However Macpherson’s report didn’t just evoke positive responses when first introduced, despite the problems it aimed to rectify. His introduction of a new definition of ‘institutional racism’, which he stated as being,
‘The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin…. can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice….’
(Macpherson 1999, Para. 6.34),
Caused mixed reactions from both minority communities and police themselves, which proved to be a hindrance with regards to relations between the police and minority ethnic citizens. With this definition Macpherson didn’t mean to imply that all officers were racist, but this was how both the public and especially the police themselves interpreted it. The majority of the public were largely unaffected and unaware of the problems involving racism that were occurring prior to McPherson’s inquiry. However due to the 1999 report the public were suddenly bombarded with accusations of institutional racism within the police. This sudden awareness of racism caused communities to develop an increased concern for racism. This amplified concern for something they were previously oblivious to, caused a greater mistrust to be felt by the minority communities for the police. Sir Paul Condon (2003) stated that the inquiry was ‘a tragedy for the police service in terms of the damage it has done to the reputation and confidence in the service’. The responses of the police to the report could also be said to have further hindered police relations with ethnic minorities. Officers felt personally accused of being racist and not only this but the fear of being called racist hugely affected their actual policing, there was a recorded rise of 30% in street crime after the report, primarily due to the fear of enforcing stop and search procedures in ethnically sensitive areas (Condon, P. 2003). Many became reluctant to stop a black male for threat of being accused of racism. Therefore Macpherson’s report and definition of ‘institutional racism’ could be argued to have worked as a hindrance to the police minority ethnic relations. The public were suddenly aware and overly worried about the idea of ‘institutional racism’ within the police force. The police officers themselves became bemused at being labelled racist, to the point where it affected their policing, resulting in strained minority relations.
However despite the introduction of Macpherson’s accusation of ‘institutional racism’, the moves by the authorities to resolve the problems of racism within the force did promote better views of the police amongst the minority ethnic communities. The focal recommendations made by macpherson as highlighted by both Rowe 2004 and Bowling 2002, advised improvements in the handling of racist incidents, the regulation of stop and search procedures and improvements within recruitment, retention and promotion. The issue of how the police handle racist incidents featured heavily in a several sections within the Macpherson report. One of these being the reporting and recording of racist crimes. Some of the changes which followed the report and were directly influenced by it, were the introduction of an independent complaints procedure and the ability for people to report racist incidents 24hours a day and not just at the police station. Other changes refer more closely to the treatment of racist incidents, whether people are comfortable reporting them to the police and how these complaints are then dealt with. Terry Devoil (2001), head of the met forces diversity training school, set up training schemes where trainers who have already been educated in the area are assigned classes of usually around 12 to 27 police and community officers. Such changes as directed by Sir William Macpherson in his report have been shown to have, pushed up the number of racist incidents that are now reported to the police. For example The CPS Racist Incident Monitoring Scheme Annual Report 2001-2002 found a 28.5% increase in the number of racist incidents reported compared to that of the previous years prior to the macpherson report. Sir David Calvert-Smith (2002, Director of public prosecutions) attributed the rise in reported offences to, ‘More victims now having the confidence to come forward knowing that the CPS and the police take these offences seriously’. Such a rise in the number of victims of racism coming forward demonstrates that the changes as initiated by the 1999 Macpherson report have in fact helped minority ethnic opinions of the police, as they are now happier to report such crimes. However despite the fact that indeed the reporting of racist crimes has risen, the satisfaction of minority ethnic communities with the police is still markedly lower than that of white communities, indicating that racism still exists and attitudes toward the police have not altered entirely. Dr Andrew Pilkington’s overall findings of his research in 2001 indicated that white victims expressed a total satisfaction rating of 65%, whereas black and Asian victims only expressed a satisfaction rating of 41.2% and 38.1% respectively. Also the rate of which these reports are being substantiated is still very low at 2% and of these only about 20% result in either criminal or disciplinary proceedings (G. Smith 2000:6 cited in Reiner, R. 2000). Therefore despite overall reporting of incidents rising, the continuing differences of satisfaction between white and minority ethnic communities and also the lack of reports being substantiated indicates that the reforms as advised by Macpherson are not enough to fully resolve the lack of confidence the majority of minority ethnic groups have in the police.
Another area identified by Macpherson relating to how the police handled racist incidents is the issue of diverse policing. The police service had been accused of not keeping up with the increasingly diverse and culturally heterogeneous communities of which they police. Before the publication of the 1999 report policing was generally focussed on ensuring that all ethnic groups received an equal level of service, and was assumed to be ‘applicable to all’ (Rowe, M. 2004). However this meant that those minority groups whose priorities and concerns were divergent from the mainstream would receive a less satisfactory service. The Lawrence inquiry proved an effective impetus for a renewed emphasis on policing diversity. This meant more effective policing procedures, more diversity training, allowing these communities more of a say in how they are policed and harsher punishments to be given to those convicted of a racist crime. Overall the move to introduce a system of more diverse policing has helped to offer ethnic communities a better service overall and help improve police relations with ethnic minorities. However it has been suggested that the added impetus given to ethnic minorities with regards to more diverse policing may have resulted in some negative outcomes. For example it could be argued that the more severe punishments etc for offences regarding race could lead to further victimisation of minority communities (Bowling, B and Phillips, C. 2002). Several laws have been introduced after the Macpherson inquiry, which were intended to offer ‘special protection’ to people from Black and Asian communities. However it has been argued that such protection could lead to a ‘white backlash’, especially among those who already hold racist views or believe that minorities get preferential treatment. Therefore the added attention given to Black and Asian communities could cause them to receive more racist attacks and therefore resent the actions being taken by the police and consequently further damage relations with the police.
Another fundamental recommendation made in the report was for improvements within recruitment, retention and promotion. In the 1970’s and 1980’s it was very rare for there to be many officers from ethnic backgrounds and those that did become officers were ‘alienated, marginalized and discriminated against by other officers’ (Bowling. B and Phillips. C 2002). The moves made in order to promote employment of officers from an ethnic heritage have proved to be helpful in promoting better relations between police and ethnic communities as a whole. After 1986 there has been a rise in the proportion of serving officers who are from ethnic minorities, from 0.7% to 2% (Home Office 2000c cited in Bowling et al). Despite recruitment of ethnic minorities having been a feature of the British police service for the last 15years or so, the Macpherson report helped by promoting the issue further and encouraging change. Therefore the developments as promoted by the Macpherson inquiry helped police ethnic minority relations by appearing to begin to change the racist infrastructure of the police force as a whole. However although many moves were taken after the inquiry to promote the employment of officers from ethnic minorities, ‘it is not the recruitment that needs to be addressed, it is the chill factor, it is the advancement and progress of ethnic officers’ (Weeks, 1999: p 17 cited in Marlow et al, 2000). In March 1999 only 14% of ethnic minority officers were to be found in promoted ranks within the police compared to 23% of white officers. Therefore despite the number of minority officers slowly in increasing the numbers of those getting to higher ranks continues to remain very low. This therefore insinuates that perhaps the changes that are being implemented by the police are superficial. The much-publicised moves to increase employment do not detract from the on-going racism, which prevents minority officers from reaching higher ranks. In turn that could prove to further damage and hinder police relations with ethnic minorities and could be a reason why minority officers are reluctant to go into the force and explain the low figures. For increasing the numbers of ethnic officers in the force will not in and of itself, necessarily lead to improved relations with minority communities (Rowe. M 2004).
As mentioned the report directly instigated a lot of changes within the police force with its recommendations, however it also inspired a number of acts and amendments to later be passed, which also helped to improve minority trust and confidence in the police organisation. For example there was the race relations amendment act in 2000, which applied anti-discrimination principles for the first time to the public services, including the police. In theory the act would allow individuals to take racial discrimination cases against the criminal justice agencies through the civil courts of redress (Bowling et al, 2002). Acts such as this and the 1998 Human rights act, which was only passed in 2000 both encourage the rights of minority communities in particular, and also allow the police etc to be answerable to a higher power. The fact that such acts help to prevent police mistreatment of the public, mean that minority communities can feel less threatened and perhaps have more faith in the police as this shows a positive move toward change. However as critics such as Bourne (2001) and Bridges (2001) point out ‘the government is attempting to eradicate racism with one hand, but entrenching it with the other’ (Newburn. T 2003). It is argued that legislation such as the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Criminal Justice Bill 2002 will disproportionately affect ethnic minorities because of strongly engrained institutional racism (Bourne 2002; Bridges 2001). Also the anti-terrorism act 2001 likewise is argued to be discriminatory, and is perceived to be eroding many basic rights on the grounds of national security. Therefore despite the moves and acts being passed as a result of the Macpherson report the current and ongoing context of what is happening in society and the legislation being used to deal with this, will mean that police relations with ethnic minorities will always be fraught and problematic, even if all of Macpherson’s recommendations were carried out.
To conclude Macpherson’s publication and allegation of institutional racism did help with regards to at least alerting the public and the authorities to a problem. Encouraging positive moves to change such as introducing improvements in the overall handling of racist cases and promoting the recruitment of minority officers. However far more needs to be done in order to regain the minority communities faith in the police force, which was so shattered by the accusation of institutional racism. There needs to be further changes with regards to the organisation of the police, less on the superficial aspects such as just recruitment, more focus on for example promotion and why ethnic minorities are reluctant to enter the police service. Police relations with ethnic minorities will never be fully repaired due to societal factors such as terrorism, immigration etc. But the Macpherson report did help the police relations with minority communities in many ways, but there is far more to be done in order to eradicate what he himself labelled ‘institutional racism’.
Bibliography:
-
Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2002) Racism, Crime and Justice, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
-
Bourne, J. (2001) ‘The Life and Times of Institutional Racism’, Race and Class, 43(2): 7-22.
-
Bridges, L. (2001) ‘Race, Law and the State’, Race and Class, 43(2): 61-76.
-
Macpherson, Sir W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry – Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, London: Home Office CM 4262-1.
-
Marlow, A. and Loveday, B. (eds) (2000) After Macpherson: Policing After the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
-
Newburn, T. (2003) Handbook of Policing, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
-
Pilkington, A. (2001) ‘Macpherson and After: Policing Racist Incidents’, Modern Criminal Investigation, Organised Crime and Human Rights, 27 (2): 3-7.
-
Reiner, R. (2000) The Politics of the Police, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Rowe, M. (2004) Policing, Race and Racism, Collumpton: Willan Publishing.
- Smith, G. (2000) ‘Managing Police Misconduct: Reform of the Discipline Process and Unresolved Accountability Issues’. Paper presented to European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control Conference, University of Wales, Bangor, 25-27 April.
-
Weeks, J. (1999). What Do You Call a Black Man in a BMW? ‘Sir’; He’s a Police Inspector. Police, 3:3, Surbiton: Police Federation Publishing.