhood or community policing, visibility, presence, and rapid, effective, response to low level—or volume—crime, this does not automatically imply that this is where police should focus their resources. It would be dangerous, not to say absurd, to argue for a re-focussing of effort away from high harm, low visibility crimes like sexual violence or modern-day slavery because this would free up resources for activity more likely to boost trust. Public opinion, even in discussions of trust and legitimacy, cannot be the sole arbiter of success in policing, nor be the only criteria for resource allocation. The question is how to get the balance right. And of course, even in high harm scenarios, there is a need to address fundamental questions of procedural and substantive justice, which has too often not, alas, been the case.

It would seem then that there is a need for police and other interested parties to think more clearly and deeply about the harms to trust, legitimacy and a wide range of other outcomes that everyday police activity can perpetrate, particularly in relation to those minoritised and marginalised communities that often experience most policing.

This is not to argue that police should never behave in ways that might, in the short-run, damage trust, as for example, when rapid decisions need to be made without the time to explain them to all those affected. Such instances are fundamental to the nature of police work.

But it is to argue that at various levels of tactics, strategy and policy, the service remains too closely wedded to a range of behaviours that, while entirely legal and often situationally justifiable, damage the relationship between police and public that all concerned claim is central to their vision of policing.

Yet, because trust and police legitimacy are bound up with the wider set of processes that reproduce, or undermine, social order, it is not enough to think simply about what police can ‘do’ to rebuild trust.

The relationship between police and public is also shaped by the activities of other actors.

This is not to say that other institutions and agencies should be tasked with helping police in this matter, but rather that in order to repair something, one needs to understand how it works.

Or, to put it another way, if we are to address the questions of trust and legitimacy that currently face policing, it seems likely that these need to be considered within a wider understanding of the issues currently facing individuals and groups who are dealing with the attenuation of other services and challenges to their ability to live well, or at least bearably, in their neighbourhoods and communities.

Refocussing on the police, we close by noting that lower trust in police might actually be a good thing. The 1962 Royal Commission on Policing conducted a public survey that identified what by modern standards were extraordinarily high levels of trust among the public.

Yet, it is well evidenced that policing at the time was racist and misogynistic — even by contemporary standards—and remarkably corrupt, not to mention ineffective and barely subject to external oversight.

Trust enables the trustee to act as they see fit, and unwarranted or misplaced trust can dampen the trustor’s propensity to identify fault and misbehaviour. It is plausible to argue that right up to the present day, excessive public trust has allowed systemic racism, sexism, misogyny and homophobia—not to mention multiple scandals and failed investigations — to, if not exactly flourish, then at least continue without adequate checks and interventions.

It is naïve to assume bad actors won’t be attracted to police power, that policing can somehow be ‘done’ exactly right, and to rely too much on public trust and too little on mechanisms of transparency, accountability and robust governance.

Now that trust can no longer be taken for granted, but must be continuously re-earned, we need to think harder about how to do so, and about how to put robust mechanisms inside as well as around the service that, for example, open it up to further external oversight and enable genuine community input into its priorities, processes and practices.