💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gregor-kerr-crime-punishment-community-policing.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:33:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Crime, punishment & community policing
Author: Gregor Kerr
Date: 2002
Language: en
Topics: crime, punishment, community, police, Red & Black Revolution
Source: Retrieved on 8th August 2021 from http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr6/crime.html
Notes: This page is from Red & Black Revolution (no 6, Winter 2002)

Gregor Kerr

Crime, punishment & community policing

”.....the man who is called ‘criminal’ is simply unfortunate;....the

remedy is not to flog him, to chain him up, or to kill him on the

scaffold or in prison, but to help him by the most brotherly care, by

treatment based on equality........” [1]

The issue of crime and anti-social behaviour and society’s responses to

it is possibly one of the most pressing issues facing many people —

especially those in working class communities. While it is true to say

that the mainstream media and some politicians often — for reasons of

sensationalism and for their own political ends — over-hype the “crime

problem”, it is also a fact that in many of the poorer and more deprived

housing estates in urban areas North and South many people do live in

something near a state of siege[2] . Housebreaking, vandalism,

joyriding, alcohol and drug abuse and even physical attacks (including

muggings, rape and stabbings) are far too often a regular feature of

life in many areas.

In this context, the implementation of the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ in

the 6-Counties has seen the issue of policing become one of the most

contentious areas of disagreement between the political parties. Long

hours of negotiation have taken place in an attempt to establish a

police force which will be ‘acceptable to both communities’. While there

is no doubt whatsoever that the RUC is a totally discredited (something

which will hardly be changed by changing its name!) and sectarian police

force and while the issues of the continued use of plastic bullets and

the failure to face up to past human rights abuses are important, surely

the debate about its replacement should have involved more than what

symbols would be worn on the caps of the new police force and what flags

would fly over their barracks.

The real issues have, in effect, been ignored by the mainstream players

— by the politicians and commentators who have been setting the agenda.

Interestingly, some of those on the fringes of the debate have actually

put forward a somewhat deeper analysis. Speaking in a personal capacity

at the ‘Voice of the Lark’ discussion forum in Conway Mill, Belfast on

April 3^(rd) 2001, Billy Mitchell of the Progressive Unionist Party

(political wing of the Ulster Volunteer Force) stated:

“A new and effective policing service will only be achieved through a

new and effective philosophy on policing....that rejects the traditional

model of ‘justice’ that is rooted and grounded in retribution.... An

effective philosophy on policing must include an effective philosophy on

justice....So long as justice is regarded as ‘just desserts’ rather than

‘just relationships’ no amount of tinkering with the police service will

serve the interests of justice....”[3]

Punishment beatings

Unfortunately, considered opinions such as these are few and far between

in the context of the Northern debate on policing. And what has been

happening on the ground in working class communities is not alone

worrying but frightening. In the name of ‘community policing’ — and

under the cover of there not being a police force ‘acceptable to both

communities’ — the number of punishment beatings and shootings has

continued to increase. Figures quoted by the “Irish Times” earlier this

year claimed a 40% increase in punishment shootings and a 30% increase

in beatings in the North over the first five months of the year.[4]

What this means in reality is that from January 1^(st) to May 20^(th)

2001, 144 people — an average of approximately one person per day — were

either beaten or shot for ‘anti-social behaviour’. Even more

frighteningly, more recent figures show that a growing number of those

so targetted — by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries — are

teenagers. A report prepared by Professor Liam Kennedy of Queen’s

University Belfast and published in August 2001[5] claims that between

1990 and 2000, 372 teenagers were beaten and 207 shot by paramilitaries

in so-called punishment attacks. The youngest victim of a punishment

shooting was 13 years old while three other children under 14 were

assaulted.

So while Billy Mitchell’s comments on policing as quoted above are

welcome, it is unfortunate that those to whom he is close politically

don’t appear to be listening. Instead of developing an ‘effective

philosophy on justice’, his political comrades are setting themselves up

as judge, jury and executioner and doling out their own brand of

‘justice’ to members of their communities who they deem to be guilty of

anti-social behaviour.

Likewise we have to listen to the pathetic justifications of politicians

such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. While both of them have in

recent months said that punishment attacks ‘don’t work’ and are ‘counter

productive’, Adams has been quoted as describing them as

“the community responding in exasperation to the fact that there are

elements who disregard any sort of acceptable norm and who simply prey

upon other members of the community”[6]

Furthermore Adams has expressed his worry that his party would lose

votes if they weren’t seen to be doing enough to combat anti-social

behaviour. Yet we don’t see or hear from him or his colleagues any

considered analysis of the causes or reasons for anti-social behaviour,

but instead see a tacit — and indeed direct — acceptance of the

authoritarian behaviour of the paramilitaries.

A deafening silence

The silence of the Irish left in general on this issue is deafening. If

the RUC or the Gardai were systematically beating up working class kids,

there would be an outcry from the left and from liberal and civil

rights’ groups. If the government — either North or South — were to

introduce legislation allowing for kneecapping or the breaking of elbows

as the sanction for stealing a car, they would rightly be condemned and

opposed every step of the way. Why then do so many stand by and refuse

to condemn loudly and vociferously people who call themselves socialists

and yet have effectively introduced such laws in what they see as

‘their’ communities? And let there be no doubt about it, part of the

agenda at play here — maybe even the greater part — is the marking out

of territory as belonging to either the orange or green bullyboys.

To call such behaviour ‘community policing’ is a complete misnomer.

‘Community policing’ implies — in fact demands — that there be fair,

open and democratic procedures which would involve the community putting

in place a system of fair public trials where evidence would be given

and the defendant/accused person would be given the chance to defend

him/herself. A most important element of this would be that suspects

would be tried by properly elected representatives of the community —

not by self-appointed ‘representatives’. A system of ‘community

policing’ would also surely involve the putting in place of procedures

which would aim more at ensuring that someone guilty of anti-social

behaviour would make reparations of some sort to the community or to the

victim of his/her crime. Surely punishment is less important than

rehabilitation and compensation?

Obviously a system of community policing would involve something a

little more developed than this, but the above paragraph gives an

outline which shows just how far we currently are from such an ideal .

The question which then arises is whether or not it is possible to put

in place a proper fair and democratic system of community policing

without fundamentally altering the class nature of society. Indeed,

before this question can even be properly answered, it leads us to ask

what is crime and what are the true causes of crime?

Social deprivation

The Governor of Mountjoy Prison in Dublin, John Lonergan, has pointed

out on more than one occasion that the people sentenced to his prison

come overwhelmingly from a few areas of social deprivation. Most

recently, speaking at the Patrick McGill Summer School in Co. Donegal on

the theme of Drugs and Alcohol in Irish society, Mr. Lonergan quoted the

results of research carried out in Mountjoy which found that 75 percent

of Dublin prisoners came from six clearly identifiable areas, or — as he

described them — “pockets of disadvantage....infested with heroin”. The

percentage of prisoners who had a heroin addiction history, he pointed

out, had grown from 31 percent in 1986 to 67 percent in 1996. He went on

in the same speech to point out that heroin addiction is a “social class

addiction” and that as a society we continue to develop communities

where only “certain classes of people are housed” and where the message

given to these people by the broader society is that they are

“inferior”.

To people who look at political issues on a class basis, what Lonergan

is saying is not radical or new. What is quite extraordinary in terms of

Irish society is that it is the governor of a prison — and not the trade

union movement or even the social democrats or the liberals — who is

making this analysis. It is yet another legacy of the so-called ‘social

partnership’ between the trade union movement, government, employers and

most of the ‘voluntary sector’ — the usual expected ‘voices of dissent’

have been silenced, bought off by the pretence of ‘partnership’.

It is a reflection of the Irish ‘Celtic Tiger’ and the supposed economic

good times that the number of women in prison in the 26-County State

rose to its highest in recent decades in April 2001. Again the only

voice to be heard questioning what was happening was that of John

Lonergan:

“At a time when people would be talking about a whole lot of advantages

and improvements in society, this is an indication of something — that

in 2001 we have a phenomenally high number of women in prison....[the

increase in numbers is]....connected into feelings of isolation and

loneliness and being totally disconnected to mainstream society....”[7]

Again this might not be extremely new or radical thinking, but at least

Lonergan’s analysis attempts to look at the causes of crime rather than

taking the simplistic attitude of beating up offenders. It says

something that a prison governor can be described as more liberal than

people who claim to be socialists! What he is doing is looking beyond

the act of stealing a car or breaking into a house and asking a simple

question — why? This has got to be the starting point for anyone who

wants to develop a realistic and humane response to crime and

anti-social behaviour — Why do some people feel so disconnected from

society that their response is to engage in behaviour which is damaging

both to themselves and to their neighbours? Or to return to the question

as posed earlier in the article — what are the causes of crime and

anti-social behaviour?

Definitions

The answer must be that the true cause of a lot of the crime in our

current society is actually poverty. This of course leads also to the

question of what is crime because it is interesting to note just what

capitalist society defines as crime and — perhaps more importantly —

just what is not defined as crime. For example, in August 2000, a march

of 1,000 building workers took place in Dublin protesting about recent

building site fatalities. Since the beginning of that year, 13 people

had died in the 26-Counties as a result of construction industry

accidents. But the deaths of building workers do not appear to be taken

seriously and fines levied on building contractors for breaches of

safety regulations amount to little more than pocket money. Addressing

the protestors, Eric Fleming, SIPTU [8] branch secretary said that

two-thirds of builders found guilty of serious breaches of the safety

regulations “walk away from court with fines of £500 and

£1,000........If there were as many gardai being killed each year, or

teachers or nurses, the Government would build a special prison for the

killers.”[9]

If someone pulls a knife on someone else in a drunken row it is

(rightly) called murder. If someone kills someone else as a result of

forcing them to work in unsafe conditions it isn’t!

This is just one of the many contradictions thrown up in the way society

defines crime. Over the past few years the Irish political system has

seen a rash of ‘tribunal-itis’. Investigations have been carried out

into fraud and corruption in the planning and political process.

Evidence has emerged of large scale fraud in the planning process, in

political funding, in the awarding of radio licences. Huge amounts of

tax evasion by the wealthy and big business (stealing from the rest of

us!!) have been exposed. Yet no one has spent a day in jail as a result

of these findings[10] . On the other hand Cork Corporation has jailed 6

members of the Householders Against Service Charges Campaign for

campaigning against double tax bin charges.[11]

These are just two examples of the contradictions in definition of what

constitutes criminal behaviour. In the 1890s, the French sociologist,

Emile Durkheim wrote “What confers a criminal character on an act is not

the nature of the act but the definition given it by society. We do not

reprove certain behaviour because it is criminal; it is criminal because

we reprove it.” In other words, what society deems a crime is a crime.

Anarchist analyses

Historically, many anarchists have put forward analyses of crime and

punishment, and have looked to suggest remedies both for the current

circumstances and for a future anarchist society.

“The constant refrain of the anarchist song is that the system of

government and law in modern States is often the cause of, rather than

the remedy for, disorder. Most laws in Western democracies protect

private property and economic inequality rather than civil rights. An

authoritarian society with a repressive morality encourages the

psychological disorders which lead to rape, murder and assault. And

punishment by its very nature tends to alienate and embitter rather than

reform or deter.”[12]

Over one hundred years ago, the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin

suggested that crime can be divided into three categories :- property

related crime, government related crime and crimes against the person.

In putting forward this analysis he was arguing that if you remove

property and government — in other words if you base society on freedom,

socialism and democracy — you remove two of the biggest causes of crime.

It could also be argued that a large number of crimes against the person

(people injured in muggings, for example) have their root in crimes

against property.

This article does not intend to look in any more detail at the nature of

criminality. There is much which could be written about the daylight

robbery, for example, inherent in the very running of the system — the

legal robbery which takes place when large amounts of wealth are

diverted from much needed spending on health, education etc. to give tax

breaks to big business, the fact that a workers’ wages represent only a

fraction of the value of his/her labour — with the remainder siphoned

off by the boss. This area would demand an article in and of itself.

Instead what I want to look at here is whether or not it is possible to

have any real form of community policing under capitalism and what if

any forms of policing would be needed in an anarchist society.

Is it possible?

Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI) is an organisation which

has done extensive work in the area of community response to anti-social

behaviour, and has projects based in Belfast, Derry and Armagh.

According to their website[13]

“The ultimate goal of restorative justice is not to punish people but to

reduce the incidence of socially harmful activity, to promote

victim-offender reconciliation and to help create safer communities.”

The work and research done by CRJI is very interesting in the context of

looking at the possibilities for alternative systems of community

policing. In an article in the Summer 2001 issue of “Spark” (a magazine

produced by Ogra Sinn Fein[14] ), Paddy Molloy of CRJI outlined the

method by which it operates

“We believe that when a crime is committed, there is a breach of a three

cornered relationship, between the offender, the victim and the

community. Our aim is not to punish people but to heal the breach and

ensure that no further harm occurs.”

To achieve this outcome, CRJI has put in place a clearly defined

process. When a case is referred to them (either by a victim or by

someone else), full details are recorded by a caseworker. The case is

then assigned to two workers who liaise with all concerned in an attempt

to establish the facts, as far as possible. This part of the process

helps to identify the needs of all involved and to come up with

proposals as to the type of support that may be necessary, what type of

mediation is possible etc. The process would then go on — depending on

the circumstances of the individual case — to indirect mediation, formal

mediation or victim-offender conferencing.

CRJI’s mission statement “Through a process of empowerment to build a

restorative community that is tolerant, responsive and inclusive”

certainly does point to a possible way forward. The central question

remains however as to how effective such a system can be while society

continues to be organised in a hierarchical manner. To what extent does

this remain a laudable objective, or does it have any real basis? Is the

real local democracy that is necessary for such a system to operate

properly possible under capitalism?

The answer has to be that it is not. It is only if it operates as a

constituent part of the state’s ‘justice’ system that it will be

tolerated. The facts of the matter are that the state cannot and will

not allow any parallel system of justice to operate, no state will

tolerate its monopoly on power being challenged by its citizens.

State power

In the 1980s many working class Dublin communities were ravaged by the

effects of heroin abuse and the consequent anti-social crime, with

addicts needing hundreds of pounds a week to feed their habits and

wreaking havoc on their neighbourhoods — the poorest and most deprived

areas of the city. In response to what was a desperate situation,

communities began to fight back through Concerned Parents Against Drugs

(CPAD).

The CPAD movement initially met with huge success and very soon had

active groups throughout the city. The movement that emerged was also

initially open and democratic. Public meetings in the community — open

to everyone — would be held at which suspected dealers were named. Those

accused of dealing would be given the opportunity to defend themselves.

If found guilty, dealers would be ordered to cease their activities or

leave the area. Those who refused to comply were forcibly evicted

through community marches on their homes.

CPAD however before long came under pressure from two sources. Firstly,

the state (the cops) moved in to dismantle what they saw as a threat to

their power base. The sight of communities organising and bypassing the

official structures frightened the life out of the powers that be, so

they moved to crush the developing movement. Secondly, the temptation to

allow the ‘hard men’ to sort out those who wouldn’t co-operate became

too great, and the movement tended to descend into vigilantism.

Ultimately, however, the principal reason why CPAD — and other similar

anti-drug movements in the 1990s — failed was because of its political

limitations. While focussing on driving anti-social elements out of the

community, the bigger picture was missed — ie looking at the causes of

drug abuse. While focussing on marches on the homes of small-time

pushers living within the communities, the big drug barons were left

untouched. Also the focus on forcing the state — health board and other

agencies — to put facilities and treatment for addicts in place was

missed. Ultimately the CPAD imploded — as a result of both its political

limitations and the state’s crackdown on it — and within a short period

of time, drug abuse and anti-social behaviour was back to its previous

levels.

This is not to say that the community activists who got involved and

attempted to rescue their communities were wrong, but to say that in the

absence of an overall political strategy which aims to change the

authoritarian nature of society, such initiatives are inevitably doomed

to failure. It is in fact difficult to envisage a situation in which any

real degree of community policing could operate under capitalism. A

system of community justice must — if it is to be successful — involve

such a level of democracy and local organisation that — as already

pointed out — the state will simply not allow it to happen.

The absence of just such a political strategy is patently obvious in the

North, where — as stated earlier in the article — the very phrase

‘community policing’ is much abused. What is currently being witnessed

on the ground in working class communities in the North is certainly not

community policing. Nor could it even be said to be moving in that

direction. The people involved in implementing what they describe as

community justice are not in the least bit interested in looking at the

causes of crime. Indeed their political allies are in many cases sitting

in government, propping up a system which perpetuates economic

inequality, thus ensuring that real community policing can never become

a reality. As long as these people remain more interested in making

friends in high places — be that with the Dublin, London or Washington

establishments — than in challenging the basis of capitalism, we cannot

move any closer to a society in which the idea of communities being

self-managed and self-policed could become a reality.

After the revolution

So what about after the revolution? Firstly, there is no doubt but that

in a free, democratic society which meets everybody’s basic needs the

vast majority of crime against property will immediately be done away

with. In a society in which everybody has his/her basic needs met — and

where indeed there will be many shared luxuries — there will quite

obviously be less occasion for crimes against property. But there will

still be those who — for whatever reason — want to give society the two

fingers. There will still be ‘crimes of passion’ and there will still be

people with mental illness who will have to be removed from society for

their own protection and that of others.

This in turn implies that there will have to be some form of community

forum to deal with these problems. This will however have nothing in

common with the current police force. Firstly, the ‘laws’ which are

being implemented will be decided upon in a democratic manner. A free

and democratic society will have very few ‘laws’ as such as these won’t

be necessary. The vast majority of people — given the opportunity to do

so — are quite capable of living together in a peaceful and neighbourly

way without having laws and rules to tell them what to do. People, for

example, don’t need police to tell them to drive on the correct side of

the road or to stop at red traffic lights — common sense is enough.

Secondly, the community justice system (or whatever title will be put on

it) will itself be under democratic control. It is of course impossible

to state precisely what will happen, because the system will be created

by the people living in that society, not according to blueprints that

we draw up in advance, and may in any case vary from time to time and

from place to place. Suffice to say that — as with all other aspects of

decision making — maximum democracy will be the hallmark of the

anarchist society and thus no individual or group will be given the

power to make decisions relating to ‘law enforcement’ by themselves.

Perhaps, for example, people will be elected as investigators when

specific anti-social behaviour needs to be investigated. In some cases

it will be necessary to have people with particular expertise such as in

forensics. But these people will be given no particular positions of

power as a result of this expertise — their function will remain purely

administrative.

The idea of ‘prosecuting’ an offender will be done away with. Instead —

where necessary — evidence will be presented before a democratically

elected community forum, weighed up in an open manner with the ‘accused’

given every opportunity to question it (either personally or through a

representative of his/her own choosing — there won’t be any fancy

lawyers or judges in silly wigs).

In addition, the idea of revenge or punishment will have no place in the

justice system but it will be more about restitution and compensation

for the victim. The aim will be to ensure that the perpetrator of the

‘crime’ makes some form of recompense to the victim, and that the

behaviour is not repeated.

As has been said, we do not have a crystal ball and therefore cannot

predict with any certainty exactly what will happen in an anarchist

society. We do not claim to have all the answers but hope that this

article and others will lead to a discussion among anarchists about how

a future society should deal with anti-social elements.

It is a complex area and the only thing which can be said with certainty

is that the only solution can be through freedom and democracy.

[1] Peter Kropotkin, ‘Law and Authority’, Quoted in ‘Demanding The

Impossible — A History of Anarchism’ by Peter Marshall, Page 31

[2] Ireland is of course by no means unique in this context

[3] Text available on the web at

lark.phoblacht.net

[4] ‘Irish Times’, Friday 25^(th) May 2001

[5] See ‘Irish Times’, Thursday August 23^(rd) 2001

[6] ‘Irish Times’ Thursday August 23^(rd) 2001

[7] ‘Irish Times’ Friday April 20^(th) 2001

[8] Services Industrial Professional Technical Union — Ireland’s largest

trade union

[9] quoted in ‘Irish Times’ Thursday August 30^(th) 2001

[10] One Fianna Fail TD, Liam Lawlor did serve a week of a 3-month

sentence for failing to supply the Tribunal with full details of his

financial affairs.

[11] The excuse of the Litter Act has been used. At the time of writing

6 activists have had to serve sentences of three days. More information

at www.struggle.ws/wsm/bins.html

[12] Peter Marshall: ‘Demanding The Impossible — A History of Anarchism’

Page 648

[13]

www.restorativejusticeireland.org

[14] The youth wing of Sinn Fein