Advertisement

Justifying Encounters: The Theory of Denial

  • Jyoti Belur
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, perceptions of police officers’ perspectives on encounters are put together with Stan Cohen’s Theory of Denial to demonstrate how officers use denial and justificatory accounts to explain the necessity and importance of encounters in Mumbai. Police officers have to live with the fact that they used or condoned the use of deadly force as perpetrators or bystanders and that they act as judge, jury, and executioners against alleged criminals. I suggest that classic denial mechanisms are used to justify their actions to themselves and to their audiences.

Keywords

Criminal Justice System Middle Management Police Action Crime Control Police Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arnold, D. (1986). Police power and colonial rule: Madras 1859–1947. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, D. (1992). Police power and the demise of British rule in India, 1930–1947. In D. Anderson & D. Killingray (Eds.), Policing and decolonization: Politics, nationalism and the police 1917–1965. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan, S. (2005, September 28). Encounter specialist on cops’ wanted list. The Times of India.Google Scholar
  4. Balakrishnan, S. (2005, October 31). Delhi blast: D-company under scan. The Times of India.Google Scholar
  5. Bayley, B., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biardeau, M. (2003). Ancient Brahminism, or impossible non-violence. In D. Vidal, G. Tarabout, & E. Meyer (Eds.), Violence/non-violence: Some Hindu perspectives. New Delhi: Manohar, Centre De Sciences Humaines.Google Scholar
  7. Bouillier, V. (2003). The violence of the non-violent, or ascetics in combat. In D. Vidal, G. Tarabout, & E. Meyer (Eds.), Violence/non-violence: Some Hindu perspectives. New Delhi: Manohar, Centre De Sciences Humaines.Google Scholar
  8. Bowling, B., & Foster, J. (2002). Policing and the police. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chaturvedi, S. (2004, March 23). Telgi scam quantum put at Rs. 33,000 crores. The Tribune, Chandigarh. Retrieved from http://www.tribuneindia.com.
  10. Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Crime in India. (1993). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  12. Crime in India. (1994). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  13. Crime in India. (1995). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  14. Crime in India. (1996). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  15. Crime in India. (1997). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  16. Crime in India. (1998). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  17. Crime in India. (1999). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  18. Crime in India. (2000). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  19. Crime in India. (2001). New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  20. Das, D. (1993). Policing in six countries around the world. Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  21. Dhillon, K. (2005). Police and politics in India – colonial concepts, democratic compulsions: Indian police 1947–2002. New Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
  22. Fyfe, J. (1987). Police shooting: Environment and licence. In J. Scott & T. Hirschi (Eds.), Controversial issues in crime and justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Hagan, F. (1997). Political crime: Ideology and criminality. Boston: Allyand and Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Hinton, M. (2006). The state on the streets: Police and politics in Argentina and Brazil. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Holdaway, S. (1983). Inside the British police. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Hughes, E. (1961). Good people and dirty work. Social Problems, 10(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt, J., & Manning, P. (1991). The social context of police lying. Symbolic Interaction, 14(1), 1–20. Reproduced in Pogrebin M. (Ed.). (2003). Qualitative approaches to criminal justice: Perspectives from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelman, H., & Hamilton, V. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kleinig, J. (1996). The ethics of policing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klockars, C. (1980). The dirty Harry problem. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knapp, W. (1972). The Knapp report on police corruption. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
  32. Newburn, T. (1999). Understanding and preventing police corruption: Lessons from the literature. London: Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.Google Scholar
  33. Perry A. (2003, January 6). Urban cowboys. Time Magazine.Google Scholar
  34. Punch, M. (1985). Conduct unbecoming: The social construction of police deviance and control. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  35. Reiner, R. (2000a). The politics of the police (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American sociological review, 33, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shearing, C. & Ericson, R. (1991). Culture as figurative action. Reprinted in Newburn, T. (Ed.). (2005). Policing: Key readings. Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  38. Skolnick, J., & Fyfe, J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, D. (2003). Hinduism and modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. The Times of India. (2006, February 26). Encounter victim’s family seeks probe.Google Scholar
  42. The Times of India. (2006, June 29). Encounter cops among 120 shuffled.Google Scholar
  43. Varia, T. (2008, March 26). Mumbai’s encounter specialists out of favour. IBN Live. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http://www.ibnlive.in.com/news/mumbais-encounter-specialists-out-of-favour/61960-3.html.
  44. Verma, A. (2005). The Indian police: A critical evaluation. New Delhi: Regency.Google Scholar
  45. Vidal, D., Tarabout, G., & Meyer, E. (Eds.). (2003). Violence/non-violence: Some Hindu perspectives. New Delhi: Manohar, Centre De Sciences Humaines.Google Scholar
  46. White, M. (2001). Controlling police decisions to use deadly force: Reexamining the importance of administrative policy. Crime and Delinquency, 47(1), 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wright-Mills, C. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 15, 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young, J. (1975). The police as amplifiers of deviancy. Reprinted in Henshel, R. & Silverman, R. (Eds.). Perception in criminology, Ontario: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jill Dando Institute of Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations