Monday, August 3, 1981
CONTROLLING CRIME
POLICE LIMITATIONS IN CURBING CRIME
The rise in crime is almost worldwide phenomenon. Our people are naturally concerned at the trend in India, though the increase in crime here is not yet at the rate seen in some advanced countries like the United States. The fact is that the problem of crime control is seldom considered dispassionately. Reports of crime evoke emotional reactions and in the public furore that follows, the objective factors behind the increasing trend of crime either get obscured or sidetracked by political considerations.
When there is an upsurge in criminal activities or a particularly heinous crime is committed, the public tends to blame the police. The general tendency is to hold the police solely responsible for checking crime. This attitude is reinforced by the manner in which the police react to public criticism. They either quote statistics which are not too impressive or point out the inadequacies of manpower and equipment at their disposal. This fails to satisfy the public and thus the cycle goes on.
Picture Elsewhere
The truth is that the problem cannot be solved merely by providing more funds, manpower and equipment to the police. The United States, with its tremendous resources and with administration allocating more and more funds to the law enforcement agencies and equipping them with the latest tools in science and technology, has not been able to arrest the escalating crime rate. In 1970 the crime rate per lakh of population was 3,984.5. In 1980 it rose to 5,899.9. In the United Kingdom, which is reputed to have one of the best police forces in the world, the number of indictable offences known to the police in 1961 was
8,06,900. By 1971 it had more than doubled (16,66,000) and by 1978 more than tripled (25,62,000). Crime per lakh of population in UK was only 1,094 in 1950, while by 1978 it had gone up to 4,878. During this period, there has been considerable increase in manpower and other resources of the police forces there.
The resources of the police in India have also vastly increased after Independence. In 1951-52, the revenue expenditure incurred on this head was only Rs. 58.73 crore. By 1978-79, it had gone up to Rs. 827.18 crore, thereby registering and increase of 1308.45 per cent during the period.
The total strength of the police in States/Union Territories it 1951 was only 4,67,740 but by 1978 it had increased to 8,05,821. The position in terms of transport and communication facilities and scientific aids for investigation has also considerable improved since Independence. However crime has continued to rise. In 1948, only 6,25,909 cognisable cases of crime were registered under the Indian Penal Code. The volume of crime per lakh of population in 1951 was 180. The number of cognizable offences under the IPC had increased to 13,44,968 in 1978 and the volume of crime per lakh of population worked out to 210.7. If the offences registered under local laws are also included in the figures total
cognisable crime in 1978 was to the extent of 41,37,191 cases.
This brings us to an important fact. The ability of the police to control crime by itself is limited, more so in a democratic society. It is not just a question of will or competence to curb crime. Some of the crimes arise out of factors over which the police have little or no control. This aspect can be discussed on a theoretical as well as practical plane.
No Single Theory
Let us first view the problem in a broad perspective. Despite considerable research on this subject, no single theory has so far emerged to explain convincingly the phenomenon of crime and its causes. There is, however, a wide consensus amongst criminologists about certain conditions or factors which stimulate crime. Increasing incidence is generally associated with urbanisation, hard living conditions, unemployment, inequality of opportunities, decline in the standards of morality, uprooting of traditional institutions and values resulting in a feeling of alienation, etc. The police have nothing to do with the emergence of these criminogenic factors. Nor do they have any control over them.
The task force on the police set up by the President’s Commission on law enforcement and administration of justice in the US (1967) said in its report: “On the whole, they (the police) must accept society as it is – a society in which parents fail to raise their children as lawabiding citizens, in which schools fail to educate them to assume adult roles, and in which economy is not geared to provide them with jobs.” The important role that the informal instruments or structures of social control represented by the traditional institution of family,
school and religion and ethical values play in maintaining the fabric of society intact needs to be recognized and they must not be allowed to crumble down. To the extent we can retain our healthy traits, values and institutions, the criminogenic potential of certain developments may be neutralised. So, it is necessary that we plan and regulate our process of development in such a manner as to enable society to absorb, and not succumb to, the shock of rapid
changes.
Social Defence
The model of planning that we have followed so far has concentrated mainly on accelerating the pace of economic development. We have not paid sufficient attention to the spin-off effects of development on the total social system. It is high time that planning in the field of social defence and criminal justice system became an integral part of national planning, as the UN has been urging its member countries for quite sometime now.
Coming to the brass tacks, it is widely acknowledged that all the crimes committed in a society do not come to the notice of the police. Research done in foreign countries has shown that only about 10 to15 per cent of crime committed in a community is reported to the police. Even in the most developed countries, the police are not able to dispose of more than 50 per cent of the crime that comes to their notice. Out of the cases ultimately referred to the courts, only a small percentage ends in conviction. A large number of offenders get away with it and this naturally reduces the deterrent effect of the police force. The police are
only one part of the criminal justice system and success in tackling crimes also depends on the effectiveness of the other agencies involved.
The different agencies in law enforcement do not always work in a coordinated manner. Sometimes they work at cross-purposes. The functioning of the bail system and the difference in the approach of the police and the courts towards this provision is one example of this. While the police think that releasing more and more offenders on bail, including those accused of having committed heinous offences, results in increasing crime, many jurists feel that denial of bail and consequent incarceration almost amounts to judging an accused guilty before giving him an opportunity to prove his innocence.
The way the criminal justice system has been functioning in the country, it has failed to instill in the minds of people the healthy fear that law cannot be trifled with. If crime has to controlled, justice must not only be done but done speedily. This is not happening and the problem of pendency of cases under trial has assumed alarming proportions. As many as 54,95,582 criminal cases were pending in different types of courts at the end of 1979. It has to be impressed upon all that law has not only a long arm but also strong teeth. Unfortunately, the contrary impression prevails.
Respect For Law
There has been a steady erosion of respect towards law and authority in the country. Some people behave as if they are above the law of the land and can get away with anything. It would be unrealistic to expect that law will always be enforced in a fair and impartial manner as the inequalities inherent in out society and the types of culture they breed are bound to be reflected to some extent in the working of different institutions. But as long as there is open defiance of law by some people, and if the administration does not even take cognizance of
cases where there is a clear nexus between criminals and some influential persons, who, by interfering in the working of the police and through other means manage to thwart the process of justice, crime control will remain an unrealised dream. However, the steady growth in crime is challenge to be faced by the whole society. The police of course must be in a better performance than they have been doing so far, but to think that policemen alone can wipe out crime is to delude ourselves.
( Published in the Indian Express dated 03.08.1981)
Wednesday, July 22, 1981
POLICE CORRUPTION
POOR IMAGE OF THE POLICE – ROLE OF CORRUPTION AND CRUELTY
Of the various factors responsible for the image of the police in the country, two stand out prominently: police corruption and police brutality. Police brutality, being more visible, has attracted greater publicity and caused wider public concern than police corruption. But it is time the subject of police corruption was also debated in a free and frank manner for something more than the image of the force is involved: the problem has serious implications for the whole system of criminal justice prevailing in the country.
REACTION
Any discussion with police officers about it generally brings forth two types of reactions. Some of them resent being singled out for blame when all other professions and government departments are equally, if not more, corrupt. They tend to ignore the fact because of the tremendous powers wielded by the police, even lesser corruption in the force raises more popular ire than greater corruption in any other department.
A few police officers, admittedly lesser in number, tend to explain away the evil in terms of “rotten apples.” They claim that but for a few rotten apples, the basket is otherwise clean- something the public generally forgets. A few instances of corruption do not justify, they say, wholesale condemnation of the entire service.
This may be true but it too does not reckon with popular psychology. The good which the force does dies and the evil which an individual policeman perpetrates lives for ever, producing cumulative hostility in the public. That is why in any study of police misconduct, the behaviour of the individual policeman becomes highly important.
It is conditioned to a large extent by the “peer group” pressures and influences to which he is subjected within the organization. The member of no other profession or organisation goes trough the process of socialisation within the organisation as intensely, rigorously and rapidly as a policeman does. He becomes extremely “vulnerable” to what is being done by others in the department. Most studies of police corruption in foreign countries have clearly shown that policemen become corrupt in the process of socialisation in different stages of their career.
The problem of police corruption is also intimately linked with that of police cynicism. A policeman works in a hostile environment. The public expect him to do his job without giving him the most essential wherewithal to do it successfully- support and trust. The policeman, however, sees human perversity and hypocrisy in their worst forms and this has tremendous impact on his ways of thinking and behaviour. In fact, an average policeman has a much poorer opinion of the society than the latter has of him.
The problem of police corruption is neither of recent origin nor is it confined to this country. The stigma has been attached to the police right since the early days. In
Though the police forces in the
In the
STIGMATISED
In our own country, the Indian Police Commission of 1902-03 found the “strongest evidence that the police force is, as a whole, regarded as far from efficient and is stigmatised as corrupt and oppressive.” A number of state police commissions set up since independence have also come to similar conclusions. The work of the police provides tremendous opportunities for corruption and these have increased with the rise in crime, emergence of new forms of criminality like white collar and organised crime, decline in the standards of public morality and extension of the role and power of policemen due to the enactment of so many laws to promote social welfare.
The gravity of problem may differ from country to country but the fact that corruption in some form or the other does exist in almost all the police forces can hardly be denied.
The corruption that is rampant in the police department in this country can be described in various ways. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of corrupt police personnel. They can be described as “meat eaters” and “grass eaters, to borrow the phraseology used by the Knapp commission. Meat eaters are those who misuse their police powers aggressively for personal gain and collect huge payments, generally form those who indulge in organised “victimless” crimes like gambling, prostitution or illicit manufacture and sale of liquor and narcotics.” The grass eaters, on the other hand, are those who accept payments and favours that the “happenstances” of police work throw in their way. The majority of corrupt police personnel belong to the second category.
PROBLEMATIC
How to deal with the problem? Improving the recruitment and training standards and weeding out the rotten apples are the obvious answers. Whatever the strategy, it must aim at reducing the temptation to be corrupt. This can, to some extent, be done by improving the status of the policeman. The methods of his recruitment, his salary and other conditions of service will all have to be decided accordingly. The important role that the policeman plays in society and the need to confer on him a status commensurate with that role have not yet been recognised. This is not merely a question of increasing his pay and improving his conditions of service but also of putting greater trust in him. At present, he is distrusted by all and this breeds in him a feeling of utter frustration. Unless the policeman is accorded a higher status, the profession will not attract the right type of people and the temptation to be corrupt will remain strong.
Opportunities for corruption are inherent in the police work and can not be eliminated completely. But they can be substantively reduced through legislative action. The statute book contains many laws, particularly those which relate to areas like gambling, prostitution, prohibition etc. which are difficult to enforce and which provide ample scope for corruption. It is, therefore, often suggested that such laws should be repealed. In the present Indian milieu, however, it may be difficult to take such a step.
The police being a disciplined and hierarchical organization, a proper system of rewards and punishments will be of considerable help in curbing corruption. The culprits must be exposed to the risks of detection and punishment and honesty should be suitably rewarded to make it attractive. This would require a very close and effective supervision over the work and behaviour of different ranks. In addition, it would require strengthening and improving the vigilance set-up within the department.
The objective should be to develop attitudes within the organisation which are intolerant of corruption. There are no easy ways of doing it but a determined, dedicated and an enlightened leadership can achieve a lot.
(Published in the Times of India dated August 1, 1981)
Friday, February 27, 1981
POLICE BRUTALITY
Police Brutality in Perspective
No other factor has been responsible for tarnishing the image of the police in this country recently as much as their alleged involvement in several sensational incidents of brutality. The wave of shock felt by people over what happened at Narainpur in January 1980 had hardly subsided when the Baghpat incident hit the headlines. The shame of Baghpat had not died down when the Bhagalpur blindings in all their gory details once again projected the police as a body of barbarous men.
An Open Society
The exposure of such incidents and the national outcry that followed shows that, despite the odds, ours is an open society, something that can not be said of most developing countries. The popular wrath, however, should not take the shape of a mere emotional outburst. There is a need to examine coolly some of these incidents so that the important issues underlying the “problem of brutality” are highlighted and tackled effectively.
It is not as if the charges of brutal behaviour against the police have been made in this country alone. Similar allegations are often made against the police forces of advanced democratic countries too. As early as in 1931, the National Crime Commission headed by Mr. George W Wickersham in the United States sharply criticised the police departments for routinely using torture and third degree methods. In 1961, the US commission on civil rights found enough evidence to observe that “police brutality is still a serious problem through out the United States.” In 1966, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice came across incidents in which the police had used unnecessary force or violence.
Even in the United Kingdom, which was reputed to have one of the best police forces in the world, charges of brutality, corruption and racial prejudice have recently been leveled against the famous Scotland Yard. Indeed, some 245 persons are estimated to have died in police custody during the last 10 years in the U.K.
Following the “misadventure” verdict by the jury in the Blair Peach death inquest in May 1980, a Labour MP Mr. Martin Flannery, commented: “ It is clear that deep in the bowels of the British police force, there resides a group of terrible thugs who can do what they wish and will always be found innocent.” He was evidently referring to the 200- strong Special Patrol Group (SPG) of the Scotland Yard which was deployed to control the Southall disturbances in London in April 1979, during which Mr. Peach lost his life, allegedly owing to police action. These may be harsh words, but these are tell-tale.
Law in all countries authorises the police to use force under certain circumstances. This authority is, in fact, basic to its role and cannot be questioned. It is a part of policemen’ legal mandate. It is only when force used in either unnecessary or excessive that the problem of brutality crops up. Now why does this happen? Why does the police use excessive force against some people and in certain situations?
To say that the policemen are a group of mad sadists who derive pleasure by inflicting pain on others would be too simplistic an answer to merit consideration. There may be a few people in every force who relish the sight of broken heads and blinded eyes, but their number is always infinitesimally small compared to the total strength, though their capacity to do damage to the reputation and image of the force is certainly enormous. In his famous study on “Violence and the Police” conducted in an unnamed city of the USA, Mr. William A. Westely, an American sociologist, did find evidence of a small number of policemen “who are clearly sadists, who frequently commit brutalities repugnant to the rest of the police.”
Thee existence of this small group of people in the police organization can be explained on two counts. Firstly, as the police is the only organization authorised to use force, it may tend to attract some persons who really like to use it. Besides policemen in their day –to- day work see so much of violence and brutality in the raw that it may have the effect of degrading and dehumanising some of them.
The entire spectrum of police brutality and violence cannot, however, be explained by pointing to some sadists in the force. Even if the sadists are weeded out, instances of policemen going berserk may continue to occur as long as they are subjected to tremendous pressure and criticism for any increase in crime. When ever crime in general increases or any heinous crime, in particular, is committed, it is always the police which is singled out for blame.
Limited Ability
What is forgotten is that even under the best of circumstances the ability of the police to control crime is limited, as crime is a result of various factors over most of which the police has no control. In this country, where the circumstance are invariably adverse, its ability to control crime becomes further restricted. The law of the land is loaded against it. Judiciary suspects it. The politician uses it for his own ends and the public either fears it or hates it. The policeman’s status is low and his resources meagre but the expectations of the public are always very high. When the force cannot control crime, it is subjected to tremendous pressure form all sides.
Under these circumstances, a criminal is likely to be looked upon by policemen as a source of all trouble, an “animal” to be despised, an enemy to be fought. War against crime and criminals is a war for survival- a war in which, according to some policemen, all is fair. Taking shortcuts to solve solve cases and making short shrift of criminals is regarded by them as the only way to survive
When the prevailing system of criminal justice fails to give a feeling of security to the people, they seek alternative ways of protecting themselves against crime and criminals. In such an environment; the police may resort to extra-legal methods in the belief that these have been tacitly approved by the public.
This is what may have happened in Bhagalpur. The Bhagalpur incidents reflect the failure of the system of criminal justice and of the loss of faith on the part of the public in effectiveness. When law ceases to have any deterrent effect, when bail and not jail becomes the rule rather than the exception even in cases of hardened criminals, when well-connected criminals can commit the most heinous crimes with impunity, when courts remain clogged with cases and even murder and dacoity cases remain “pending trial” for many years, the possibility of the public extending support to the police when the latter uses extra-legal
methods or of its taking the law in its own hands is all too manifest.
Threat Of Vigilantism
What is reported to have happened in Bhagalpur and in some parts of West Bengal recently has thus very frightening implications. In the avalanche of criticism, directed mainly against the police, adequate attention has not been drawn towards the danger of vigilantism becoming gradually popular and widespread in the country, putting the clock back by a few centuries.
Vigilantism had become quite a powerful force in the 19th century America. There is a record of as many as 726 vigilante movement having emerged in that country between 1767 and 1910. They are said to have accounted for the death of as many as 326 people, all victims of “lynch justice” by the public.
Ours is a much more heterogeneous society than the American. Stratified as it is on the basis of caste and community, it is very vulnerable to the danger of vigilantism. Once it is rampant, it can only produce chaos, anarchy and injustice. It is, therefore, necessary to see the writing on the wall and devise suitable and effective methods to ensure that people do not take the law into their own hands.
All this apart, violent reaction by the police can also be expected in the face of apprehended or actual danger. Any assault on a policeman for instance, is viewed very seriously and the offender in such circumstances is likely to be roughed up by all the policemen present. The police shows as unusually high degree of occupational solidarity.
In fact, not only physical violence but even a tough aggressive posture of verbal abuse by any member of the public may provoke the police to use brutal force. A policeman is a fairly sensitive creature. Every hostile act, or even a gesture of defiance reinforces his feeling of insecurity and is likely to occasion a violent response.
Policemen are also apt to use third degree methods during the investigation. To deny this would be hypocritical. Such practices can be ascribed to various factors. Firstly, the strength of investigating officers in most police stations in the country is much less than what is required in the face of counting crime. They have to handle far greater number of cases every year than the prescribed norm or what is humanly possible. Besides, they are required to perform any number of other jobs. There is, therefore, always a tremendous pressure on the investigating officer to conclude his labours without delay. Since third degree methods
do prove useful in many cases, he resorts to them whenever necessary.
Secondly, nowhere else is the law of the land so biased against the police as it is in this country. Since the case on hand has not only to be “solved” but also made legally foolproof to stand scrutiny in a court of law, the investigating officer is tempted to take recourse to extra-legal methods. This actually creates a vicious circle. The police officer uses illegal methods in some cases because of inadequacies in the law. And, the law is not reformed on the ground that the behaviour of policemen does not justify reposing trust in them.
Lastly, resort to third degree methods during investigation may also be in some cases due to either the non-availability of scientific facilities at the police stations of the inability or unwillingness on the part of the investigating officer to use them.
This bird’s-eye view of the circumstances in which policemen use brutal force brings us to the important question: What to do about it? One obvious answer is to tighten the recruitment procedures and standards so that the sadists and emotionally unbalanced persons are not allowed to join the service. This may be supplemented by a system of regular screening to weed out those who have been corrupted or brutalised in the course of their career in the department.
Improving the standards of training is also called for. This in fact, is often advocated. It is, however,important to remember that training cannot be a panacea for all the ills that ail the police. The police being a disciplined and hierarchical organisation, strict supervision over the work of the lower ranks is the answer. It must, however, be ensured that such supervision does
not result in curbing initiative.
To discourage the use of brutal practices by the police, it is essential that the complaints received from the public are enquired into thoroughly and impartially and, if found valid, exemplary punishment is meted out to guilty officers. There is a feeling in the mind of the public that its complaints are generally ignored by the police department. This feeling should be removed by setting up, if necessary, a proper mechanism which can examine public complaints dispassionately and ensure remedial action.
Close Look Needed
The incidents of police brutality reported in the press also point to the need for a close look at the working of the entire system of criminal justice and at the role and responsibilities of the police. More than administrative measures and legislative reform, an iron will and honesty of purpose is required to control crime. It is a task in which everyone will have to participate. As the task force set up by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in the USA has put it: "The police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is only one part of the government. And the
government is only one part of society. In so far as crime is a social phenomenon, crime prevention is the responsibility of every part of society.”
(Published in the Times of India dated February 26 & 27, 1981)
No other factor has been responsible for tarnishing the image of the police in this country recently as much as their alleged involvement in several sensational incidents of brutality. The wave of shock felt by people over what happened at Narainpur in January 1980 had hardly subsided when the Baghpat incident hit the headlines. The shame of Baghpat had not died down when the Bhagalpur blindings in all their gory details once again projected the police as a body of barbarous men.
An Open Society
The exposure of such incidents and the national outcry that followed shows that, despite the odds, ours is an open society, something that can not be said of most developing countries. The popular wrath, however, should not take the shape of a mere emotional outburst. There is a need to examine coolly some of these incidents so that the important issues underlying the “problem of brutality” are highlighted and tackled effectively.
It is not as if the charges of brutal behaviour against the police have been made in this country alone. Similar allegations are often made against the police forces of advanced democratic countries too. As early as in 1931, the National Crime Commission headed by Mr. George W Wickersham in the United States sharply criticised the police departments for routinely using torture and third degree methods. In 1961, the US commission on civil rights found enough evidence to observe that “police brutality is still a serious problem through out the United States.” In 1966, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice came across incidents in which the police had used unnecessary force or violence.
Even in the United Kingdom, which was reputed to have one of the best police forces in the world, charges of brutality, corruption and racial prejudice have recently been leveled against the famous Scotland Yard. Indeed, some 245 persons are estimated to have died in police custody during the last 10 years in the U.K.
Following the “misadventure” verdict by the jury in the Blair Peach death inquest in May 1980, a Labour MP Mr. Martin Flannery, commented: “ It is clear that deep in the bowels of the British police force, there resides a group of terrible thugs who can do what they wish and will always be found innocent.” He was evidently referring to the 200- strong Special Patrol Group (SPG) of the Scotland Yard which was deployed to control the Southall disturbances in London in April 1979, during which Mr. Peach lost his life, allegedly owing to police action. These may be harsh words, but these are tell-tale.
Law in all countries authorises the police to use force under certain circumstances. This authority is, in fact, basic to its role and cannot be questioned. It is a part of policemen’ legal mandate. It is only when force used in either unnecessary or excessive that the problem of brutality crops up. Now why does this happen? Why does the police use excessive force against some people and in certain situations?
To say that the policemen are a group of mad sadists who derive pleasure by inflicting pain on others would be too simplistic an answer to merit consideration. There may be a few people in every force who relish the sight of broken heads and blinded eyes, but their number is always infinitesimally small compared to the total strength, though their capacity to do damage to the reputation and image of the force is certainly enormous. In his famous study on “Violence and the Police” conducted in an unnamed city of the USA, Mr. William A. Westely, an American sociologist, did find evidence of a small number of policemen “who are clearly sadists, who frequently commit brutalities repugnant to the rest of the police.”
Thee existence of this small group of people in the police organization can be explained on two counts. Firstly, as the police is the only organization authorised to use force, it may tend to attract some persons who really like to use it. Besides policemen in their day –to- day work see so much of violence and brutality in the raw that it may have the effect of degrading and dehumanising some of them.
The entire spectrum of police brutality and violence cannot, however, be explained by pointing to some sadists in the force. Even if the sadists are weeded out, instances of policemen going berserk may continue to occur as long as they are subjected to tremendous pressure and criticism for any increase in crime. When ever crime in general increases or any heinous crime, in particular, is committed, it is always the police which is singled out for blame.
Limited Ability
What is forgotten is that even under the best of circumstances the ability of the police to control crime is limited, as crime is a result of various factors over most of which the police has no control. In this country, where the circumstance are invariably adverse, its ability to control crime becomes further restricted. The law of the land is loaded against it. Judiciary suspects it. The politician uses it for his own ends and the public either fears it or hates it. The policeman’s status is low and his resources meagre but the expectations of the public are always very high. When the force cannot control crime, it is subjected to tremendous pressure form all sides.
Under these circumstances, a criminal is likely to be looked upon by policemen as a source of all trouble, an “animal” to be despised, an enemy to be fought. War against crime and criminals is a war for survival- a war in which, according to some policemen, all is fair. Taking shortcuts to solve solve cases and making short shrift of criminals is regarded by them as the only way to survive
When the prevailing system of criminal justice fails to give a feeling of security to the people, they seek alternative ways of protecting themselves against crime and criminals. In such an environment; the police may resort to extra-legal methods in the belief that these have been tacitly approved by the public.
This is what may have happened in Bhagalpur. The Bhagalpur incidents reflect the failure of the system of criminal justice and of the loss of faith on the part of the public in effectiveness. When law ceases to have any deterrent effect, when bail and not jail becomes the rule rather than the exception even in cases of hardened criminals, when well-connected criminals can commit the most heinous crimes with impunity, when courts remain clogged with cases and even murder and dacoity cases remain “pending trial” for many years, the possibility of the public extending support to the police when the latter uses extra-legal
methods or of its taking the law in its own hands is all too manifest.
Threat Of Vigilantism
What is reported to have happened in Bhagalpur and in some parts of West Bengal recently has thus very frightening implications. In the avalanche of criticism, directed mainly against the police, adequate attention has not been drawn towards the danger of vigilantism becoming gradually popular and widespread in the country, putting the clock back by a few centuries.
Vigilantism had become quite a powerful force in the 19th century America. There is a record of as many as 726 vigilante movement having emerged in that country between 1767 and 1910. They are said to have accounted for the death of as many as 326 people, all victims of “lynch justice” by the public.
Ours is a much more heterogeneous society than the American. Stratified as it is on the basis of caste and community, it is very vulnerable to the danger of vigilantism. Once it is rampant, it can only produce chaos, anarchy and injustice. It is, therefore, necessary to see the writing on the wall and devise suitable and effective methods to ensure that people do not take the law into their own hands.
All this apart, violent reaction by the police can also be expected in the face of apprehended or actual danger. Any assault on a policeman for instance, is viewed very seriously and the offender in such circumstances is likely to be roughed up by all the policemen present. The police shows as unusually high degree of occupational solidarity.
In fact, not only physical violence but even a tough aggressive posture of verbal abuse by any member of the public may provoke the police to use brutal force. A policeman is a fairly sensitive creature. Every hostile act, or even a gesture of defiance reinforces his feeling of insecurity and is likely to occasion a violent response.
Policemen are also apt to use third degree methods during the investigation. To deny this would be hypocritical. Such practices can be ascribed to various factors. Firstly, the strength of investigating officers in most police stations in the country is much less than what is required in the face of counting crime. They have to handle far greater number of cases every year than the prescribed norm or what is humanly possible. Besides, they are required to perform any number of other jobs. There is, therefore, always a tremendous pressure on the investigating officer to conclude his labours without delay. Since third degree methods
do prove useful in many cases, he resorts to them whenever necessary.
Secondly, nowhere else is the law of the land so biased against the police as it is in this country. Since the case on hand has not only to be “solved” but also made legally foolproof to stand scrutiny in a court of law, the investigating officer is tempted to take recourse to extra-legal methods. This actually creates a vicious circle. The police officer uses illegal methods in some cases because of inadequacies in the law. And, the law is not reformed on the ground that the behaviour of policemen does not justify reposing trust in them.
Lastly, resort to third degree methods during investigation may also be in some cases due to either the non-availability of scientific facilities at the police stations of the inability or unwillingness on the part of the investigating officer to use them.
This bird’s-eye view of the circumstances in which policemen use brutal force brings us to the important question: What to do about it? One obvious answer is to tighten the recruitment procedures and standards so that the sadists and emotionally unbalanced persons are not allowed to join the service. This may be supplemented by a system of regular screening to weed out those who have been corrupted or brutalised in the course of their career in the department.
Improving the standards of training is also called for. This in fact, is often advocated. It is, however,important to remember that training cannot be a panacea for all the ills that ail the police. The police being a disciplined and hierarchical organisation, strict supervision over the work of the lower ranks is the answer. It must, however, be ensured that such supervision does
not result in curbing initiative.
To discourage the use of brutal practices by the police, it is essential that the complaints received from the public are enquired into thoroughly and impartially and, if found valid, exemplary punishment is meted out to guilty officers. There is a feeling in the mind of the public that its complaints are generally ignored by the police department. This feeling should be removed by setting up, if necessary, a proper mechanism which can examine public complaints dispassionately and ensure remedial action.
Close Look Needed
The incidents of police brutality reported in the press also point to the need for a close look at the working of the entire system of criminal justice and at the role and responsibilities of the police. More than administrative measures and legislative reform, an iron will and honesty of purpose is required to control crime. It is a task in which everyone will have to participate. As the task force set up by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in the USA has put it: "The police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is only one part of the government. And the
government is only one part of society. In so far as crime is a social phenomenon, crime prevention is the responsibility of every part of society.”
(Published in the Times of India dated February 26 & 27, 1981)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)