Law’s Role in Society’s Morals

TASK 1.

Effectiveness of law and order in a society and the imminent tension with regards to balance between civil rights and maintaining lawful orderly society.

Introduction

Professor H.L.A Hart and Lord Devlin debate on law and morality put forth a strong view as to whether or not law is important in a society especially on societal morals. On his part, Hart argues that laws should not, in any way, reflect morals in a society while Lord Devlin argues on the contrary (Bassham, 2012). Nothing can be far from the truth as far as law and society are concerned. That law and society are closely related that one cannot mention law in isolation to society is very basic. Generally, it is the societal processes that enable the creation and use of laws so created.

The need for law and order policies in a society

Basically, law refers to a set of rules and regulations that govern a society (Pound and DeRosa, 2017). Such rules will normally outline the dos and the don’ts for the citizen. While at it, there are cultural needs and expectations of a society that will be properly be defined through law. It is true that laws created should reflect the needs, desires and values of a particular society and the assumption is that the laws will always work towards the best interest of the people in that society. According to the New York Times, the case of Brown vs Board of Education (1954) is a clear and typical example of how law can change a society. It was the policies and reforms put forth by the Civil Rights Movement that changed education system in the society that was characterised by discrimination. It is therefore safe to say that an effective law and order policies is what a society need to define their cultural expectations and needs.

The effectiveness of law and order in a society cannot be ignored. Each and every society has its own foundation (Gluckman, 2017). A society devoid of law and order policies provides an opportunity for people to go against the very foundation. A society without law implies that there is general absence of fear of getting punished and as such, its very own people will take advantage of the situation to commit societal wrongs knowing very well that there is no law and they will get away unpunished. As such, law and order policies are important for guiding a society’s own conscience as far as its foundation is concerned.

The essential of law and order policies cannot be overlooked in a society that is ready to develop. One aim of law in a society is to provide guidance towards peace, tranquillity, harmony and happiness by extension without shedding blood. That before one think of breaching peace or committing unnecessary breach, they are reminded that there is something out there to punish them should they proceed. Through law again, they are reminded that law is the only tool that makes them in a society equal, it does not matter or put into consideration the idea of wealth or poverty. As such, law and order policies in a society are very vital towards regulating the behaviour of people in a society and plays an important role as far as descending to anarchy is concerned. The need for law and order policies in a society cannot be underestimated. One thing about law is that it is very dynamic. This trait allows it to respond effectively to the changing societal needs. For example, the modern society is a very educated one. As such, these individuals have a set of dreams to achieve in life and as such, must be assured that they are secure and free to concentrate towards achieving their dreams. Law comes in handy to ensure a balance of individual needs against majority needs. One is able to accept responsibilities while at the same time renouncing other freedoms like not killing others so that the society can also reciprocate the same benefits (Silver, 2017). Legal systems normally struggle to have a society that is equal, just and fair. The need and importance of law is that it imposes standards that the society follow to achieve the set goal. As such, law and order policies are put in place to regulate the conduct of human behaviour and to give effect to people’s rights by protecting them from fellow citizens and even their government.

Tension discussed

There is however imminent tension when balancing Civil Rights and maintaining law and order in a society. ideally speaking, these civil rights and law and order are what one may refer to as the two sides of the same coin or principle. For example, in times of war, the assumption is that the law is normally silent. Such that while maintaining law and order during such times implies that there will be no law, the natural consequence is that human rights become subject of violation. In as much the European Convention on Human Rights embodies for example an individual’s freedom of expression which forms an integral part of an individual’s sense of self-fulfilment, such a right has been replaced by the need to maintain law and order broadly coined as a security measure in the society. this leads to obvious tensions between those advocating for these rights and the law enforcers. Another scenario as regards the imminent tension regarding civil rights and lawful order is that when striking a balance between rights and law, there is an apparent paradox to the effect that acts of gross violations will normally thrive in liberal democracies which proclaim freedom of expression, association and movement. As such, human rights, even though intrinsic and largely universal, should not imply that such rights should not be limited during certain circumstances. This limitation will evidently lead to tension thereby necessitating the need to strike a delicate balance to lessen the tension.

Conclusion

It is elementary that for a society to survive, law is important and convenient in the circumstances. Social barriers in a society are dealt with through rules and regulations, hence the need for such rules. As for the tension regarding civil rights and order, there is need to strike a delicate balance to ensure that the rights are not the cause of gross violations in a society. However much there should be rights, that does not imply that the same should not be restricted or limited under certain circumstances.

TASK 2.

An Information Pack on the Various legislation governing police accountability in UK.

The Police Act 1964- established the tripartite system or structure as regards police accountability. The structure was divided into three major units with the central control being the secretary of Home office. Successive legislations have since endorsed the structure. The Police Reforms Act 2002- it established the police standards unit whose main role was and is to identify policing practices which are good and devising ways of spreading the same. It also introduced the National Policing plan as rolled out by the Home secretary, that was at the centre of the tripartite system of police accountability. The Police Performance Assessment Framework 2004- was brought into existence by the Home office that introduced measures aimed at comparing police performance and performance management both intended at making individual police responsible and accountable.

The Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994- this deal with accountability with regards to finance where each local police authority receives financing in form of cash-grant from the Home Office, basically devolution of budget. There is greater responsibility on the part of police to ensure financial responsibilities in their capacity as managers. In this way, there is increased accountability since they are charged with a mandate to safeguard such finances. The other implied intention was to bolster the role of police especially the local ones by giving them more powers in plans involving policing. The Local Government Finance Act 1982- it established the audit commission that scrutinises the police on a wide range of issues including crime management and operational issues and issues recommendations that are mostly implemented. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984- deals with matters procedure in the criminal justice system and ensures that the police acts within the confines of law.

The Police Reforms and Social Responsibility Act 2011- was enacted purposely to swap bureaucracy that had been common in police control for accountability characterised by democracy. Was instrumental towards the election of the first police and crime commissioners one year later. The Policing Protocol 2011- purposely mandates the police service to ensure public accountability through service and performance of their duty. That all parties to adhere to the seven principles of public life including objectivity, accountability and leadership among others. The Financial Management Code of Practice- part of governance and the need of value for money mantra. Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012- aimed at addressing the issues of use and abuse of power and mandates police officers to act with utmost integrity and honesty, a lot more of courtesy and use of necessary and reasonable force if need be. The Police Service of Northern Ireland Code of Ethics- police officers are mandated to act with reasonable and utmost care especially when applying force.

The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2013- police officers are mandated to act and confine their conducts to the said regulation. The Police Act 1996- mandated police officers and authorities to ensure transparency with regards to plans of policing and provide data regarding the performance of police. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights- this one is an international standard on policing that provides for human rights and the need to protect them through policing. It applies in the United Kingdom. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms- this document was ratified by United Kingdom in 1951 and reaffirms the elementary freedoms in democratic society. police accountability comes in in the sense that as public officers, they are expected to give effect to the convention. The Human Rights Act 1998- provides for compensation mechanisms in cases where public officers including police have breached the rights of individuals as provided for in the convention. The arrangements provided make a powerful framework for adjudication of such breaches in the United Kingdoms’ courts or the European court, thereby making police responsible and accountable for their particular conduct. Continue your exploration of Shifting Crime Control Paradigms with our related content.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission 2004- is a creation of the Police Reforms Act mandated to take into account the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 while carrying out investigations involving complaints into policing misconduct. The United Nation’s Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials 1979- requires police to observe international instruments and particularly to the police, to exercise reasonable force if necessary that force should be used. This code provides a general and a basic standard for policing globally. One is individually accountable for the contrary. The Council of Europe Declaration on the Police 1979- supplemented in 2001 by the code of police ethics, defines the conduct expected of police officers towards protection of Human Rights. The United Kingdom is a member of the Council and as such, bound by its declaration.

TASK 3.

An Addendum Report into the control of Police Powers in the United Kingdom

Generally, police across the United Kingdom are expected to act or carry out their services in accordance to and with the law in what is broadly referred to as policing the society (Hall et al., 2013). They have powers conferred upon them by various statutes and at the same time, there are mechanisms by which abuse of such powers are controlled. In England and Wales for example, there is the Independent Police Complaints Commission that came into being in 2004. This is a commission that was created as a result of the Police Reforms Act 2002 that was and is mandated to take into account the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 while carrying out investigations involving complaints into policing misconduct. Simply put, it was established to tame rogue police officers whose intentions were to bring the policing service into disrepute. The commission was further mandated to restore the long-lost confidence that the public had in police and to achieve that, it was to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and independence in its bid to or in investigating complaints and conducts in relation to special constables, police civilians and police officers. It consists of a chairperson appointed by the queen for a period of 5 years with an option of reappointment and commissions appointed by the Home office secretary, who controls the tripartite system for police accountability, for a term of five years. This commission has various ways of handling complaints against police officers including receiving of complaints directly from the victims or witnesses or from those acting on behalf of a particular individual or group. Through this commission, it is true to say that in deed police powers are kept under checks and balances and that their conduct must be within the law. Further, the legislations that have been in place across the United Kingdom in one way or the other have a bearing on the control of police powers. For example, the various legislation discussed above share one thing in common. Accountability. That for every action or omission by a police officer or police authority, accountability is key. The Council of Europe Declaration on the Police 1979- supplemented in 2001 by the code of police ethics, for example defines the conduct expected of police officers towards protection of Human Rights. That any conduct outside the code leads to violation and as such, one must be accountable for the same.

Some legislations provide for conduct of police officers to the extent that one is individually liable for his or her misconduct. The Human Rights Act 1998 in this regard provides for compensation mechanisms in cases where public officers including police have breached the rights of individuals as provided for in the convention. The arrangements provided make a powerful framework for adjudication of such breaches in the United Kingdoms’ courts or the European court, thereby making police responsible and accountable for their particular conduct. The powers of police also find some control other legislations like the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 that aims at addressing the issues of use and abuse of power and mandates police officers to act with utmost integrity and honesty, a lot more of courtesy and use of necessary and reasonable force if need be. In this way, the excessive powers of policers are brought under strict control.

It is only trite to conclude that police powers in the United Kingdom are majorly controlled by legislations and bodies created by such legislations to guide the conduct of police officers through curtailing their excesses with regards to power and their knowledge thereof (Seba and Rowley, 2010). In Northern Ireland, there is the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland which is a fully independent body adopted to deal with complaints against police officers, more of a civilian control model. This police ombudsman was created in 2000 and is totally independent as compared to the Independent Commission in England and Wales. It has the powers to make recommendations and also to refer offenses, if proven, to the Director of Public Prosecutions of Northern Ireland. There is also the Police Service of Northern Ireland Code of Ethics where police officers are mandated to act with reasonable and utmost care especially when applying force. Failure to adhere to such code leads to individual responsibility. In Scotland, there is the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2013-where police officers are mandated to act and confine their conducts to the said regulation. It is therefore true that despite police officers in the United Kingdom having powers conferred upon them by statutes, the same statutes limit their powers to certain level.

Looking for further insights on Murder in the UK: A Comparison? Click here.

References

Bassham, G., 2012. Legislating Morality: Scoring the Hart‐Devlin Debate after Fifty Years. Ratio Juris, 25(2), pp.117-132.

Brewer, J.D., Wilford, R., Guelke, A., Hume, I. and Moxon-Browne, E., 2016. The police, public order and the state: policing in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the USA, Israel, South Africa and China. Springer.

Button, M., 2016. Security officers and policing: powers, culture and control in the governance of private space. Routledge.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B., 2013. Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and order. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Nonet, P., Selznick, P. and Kagan, R.A., 2017. Law and society in transition: Toward responsive law. Routledge.

Seba, I. and Rowley, J., 2010. Knowledge management in UK police forces. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(4), pp.611-626.

Silver, A., 2017. The demand for order in civil society: A review of some themes in the history of urban crime, police, and riot. In Theories and Origins of the Modern Police (pp. 23-46). Routledge.

Silver, A., 2017. The demand for order in civil society: A review of some themes in the history of urban crime, police, and riot. In Theories and Origins of the Modern Police (pp. 23-46). Routledge.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms- 1951

The Human Rights Act 1998

The Independent Police Complaints Commission 2004

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

The Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994.

The Police Reforms Act 2002.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland Code of Ethics-