Politseivaldkond on pandeemiast tõukunud praktikate kontekstis teisenemas hoogsamalt, kui tavaliselt (kuigi, ei ole teada, mis on “tavaliselt”) ning kiirete muudatuste perioodil võivad politsei ja elanike suhteid raamistavad kesksed printsiibid saada vähem tähelepanu. Sestap siinviidatu, politsei legitiimsusele keskenduv tekst, oma koha leidiski.
The concept of legitimacy once lay on the margins of criminology, despite it being ‘intimately and practically implicated in every aspect of penal relations’ (Sparks, 1994: 16). The last two decades, however, have witnessed a ‘legitimacy turn’ within criminology generally and policing particularly (Tankebe, 2014: 238).
Miks on legitiimsuse küsimus oluline?
Its genesis lies in the path-breaking work of Tom Tyler, who, along with colleagues, has for over three decades examined the core question of why people comply with the law and legal authorities. The legitimacy of the police and wider criminal justice system is an important predictor of people’s attitudes towards authority, the law (Tyler, 2006) and even their offending behaviour (Walters and Bolger, 2019).
We argue there is much value in returning to, and seeking to incorporate, some significant insights contained within the impressive corpus of policing scholarship, alongside illuminating concepts originating from political science. Doing so leads us to argue that while the dialogic model has the potential to direct legitimacy research along paths poorly explored at present—indeed this process is already underway—at this early stage there is a need for both conceptual refinement and development across three core dimensions of the dialogic model.
Bottoms and Tankebe’s (2012, 2013, 2017) ‘dialogic’ model offers the most developed, and increasingly popular, theoretical extension of legitimacy within criminology, born out of its authors’ concern that criminologists were focusing too exclusively on the public as the subject of inquiry. In an effort to make a ‘fuller account’ of how the concept of legitimacy might be ‘optimally theorized’, Bottoms and Tankebe (2012: 123) reach into political theory.
Analüüsitasandid oleks kasulik eristada:
As long recognized by sociologists, each level is best understood in the particular social context which it is used to make sense of (Mouzelis, 1993). The micro-level can be taken as being concerned with individual officers, specifically their routine encounters with members of the public. The meso-level of inquiry is directed towards the activities of police organizations as corporate actors and their interactions with organizations (power-holders) within and beyond the criminal justice system.
Perhaps the closest empirical exploration of legitimacy’s dialogic property, and best demonstration of it at the meso-level, remains Mulcahy’s (2006) account of the ‘legitimation process’ that characterized police–community relations during the Northern Irish conflict. The three stages of this process described by Mulcahy—reform, representation and public response—chime with the claim–response dynamic of Bottom and Tankebe’s model.
Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks üks järeldustest:
Understood in the sociological context of mundane police work, we suggest that police claim-making—explicit claims to normative justifiability of power—is most likely to take place, and articulated most fully and purposefully, at the meso-, rather than micro-, level of inquiry.
Martin, R., & Bradford, B. (2021). The anatomy of police legitimacy: Dialogue, power and procedural justice. Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619890605