HUMAN RIGHTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
Frequent police encounters in UP, some of which are alleged to have been fake, raise very pertinent issues about the relationship between human rights and law enforcement in a democratic society.
Every constitution of a democratic society is based on the recognition of three basic values: freedom, equality and justice. These are the values, which the concept of human rights also embodies. A democratic society for its survival, therefore, depends not merely on control of crime and maintenance of order but also on the preservation of citizens’ rights.
A study of the history of law enforcement shows that in some democratic countries, control of crime was given less importance than preservation of rights. When Sir Robert Peel introduced his Bill for the Metropolitan Police in the English Parliament, there was considerable opposition to his idea. A Select Committee of the Parliament had earlier expressed in 1822 its opposition in these terms: “It is difficult to reconcile an effective system of police with that perfect freedom of action, and exemption from interference, which are the great privileges and blessings of society in this country.” It thought that the “forfeiture or curtailment of such advantages would be too great a sacrifice for improvements in police, or facilities in the detection of crime, however desirable in themselves if abstractedly considered.” When the Bill was passed in 1829, its application was confined only to Metropolitan London area. Despite its early success, the expansion of police to other areas was gradual. The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 mandated all incorporated boroughs to set up police forces, but by 1853 only 22 counties of 52 in England had established police forces. Till then crime had not emerged as a big problem.
This, however, did not last long. Along with the spread of democratic ideas, crime and violence increased all over the democratic world and this brought about a change in the relationship between the government, police and public.
There is an increasing feeling that the democratic system in most parts of the world has failed to provide a feeling of security to the common man. The establishment of a feeling of security is extremely important because without it, one can not enjoy one’s basic needs and rights. As the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 1995 said: “To feel safe from crime is as important to a person as access to food, shelter, education and health.”
The philosophy of policing prescribed for the police forces in almost all democratic countries, including India, require them to be sensitive, responsive and uphold human rights. The constitution, laws and police rules and regulations in our country propound a philosophy that is based on recognition of human rights. This poses a challenge before the police- how to provide a feeling of security from crime by operating within the framework of a constitutional or a legal system that recognises the philosophy of human rights. The police in most countries, including ours, have failed to operate in such a manner. Why?
The police generally think that human rights philosophy is antithetical to effective law enforcement. Human rights are impediments to effective policing. The only argument given so far to challenge this thinking of the police is to say that successful policing requires voluntary cooperation from the public and they cannot get it unless they respect citizens’ rights. The police do not find this argument very convincing.
The police, in fact, are not sure if the public themselves have an abiding faith in the human rights philosophy. In areas where and in times when crime is high and law and order disturbances are frequent and complex, the public feel insecure and want the police to provide them a climate free from crime or fear of crime and for this they are willing to pay a price even in terms of restriction of their rights. This has been proved by considerable research done by the Washington Office of Latin America (WOLA). Whenever crime increased in some Latin American countries, people demanded and extended support to tough policing. A similar finding emerges from the observations made by the Economist in its feature on Crime and Justice published in the Indian Express dated March 15, 2018
The State always uses the opportunity provided by the accelerating fear of crime to arm itself with repressive powers- to introduce black laws; enhance powers of the police; overlook use of third degree methods by state agencies and curtail citizens’ rights. In such an environment where popular opinion supports authoritarian responses to crime and violence, the human rights movement suffers a set back. It faces an erosion of political support because the human rights groups are accused of coddling the criminals and ignoring the rights and needs of the citizens to live in a climate of peace and stability. That is why the onset of terrorism or organised violence in different parts of the world has led to curtailment of civil liberties and the public have finally accepted it. This has happened even in countries where democracy has taken roots.
In emergency situations marked by violence or terrorism, some violations of human rights are bound to take place because the public and the police there live and operate in a climate of fear. The chances of reacting with excessive use of force by the police in such situations can not be ruled out. As the Economist’s article referred to earlier says: “In general, the more murderous the country, the more deadly are its police”.
The problem, however, is that complaints of human rights violations by the law enforcement agencies come not only from violence ridden places but also from areas which are normal and not facing emergency situations or insurgency.
