Policing by Consent

Abstract

This chapter adds to the argument in this book by critically considering interviewees’ claims about their belief in the importance of consensual policing. It identifies how policing by consent contributes to interviewees’ understandings of the right of police to exercise power and it assesses their accounts about building consent, establishing its extent and recognising its loss. Policing by consent was the second of three broad categories of legitimating accounts provided by interviewees. Tensions are identified between these narratives of consensual policing and the first category of legitimating accounts scrutinised in the previous chapter, which were founded on a personal and normative duty (rather than a legal requirement) to protect people, particularly the most vulnerable in society, as the recent priority placed on vulnerability may be resented by many people who feel their concerns are no longer receiving the attention they deserve. This risks consent being withdrawn. Similarities in both categories of legitimating narratives are found, in the degree of confusion and ambiguity that was apparent when chief officers talked about ‘vulnerability’ and ‘consent’. And a concern is raised that both forms of legitimation may conveniently obscure and gloss over the inevitable use of coercion by police. Links are also made to the next chapter, which examines the third category of justification of the use of police power, founded on the law and the oversight and political direction (or governance), of police, where the narrative is also arguably confused and convenient, with chief officers asserting that law and governance are essential for legitimacy, whilst also resenting the manner and methods of oversight. The inter-relationship between the three categories of legitimating narratives is highlighted, as they were all used by interviewees, and none was claimed as a sufficient stand-alone justification of the right to exercise power.