Inspired by this comment in another thread:
Cast your mind back, say, 25 years. 1986.
Email technology in its infancy.
Laptop computer only just released.
Mobile phones the size of a housebrick with no video capture functionality.
If a dude was caught pissy riding his motorised esky around backstreets, it's possible he would have got a stern talking to and told not to do it again. If the cops had any sense they would have driven past 15 minutes later to make sure he'd pulled his head in. If not, bye bye esky. Come pick it up from the station in a week, where you can enjoy another earbashing.
And if they had, what of it? "Ahhhh yeah cheers mate, you're a good a bloke hay nah serious hay you're a top bloke hay yeah cheers cobbers orright seeya." Who would he have told of his good fortune? His mates, assuming they were there? Who would they have told? Presumably each other, being mates. It wouldn't have gone far. If it had got out that he'd been driving on a road while intoxicated and the police had not properly charged him, what would corroborate his story? He was drunk, so maybe his recollection of events was flawed. So were his mates. The police log recorded no incident. Without evidence the whole thing would just go away.
Contrast with today, where people can record their interactions with police and post to YouTube. Esky dude can post in real time to Facebook or PSB that he was "riding his esky while pissed and the cops did fucken nothing hay lol". Everything's date and time stamped. Everything's tracked via GPS. Everything's investigatable, verifiable. Cops have to be squeaky clean, they're under constant scrutiny.
So! Does the fact that police are arguably more accountable, by virtue of technological advancements, mean they are more process-driven and robotic? Bureaucratic in their approach?
Has this meant the death of good community policing and police relations with the public?
Does the fact that such scrutiny reduces (theoretically, in any event) the incidence of criminality by police such as brutality and corruption mean that we have to take the bad with the good - super strict policing is the price we pay for a police force with a higher level of integrity?
Should we be concerned that it appears to be the possibility of getting caught, rather than any underlying sense of morality or lawfulness, that has reduced police impropriety?
Thoughts to the usual address.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks




Reply With Quote




Bookmarks