The Anatomy of Police Legitimacy: Dialogue, Power and Procedural Justice

Abstract

We argue that while it has the potential to direct legitimacy research along paths hitherto poorly explored, there is a need for conceptual refinement and development in three key respects. First, through recognition of micro-and meso-levels of legitimation. Second, acknowledgment that police claims-making is contingent on the authorization and endorsement of other actors. Third, a fuller consideration of the qualified role of dialogue-i.e. communication between police and policed-in public audiences' legitimacy assessments. In the spirit of critical engagement and conceptual exploration, this article develops these three insights to propose a modified version of the dialogic model.

How do police officers talk about their encounters with ‘the public’? Group interaction, procedural justice and officer constructions of policing identities

“…In addition, this study suggests that police officers cannot be simply conceptualised as fixed power-holders by virtue of their societal position (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012). Rather, our interviewees’ talk suggested that power emerges and functions within interactions between ‘citizens’, police officers and other criminal justice agents in nuanced ways (Martin and Bradford, 2019), and we report here instances of police officer disempowerment . Given this, it is important not to conceptualise police officers as de facto power-holders since feelings of disempowerment may have implications for how officers engage and interact with ‘the public’.…”

A dialectical approach to the politics of learning in a major city police organization

“…In democratic contexts, contemporary police forces remain key actors in the political economy of modern state ruling, within which they act as a channelling and redistributive mechanism for the changing configurations of diverse interests and agendas (Bowling et al, 2019). Police are a state agency disciplined by the powerful, but also part of the broader political processes and conflicts in which they can stake their own claims and on which they can leave their own mark through the exercise of power and politics that policing work entails (Bowling et al, 2019; Martin and Bradford, 2019). This includes their potential to actively shape elements of their political environment and systems of government within which they operate, ranging from the making and maintenance of democracies (Aitchison and Blaustein, 2013; Bayley, 1969) to campaigning on police resources and priorities (Bowling et al, 2019) and resisting government-imposed reforms (Leishman et al, 1995).…”

“…Moreover, to tackle these ‘value conflicts and moral ambivalence’ as ‘street-level bureaucrats’ (Hoggett, 2006; Lipsky, 2010), police officers are vested by the state with specific powers. These include the use of significant symbolic, coercive and sometimes deadly force, ‘mandated as [police] are with the value laden task of maintaining order in an ever-changing society’ (Martin and Bradford, 2019:7).…”

The Legitimation Strategies of “Progressive” Prosecutors

“…As Barker argues, legitimation involves the work of justifying one's identity as a figure of authority and therefore can be better examined through authorities' discourses and practices. These examinations benefit from "backstage" contexts, where frontline actors tell stories which serve to protect and enhance their status, but also justify their moral authority and worth (Martin and Bradford, 2019). As Reus-Smit (2007) argues, the "social constituency" and the realm of political action in which legitimacy claims take place shed important light on the legitimation process.…”