1 00:00:00,180 --> 00:00:08,249 We're very lucky today to have just this time having just come over from Cambridge University and where we have expertise in quite a lot of things, 2 00:00:08,250 --> 00:00:12,890 I think. How did criminology sentencing go on the death penalty and go? 3 00:00:12,900 --> 00:00:14,280 It's just how I know it's work. 4 00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:23,760 And also, after many years of research on the area of policing and in particular, police legitimacy, and that's what he's going to talk about today. 5 00:00:23,790 --> 00:00:28,730 So welcome to you both. 6 00:00:29,190 --> 00:00:32,700 Thank you very much. Good afternoon to everyone. 7 00:00:32,970 --> 00:00:37,500 Thank you to Caroline and to Ian for the opportunity to be here. 8 00:00:39,150 --> 00:00:46,650 I just would like and this something I prefer to talk about one of my areas of research, which is police legitimacy. 9 00:00:47,730 --> 00:00:56,910 Essentially, my argument is to look at the various ways that we could improve the current conceptualisation of the concept. 10 00:00:58,380 --> 00:01:04,080 All right. If you Google has got this interesting software because in gram view, 11 00:01:04,710 --> 00:01:12,060 which allows you to track trends in the use of particular ways and phrases we've managed to compile, 12 00:01:12,630 --> 00:01:19,680 you see about 200 million books from about the 16th century or so to 2008. 13 00:01:20,280 --> 00:01:24,270 So when you put in particular phrases, it tells you the trends over time. 14 00:01:24,690 --> 00:01:31,230 Of course, we can fit the entire period here. So we look between the period 1980 to 2008. 15 00:01:31,860 --> 00:01:45,860 And what we see is an interesting trend that until about the early 1980s, much of the emphasis appears to have been on criminal deterrence. 16 00:01:45,870 --> 00:01:56,310 And we see quite a sudden inflection point here that legitimacy has become much more common in the books that at least they looked at. 17 00:01:56,490 --> 00:02:05,030 Of course, this doesn't include journalists, so it's not really a great no hard conclusions can be drawn. 18 00:02:05,040 --> 00:02:10,049 And interestingly, if we change this to cops in the trenches, it's the other way round. 19 00:02:10,050 --> 00:02:13,340 So it is indicative rather than anything. 20 00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:16,770 If you put procedural justice into it, 21 00:02:17,730 --> 00:02:29,100 you will see quite a marked gap between the references to legitimacy of criminal deterrence and procedure justice in the relevant text. 22 00:02:31,020 --> 00:02:36,450 Much of that change in the fortunes of legitimacy, so to speak, 23 00:02:36,990 --> 00:02:45,300 I think can be attributed to some tireless work in the US or regionally with his book Why People Obey the Law. 24 00:02:45,660 --> 00:02:52,320 And he later developed this model that essentially the reasons people obey the law 25 00:02:52,770 --> 00:02:57,270 is because they think of the law or of legal authorities as being legitimate, 26 00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:06,300 and perceptions of legitimacy are based on experiences of fair treatment from legal authorities. 27 00:03:06,300 --> 00:03:13,830 So it is not the outcomes or the favourable outcomes that people receive from legal authorities, 28 00:03:14,460 --> 00:03:19,950 but how fairly they think they have been treated by those relevant authorities. 29 00:03:19,950 --> 00:03:27,509 And he argues that fair treatment encourages people to think of police as being legitimate, 30 00:03:27,510 --> 00:03:34,140 which then feeds into an attitude of compliance and support for police authorities. 31 00:03:34,710 --> 00:03:41,040 There is also the additional argument here that fair treatment encourages immediate decision acceptance 32 00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:48,270 and long term compliance with the law because the evidence on long term compliance is quite weak. 33 00:03:48,720 --> 00:04:01,320 Okay. So these are the key findings from the relevant literature that when police forces or legal authorities are considered to be legitimate, 34 00:04:01,860 --> 00:04:06,750 we should expect more compliance, more cooperation, greater satisfaction, 35 00:04:07,170 --> 00:04:13,080 and even less support for vigilante violence across the different communities. 36 00:04:16,450 --> 00:04:23,650 And a number of, I think both police forces and even at the government level have taken notice of this. 37 00:04:24,610 --> 00:04:30,309 These findings from the literature that more recently the US president has a 38 00:04:30,310 --> 00:04:36,550 task force following the incidents in Ferguson to look into policing in the US. 39 00:04:36,730 --> 00:04:45,850 And the interim report has, as its first pillar, the need for police forces to cultivate legitimacy and for justice, 40 00:04:45,850 --> 00:04:52,570 both within police institutions and into our relations with relevant communities. 41 00:04:53,680 --> 00:05:02,350 So it seems to me that on the evidence, this is a powerful notion that one needs to take seriously. 42 00:05:04,390 --> 00:05:11,680 But an interesting observation from the literature is the various different ways that legitimacy has been measured. 43 00:05:12,340 --> 00:05:16,780 So I said earlier that if you look at the literature, what are the impressions you get? 44 00:05:16,780 --> 00:05:21,820 Or one of the evidence is that legitimacy encourages cooperation with police forces. 45 00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:30,010 But that conclusion hides a lot of things, not least the variations in the measurement of the concept. 46 00:05:30,640 --> 00:05:39,400 So if to me, legitimacy as trust and confidence assumptions, that is something I and others are saying it's obligation to obey. 47 00:05:40,030 --> 00:05:44,979 Then the conclusions drawn are a little bit shaky in that respect because we are not referring 48 00:05:44,980 --> 00:05:50,630 to the same thing unless we argue that obligation to obey and trust and confidence. 49 00:05:50,650 --> 00:05:55,420 I wanted to see which I think would be a difficult argument to sustain. 50 00:05:57,220 --> 00:06:05,140 And there's a price, of course, to this kind of conceptual ambiguity, as I would put it. 51 00:06:05,860 --> 00:06:12,220 One is that it doesn't really advance our theoretical understanding of the concept, 52 00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:27,160 and a discussion on the problem is not resolved simply by applying concern, complex or advanced statistical analysis to the issue. 53 00:06:27,790 --> 00:06:37,450 If, for example, I also argue trust and obligation are different concepts from legitimacy, 54 00:06:37,930 --> 00:06:44,780 then it doesn't really matter the level of sophistication in our analysis of trust and obligation. 55 00:06:44,800 --> 00:06:56,190 It wouldn't resolve the issue. So it tells us that simply devising new technical instruments, more or less, dances around the issue at hand. 56 00:06:59,110 --> 00:07:03,730 I'm arguing that there are at least two limitations in the current literature. 57 00:07:05,290 --> 00:07:10,599 The first is what I've already alluded to, that there's a tendency to reduce legitimacy, 58 00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:15,880 to trust and obligation to obey feelings of obligation, to obey legal authority. 59 00:07:16,870 --> 00:07:24,910 And secondly, there is much of the evidence is based on community surveys and interviews. 60 00:07:25,660 --> 00:07:30,580 While that is useful and I have done a lot of that work and I continue to do so, 61 00:07:31,450 --> 00:07:38,980 I think an exclusive focus on that limits this planetary value of the concept. 62 00:07:39,490 --> 00:07:43,920 And I will try to show that later. We'll talk. 63 00:07:45,730 --> 00:07:49,240 So first of all, let's start with some dictionaries. 64 00:07:50,380 --> 00:07:55,430 Some have made the argument that dictionary definition should not guide criminological analysis. 65 00:07:55,560 --> 00:08:04,570 Fine, I understand, but at least it's a starting point to see what an ordinary usage of the term we mean by legitimacy. 66 00:08:05,050 --> 00:08:11,770 And here, of course, being an Oxford Oxford English Dictionary gives us some of these definitions. 67 00:08:11,770 --> 00:08:21,430 One that when we talk about legitimacy, we are talking about a condition of being lawful or being in accordance with a principle. 68 00:08:21,970 --> 00:08:28,750 And we could read the principle here to mean may be values or norms within particular communities. 69 00:08:29,950 --> 00:08:33,610 That, again, is emphasised in the second definition. 70 00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:38,140 So here there is no references to obligation to obey. 71 00:08:38,170 --> 00:08:46,959 As such, there is no reference to trust. And you can go through the list of definitions that Oxford University Press provides. 72 00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:53,200 And I you can trust me on this. There is no references to any of these either of those concepts. 73 00:08:54,370 --> 00:09:04,420 Website English Dictionary makes a similar point that when we talk about legitimacy in the ordinary meaning of the term, we are talking about law. 74 00:09:05,020 --> 00:09:10,570 We are talking about accepted rules as standards, which, again, what norms? 75 00:09:10,780 --> 00:09:14,890 The norms are the accepted rules or standards. 76 00:09:15,270 --> 00:09:20,100 That supposed to guide behaviour in particular situations. 77 00:09:24,380 --> 00:09:27,410 Secondly, on the issue of trust, 78 00:09:30,260 --> 00:09:39,290 I think there is no doubt that or at least one could make the argument that trust and legitimacy are perhaps intimately related. 79 00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:48,500 But they seem to me to be quite different concepts that we could easily think of situations 80 00:09:49,550 --> 00:09:56,030 where people trust legal institutions but do not consider those institutions to be legitimate. 81 00:09:57,020 --> 00:10:05,900 So for example, I don't know how to drive, but if I did and I had a master blender how to make an insurance claim. 82 00:10:06,890 --> 00:10:17,360 A requirement might be that I produced a police report and imagine that I thought of the Oxford or Cambridge police as being deeply illegitimate. 83 00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:27,530 That still will not prevent me from going to them if I really wanted to claim my insurance to go to them for the relevant documentation to do that. 84 00:10:27,950 --> 00:10:35,719 Now I might trust them to provide me the services that I require without necessarily thinking of them. 85 00:10:35,720 --> 00:10:38,480 Must be legitimate in that respect. Okay. 86 00:10:39,230 --> 00:10:49,500 And one, of course, could also think of legitimacy as being one of the conditions that allow people to be more trusting of institutions. 87 00:10:49,540 --> 00:10:58,010 But if I thought an institution was legitimate, I might be more inclined to trust it than if I didn't think so. 88 00:10:59,480 --> 00:11:11,600 So if we look at the definitions of trust and and legitimacy, it's very hard to see how we can make one do the job of the other, so to speak. 89 00:11:12,330 --> 00:11:25,040 Okay. So then my argument that if those two or three concepts are different and I'm sure we have the chance to to get into this further, 90 00:11:25,670 --> 00:11:35,300 then there's a need for us to probably chart a different course, to look beyond measuring legitimacy in terms of obligation to be on trust. 91 00:11:35,990 --> 00:11:46,810 Of course, one of the arguments that we made originally was that feelings of obligation to build legal institutions might be the result of fear, 92 00:11:47,630 --> 00:11:56,240 might be the result of what are human combined calls in the prison context, drawing on marks of dark compulsion. 93 00:11:56,540 --> 00:12:04,790 But people are faced with structural situations where they believe they have no option but to be legal institutions. 94 00:12:05,150 --> 00:12:13,100 Or if we think about James Scott's distinction between public and hidden transcripts in relation to power, 95 00:12:14,090 --> 00:12:22,580 that the situation is so stacked against some individuals that at least when you when you ask the question, 96 00:12:23,150 --> 00:12:31,910 do you feel an obligation to obey those institutions, people might immediately say yes, without necessarily that obligation being normatively based. 97 00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:39,860 But even if we establish that, the obligation we are referring to is not one that is based on fear. 98 00:12:40,430 --> 00:12:49,130 It's not one that is based on compulsion, but it is, quote unquote, genuine feelings of obligation to obey legal institutions. 99 00:12:49,670 --> 00:12:59,000 That does not itself suggest that we have resolved the problem of conflation of the concepts. 100 00:12:59,300 --> 00:13:10,310 Okay. The argument I would make is that legitimacy is what encourages people to feel an obligation to obey legal institutions, 101 00:13:10,670 --> 00:13:15,230 which then might translate into actual behavioural outcomes. 102 00:13:15,740 --> 00:13:21,470 Okay. One of the reasons not doing dealing in charting that different course, 103 00:13:21,950 --> 00:13:33,709 of course our starting point in the social sciences is always Magaziner and he makes the point that legitimacy is the most stable 104 00:13:33,710 --> 00:13:45,190 basis for powerful authority and therefore conjectures that every system of authority seeks to cultivate legitimacy for itself. 105 00:13:45,230 --> 00:13:54,080 And we know how. He goes on to talk about the different grounds on which legitimacy might be nurtured or cultivated, 106 00:13:54,110 --> 00:14:03,470 resulting in his three fold cosmology of traditional, charismatic and legal, rational authority. 107 00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:16,790 Okay, so the definition I will start with is the definition that there would be some officers more recently, 108 00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:23,000 which is that when we talk about legitimacy, we are talking about the recognition of the right to govern. 109 00:14:23,760 --> 00:14:31,649 Ascension and that this recognition involves at least two parties. 110 00:14:31,650 --> 00:14:37,320 And he sees a third party whose recognition might be important in that respect. 111 00:14:37,590 --> 00:14:43,790 And later on, towards the end of the of the talk, I will come back to this issue of third parties, 112 00:14:43,800 --> 00:14:50,970 especially when we make that distinction between what some call empirical legitimacy and normative legitimacy, 113 00:14:51,390 --> 00:14:59,580 what happens within particular societies, and what some supra state standards or requirements might be. 114 00:15:00,240 --> 00:15:04,410 But at least this is the definition that we want to go with. 115 00:15:05,610 --> 00:15:14,820 And this, I think, are the three really important features of it, that legitimacy is essentially normative in the sense that, 116 00:15:15,290 --> 00:15:22,100 as someone argues, it is deeply social, it's based on the norms, the values within a particular context. 117 00:15:22,740 --> 00:15:31,920 And regardless of what an individual powerful that might believe, someone says, even though one may jump up and down claiming to be legitimate, 118 00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:42,390 it doesn't really produce much recognition if it is not linked to the norms and values within the particular society. 119 00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:49,680 Secondly, that legitimacy is not a binary either or kind of concept. 120 00:15:50,550 --> 00:15:59,640 It's a it's a conditional. It's something that happens as a matter of degree, but there's more or less of it rather than nothing at all. 121 00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:06,030 And that often it's because you are dealing with not one particular audience, but a multiplicity of audiences. 122 00:16:06,510 --> 00:16:11,940 So if you want to provide an overall scorecard for a legitimate police institution, 123 00:16:12,510 --> 00:16:19,620 it's quite unlikely that all these different audiences would have thought of the police being somehow illegitimate. 124 00:16:19,840 --> 00:16:23,130 Look again what the Ferguson Police Department does. 125 00:16:23,580 --> 00:16:30,060 Would you imagine that everybody would think of them as being the illegitimate set? 126 00:16:30,840 --> 00:16:34,670 Is that legitimacy ostensibly to park all this onto their audiences? 127 00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:40,920 The point here is that it is not for the recognition of power. 128 00:16:41,760 --> 00:16:46,290 It is not sufficient to just rely on what power audiences think. 129 00:16:47,160 --> 00:16:50,430 An equally important issue, which Max Weber emphasised, 130 00:16:51,090 --> 00:16:57,600 was the need for powerful ideas themselves to believe in the in the rightness of their positions and the authority. 131 00:16:57,900 --> 00:17:05,160 We are not talking here about police officers, for example, perceptions of the legitimacy of the police department. 132 00:17:05,190 --> 00:17:10,980 No, we are talking about the individual officers personal legitimacy in those circumstances. 133 00:17:12,120 --> 00:17:26,939 And. Part of the argument here then, is that it's useful for us to think of legitimacy as a continuous dialogue of a claim, 134 00:17:26,940 --> 00:17:32,670 a constant claim of response between powerful ideas and the different audiences. 135 00:17:33,090 --> 00:17:37,800 We have the multiple audiences within that particular society. 136 00:17:38,250 --> 00:17:41,430 The powerful. This might begin with a claim. 137 00:17:42,180 --> 00:17:51,840 So, for example, we might think that stop and search is a useful tool in the particular police area, 138 00:17:52,020 --> 00:18:00,599 and we start to implement or practice this particular strategy and we might have a claim or a response from the audience is either at the 139 00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:11,520 national level or during everyday encounters with the police forces and police officers might revise the claim in future transactions. 140 00:18:11,520 --> 00:18:13,230 Of course, that depends on the context. 141 00:18:13,320 --> 00:18:24,690 If it's such a political context that powerful this thing, they are not accountable to past subjects or audiences, then this might not apply. 142 00:18:26,470 --> 00:18:33,000 Okay, so what is it then that powerful do so audiences come to this dialogue? 143 00:18:33,150 --> 00:18:36,510 What is it that if spectrum cardholders. 144 00:18:36,840 --> 00:18:45,120 What are the conditions that allow people to ascribe what recognised power as being legitimate? 145 00:18:47,340 --> 00:18:54,959 I've recently come across a work by Bernard Williams and he suggested that almost 146 00:18:54,960 --> 00:19:00,690 in every society there is what he called the first basic political question, 147 00:19:01,260 --> 00:19:07,860 which is how do we create order? How do we create the conditions that allow for trusts, 148 00:19:07,860 --> 00:19:18,780 that allow for cooperation among individuals and that meeting power holders that meets what he calls basic legitimation demands. 149 00:19:19,530 --> 00:19:28,860 The powerful Nasdaq will be recognised as being legitimate, so we might think of it this way a kind of imaginary dialogue. 150 00:19:29,280 --> 00:19:33,600 So we are, and it can be complete chaos and disorder. 151 00:19:34,050 --> 00:19:38,010 And someone says, I can drink. I can establish order. 152 00:19:38,460 --> 00:19:45,990 I can create the conditions that allow us to go about our various routines without hindrance. 153 00:19:46,530 --> 00:19:55,920 And we say, okay, we will recognise your authority, we recognise your power to do that if you are able to meet certain basic legitimation demands. 154 00:19:56,570 --> 00:20:04,440 Okay, we set in some boundaries within which you are supposed to or conditions for which you're supposed to exercise that authority. 155 00:20:04,950 --> 00:20:10,860 And Williams argues that meeting those basic legitimation demands is what distinguishes 156 00:20:11,280 --> 00:20:18,840 a legitimate state and legitimate system of domination from an illegitimate form. 157 00:20:20,430 --> 00:20:29,700 And he makes the point further, which I find very interesting, that the satisfaction of these basic legitimation demands, 158 00:20:30,390 --> 00:20:41,190 the nature of these basic legitimation demands varies historically, so they haven't always been the kind of liberal conditions or liberal demands. 159 00:20:41,730 --> 00:20:46,500 And he goes on fed up to see that now and today. 160 00:20:46,890 --> 00:20:53,310 It seems that liberal demands are the only ones that are acceptable and others are not welcome. 161 00:20:53,700 --> 00:20:58,260 But I think the fundamental point he makes here is how the conditions for legitimacy, 162 00:20:59,250 --> 00:21:05,220 the grounds on which people ascribe legitimacy to institutions, vary across societies. 163 00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:13,770 And I think that's an important point, because if we take legitimacy as simply obligation to obey, 164 00:21:14,910 --> 00:21:19,890 then what we are suggesting is that in almost every society, especially when we use community service, 165 00:21:20,370 --> 00:21:24,210 it's a question of how strongly people agree or disagree with this issue, 166 00:21:24,900 --> 00:21:35,420 rather than allowing for the community to tell us what the conditions for legitimacy within those specific instances. 167 00:21:35,430 --> 00:21:42,870 And that links to fear the point that Bentham made, which is that legitimacy is always, of course, 168 00:21:42,940 --> 00:21:50,340 a question of context, that a sociologist of social sciences, we know that societies differ. 169 00:21:51,240 --> 00:21:56,760 And as I said earlier, norms and values are central to the question of legitimacy. 170 00:21:57,510 --> 00:22:08,220 And to the extent that values and beliefs vary across different societies, we should expect that the nature of legitimacy would accordingly vary. 171 00:22:08,970 --> 00:22:15,670 But he makes the point, in spite of that, that it is still possible to identify what he calls underlying structure of. 172 00:22:16,810 --> 00:22:28,000 Something that is common across all different communities, even if the substantive nature of those elements will vary accordingly. 173 00:22:28,600 --> 00:22:36,220 So it's a notion that is similar to what, for example, Blue tells us about what he calls sensitising concepts, 174 00:22:36,790 --> 00:22:45,790 that social concepts are sensitising concepts in the sense that they manifest themselves differently in different social context. 175 00:22:45,820 --> 00:22:53,440 It's a similar notion here. So in a paper that I published with Toni Bottoms, 176 00:22:53,440 --> 00:23:04,960 we argued that these might be some of the legitimation demands that people make of power, people make of legal institutions. 177 00:23:05,050 --> 00:23:13,900 But these are the demands when they meet would distinguish them from illegitimate state institutions. 178 00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:17,710 We are not, of course, arguing that this is exhausted. 179 00:23:18,310 --> 00:23:29,830 We're saying this at least that's a conjecture hypothesis about what you might find across different societies as being the grounds for legitimacy. 180 00:23:31,030 --> 00:23:36,280 Okay, let's look at this further. Of course, the question of lawfulness. 181 00:23:36,380 --> 00:23:42,330 The one of the basic or what we might say, BLT one. 182 00:23:42,330 --> 00:23:52,020 What would it be? These would be that power be seen as being consistent with the rules as they are currently operating in each society. 183 00:23:52,030 --> 00:24:00,280 And we will come later when we look at the example of some cases recently to see how this might fit what we are talking about. 184 00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:05,920 But this would seem self-explanatory that a source of power if police say they have the power to do stop and search. 185 00:24:07,000 --> 00:24:10,690 The question is, where does that power come from? 186 00:24:11,620 --> 00:24:20,229 Is it consistent with the law as currently validated and the nature that a power, 187 00:24:20,230 --> 00:24:26,620 even if it were consistent with the law, how the power is synthesised and it also to conform with the rules. 188 00:24:27,670 --> 00:24:36,250 Of course, police corruption, police criminality will be instances of breach of the rules of police. 189 00:24:36,700 --> 00:24:46,750 Listening into people's conversations without the requisite legal permit will be instances of that. 190 00:24:47,470 --> 00:24:54,820 But of course, we are told from social legal studies that there is always a gap between the 191 00:24:54,820 --> 00:25:01,060 law on the everyday norms and or normative consciousness of of communities. 192 00:25:01,450 --> 00:25:05,320 And that is a mistake for us to think as Tamannaah argues, 193 00:25:05,860 --> 00:25:14,290 against what you call the mere thesis that the law necessarily reflect the values of communities, that if you take, for example, 194 00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:24,640 the case of post-colonial societies, this one in point, even in Western democratic multicultural societies, 195 00:25:25,210 --> 00:25:33,160 it's very hard to argue that no laws necessarily reflect prevailing values as such. 196 00:25:35,500 --> 00:25:41,710 So Bithumb makes the point that law cannot justify itself by reference to itself. 197 00:25:42,370 --> 00:25:50,680 You need some sort of external reference to the values within that particular community in order to be legitimate. 198 00:25:51,300 --> 00:26:02,830 And he talks about shared values within communities, a notion that is similar to what John Jackson calls moral alignment but powerful. 199 00:26:02,830 --> 00:26:11,590 This idea, audiences share common values systems because those values system them provide, 200 00:26:11,590 --> 00:26:17,470 if you like, the fountain for justifying power, for justifying the law. 201 00:26:18,850 --> 00:26:26,590 But of course, just talking about shared values or moral alignment, well, that general notion is useful. 202 00:26:27,370 --> 00:26:31,329 It is still possible for us to go beyond that, to speculate, 203 00:26:31,330 --> 00:26:38,920 at least to hypothesise about specific values that might be important in different cultural context. 204 00:26:39,460 --> 00:26:51,310 So, for example, John Donne in his book Setting the People Free, tells us that the reason democracy is so appealing or has won debateable, 205 00:26:51,550 --> 00:27:00,550 as we put it, is because of the notion of equality, that that's a notion that almost every person finds attractive. 206 00:27:02,740 --> 00:27:14,260 So I'm suggesting that obviously just the the first or at least one of the specific shared values is that of distributive justice. 207 00:27:16,080 --> 00:27:24,610 What extent does power allocate resources in a way that it's not discriminatory in 208 00:27:24,610 --> 00:27:31,230 the way that is fair across different competing groups within a particular society? 209 00:27:32,430 --> 00:27:36,180 Is it ethnic differences? Is a social class? 210 00:27:36,990 --> 00:27:47,160 Is a political affiliation or religious concerns that at least in liberal democratic societies, 211 00:27:48,090 --> 00:27:53,070 we would expect that the notion that the individual has dignity, 212 00:27:54,030 --> 00:28:05,280 has respect and are entitled to these, and that it is unfair to discriminate against that individual on the basis of his particular characteristics. 213 00:28:05,820 --> 00:28:09,220 It's one that will be consistent with this. 214 00:28:09,250 --> 00:28:16,710 So we can look at it in terms of how police allocated their resources across different communities, different social groups. 215 00:28:17,460 --> 00:28:23,070 But of course, for us, for those who are also interested in perceptual studies, it's also, 216 00:28:23,070 --> 00:28:29,220 at least in the literature, often measured as perceptions of the fairness of outcomes that people receive. 217 00:28:29,520 --> 00:28:42,060 So defines a decision to address the decision to stop and search examples of the outcomes that people might perceive to be fair or not. 218 00:28:42,480 --> 00:28:48,600 But essentially, it comes down to the issue of being overpoliced and protected, for example. 219 00:28:50,400 --> 00:28:58,290 And there's a lot in this area consistent with Ian's notion of policing as a public good, for example. 220 00:29:01,020 --> 00:29:10,919 So, of course, one of the contentious areas where distributive justice or at least injustice arises, there is a stop and search. 221 00:29:10,920 --> 00:29:14,640 And always when you look at the statistics, at least on the face of it, 222 00:29:15,510 --> 00:29:24,600 appear to suggest that there is some injustice in the distribution of this piece, 223 00:29:24,600 --> 00:29:29,340 if you like, from full power to the punishment from some power, so to speak. 224 00:29:32,580 --> 00:29:41,280 The second and therefore the third legitimation demand is what we know from the literature quite extensively. 225 00:29:41,740 --> 00:29:52,710 It's the notion of procedure justice defined essentially as perceived fairness of out of treatment. 226 00:29:54,450 --> 00:30:01,020 And Tyler speaks or writes extensively about issues that relate to accountability 227 00:30:01,200 --> 00:30:06,190 in the sense of police officers having to give a reason for their decisions. 228 00:30:06,210 --> 00:30:15,210 So when people have interactions with the police, the research suggests, and they're making a judgement about whether the processes of being fair, 229 00:30:16,770 --> 00:30:23,639 one of two dimensions are implicated and one is the quality of decision making and the elements of the 230 00:30:23,640 --> 00:30:29,520 quality of decision making are the perceptions of reasons being given for a particular course of action. 231 00:30:29,550 --> 00:30:33,540 So if I'm being arrested, why is that the case? 232 00:30:34,230 --> 00:30:39,059 It's just not the issue that, given the reason, mean I wouldn't be arrested. 233 00:30:39,060 --> 00:30:42,270 I would be in a way, but is still given the reason for that particular answer. 234 00:30:42,750 --> 00:30:52,830 What are people are encouraged, in fact, to, as it were, put across the other side of the story, their input in the decision making process, 235 00:30:54,840 --> 00:30:59,010 the notion that it's used extensively in the literature is that of neutrality, 236 00:30:59,400 --> 00:31:07,790 although some argue that impartiality is to be preferred because neutrality is a bit more of a passive notion. 237 00:31:08,640 --> 00:31:16,290 And of course, the issue of quality of of treatment, respect, dignity, recognition for the individual. 238 00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:27,060 But also I would suggest later that when we think about this in terms of not conceptual studies or community service, 239 00:31:27,450 --> 00:31:32,430 it is still possible to to think about mechanisms of accountability or these oversight 240 00:31:33,120 --> 00:31:38,790 institutions that we have and here have referred to the paper Ian wrote with Richard Sparks, 241 00:31:39,360 --> 00:31:49,410 drawing on violence, work on democratic legitimation, participation and the others. 242 00:31:50,700 --> 00:32:00,839 So, for example, is, is a depiction of of the kind of recognition, 243 00:32:00,840 --> 00:32:07,400 the kind of respect that people get from the New York police when they do their stop and search. 244 00:32:07,740 --> 00:32:14,010 And last year, there was a really interesting case where the New York police went on Twitter telling people, 245 00:32:14,010 --> 00:32:17,610 if you've got photographs of us, share it with us. 246 00:32:17,610 --> 00:32:26,929 And people began to share the really outrageous photographs about police high-handedness and suddenly the account was taken about. 247 00:32:26,930 --> 00:32:34,710 They didn't want to know about this, but it's an instance of this that, as I said, at least in some political cultures, 248 00:32:35,040 --> 00:32:41,609 the notion people are entitled to a respectful, dignified treatment, 249 00:32:41,610 --> 00:32:48,329 a recognition of them as being human is an important specific value or legitimation demand. 250 00:32:48,330 --> 00:32:56,400 So essentially a demand we will make of police forces is that, yes, you've got a right to use stop and search powers, 251 00:32:57,000 --> 00:33:03,570 but we demand that you do so in a way that recognises us as human beings, not us. 252 00:33:05,430 --> 00:33:17,400 The other party, the UK, the force legitimation demand and therefore the, if you like you say the third specific value. 253 00:33:17,640 --> 00:33:26,450 And this is a bit more contentious because in the literature on legitimacy we often treat effectiveness as a purely instrumental notion. 254 00:33:26,490 --> 00:33:31,050 It's got nothing to do with the more normative concept of legitimacy. 255 00:33:31,500 --> 00:33:39,000 But actually, if you go back to Ben Williamson's point, which is that we have a political question, 256 00:33:39,600 --> 00:33:51,930 and that question is how can we create the conditions for cooperation, the conditions for trust, how can we maintain order within our communities? 257 00:33:52,620 --> 00:34:05,790 And you said I can do that. And then it follows that the extent to which you are able to execute that duty will be not purely an instrumental issue. 258 00:34:06,390 --> 00:34:13,650 It's a normative requirement. Police forces are not vested with the power they have because we want them to treat us fairly. 259 00:34:14,190 --> 00:34:17,820 I feel we can do that about ourselves without the police getting involved. 260 00:34:19,800 --> 00:34:25,020 Not that we want them to distribute punishment and they don't do rewards, they just distribute punishment. 261 00:34:25,020 --> 00:34:30,180 So maybe sometimes a bit of protection. But it's an. 262 00:34:30,280 --> 00:34:40,809 To me that the effectiveness of the police in contributing to solving that original political question will 263 00:34:40,810 --> 00:34:49,330 be one of the normative requirements or one of the legitimation demands people make of those in power. 264 00:34:49,480 --> 00:34:56,680 And Robert Peel Tools, it tells us initially about the reason for the police is that we wanted someone, 265 00:34:56,860 --> 00:35:04,180 some authority which could contribute to preventing crime and disorder in local communities. 266 00:35:04,210 --> 00:35:09,070 Of course, we know today that the police just don't do crime prevention and disorder. 267 00:35:09,070 --> 00:35:13,390 They do a lot of other social what they consider to be social services. 268 00:35:14,320 --> 00:35:18,390 But the point is that this is the basic reason for for the police. 269 00:35:18,400 --> 00:35:20,740 And that is really the question about legitimacy. 270 00:35:21,190 --> 00:35:30,040 A.C. is about why does this institution have the right to exist and to exercise these kind of powers? 271 00:35:31,150 --> 00:35:40,600 And it seems to me that, in fact, our starting point should always be the extent to which that institution demonstrates effectiveness in this case, 272 00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:45,250 the police, in contributing to that resolution of that question. 273 00:35:45,940 --> 00:35:51,940 But of course, we will stop there. We won't be cops. 274 00:35:53,110 --> 00:35:56,230 Thomas Hobbs, stop at that particular answer. 275 00:35:56,590 --> 00:36:02,280 The effectiveness is sufficient to address that question. 276 00:36:02,300 --> 00:36:08,890 And Williams tries to defend cops here by arguing that one, 277 00:36:09,490 --> 00:36:18,280 the conditions in which cops was writing were so dire that he thought the state 278 00:36:18,280 --> 00:36:23,440 or the person who is able to create or to solve that particular first question, 279 00:36:23,740 --> 00:36:30,400 what I've done enough to warrant legitimacy without the need for anything extra. 280 00:36:30,790 --> 00:36:38,830 But of course, it doesn't mean he supports terror, because that is the very issue that he was trying to to resolve. 281 00:36:39,170 --> 00:36:48,280 Okay. So if we took that together, a very simple model, unlike the one that we started with, 282 00:36:48,280 --> 00:37:01,330 is that when we talk about legitimacy as a multi dimensional concept, these are at least four of its elements that we can think about. 283 00:37:02,950 --> 00:37:12,340 As I say, there's scope for more depending on the methodological approach that we are and that it is this one institution, 284 00:37:12,460 --> 00:37:21,940 or when the police make these legitimation demands, that creates the feeling of obligation to obey the police, 285 00:37:21,940 --> 00:37:26,980 which might then lead into actual behavioural outcomes. 286 00:37:27,340 --> 00:37:30,420 Okay. Of course it could have a direct impact. 287 00:37:30,430 --> 00:37:38,950 The very fact that you consider what the police do to be lawful might encourage you to to want to obey the law or otherwise. 288 00:37:40,360 --> 00:37:45,700 This is a quote from. The point I should have made earlier that legitimacy is not new to criminology. 289 00:37:45,710 --> 00:37:57,940 If you go back to drug offences, causes of delinquency, his notion of belief and even attachment has a lot of references to legitimacy in it. 290 00:37:58,510 --> 00:38:10,600 Okay. What we often do in cases like this is that when we have come up with this hypothesis about the dimensions of legitimacy, 291 00:38:11,200 --> 00:38:18,430 we could use confirmatory factor analysis to see whether the data fits this particular model. 292 00:38:20,770 --> 00:38:26,410 You could try this. I've done it in the paper previously using data from London, which suggests that that's the case. 293 00:38:26,980 --> 00:38:37,750 This is a paper that I'm writing with colleagues from the US using samples from Ghana and the US suggesting that the estimate of my feet. 294 00:38:38,050 --> 00:38:42,460 But that is not really my concern here. 295 00:38:43,960 --> 00:38:49,720 If you look at the literature from prisons, this is on this and libraries work on the moral performances of prisons. 296 00:38:50,260 --> 00:38:59,379 What distinguishes are being poor performing and good performing prisons can actually be read as being less or more legitimate prisons. 297 00:38:59,380 --> 00:39:02,890 And you can see the sense that the quality of such prisons. 298 00:39:03,400 --> 00:39:06,940 Yes. There's no explicit references to lawfulness in this case. 299 00:39:07,420 --> 00:39:16,580 But respect for relations or respect and good relationships are essentially things to do with procedure, justice in some respect. 300 00:39:18,460 --> 00:39:25,390 Fairness here could be read in terms of both procedure and distributive aspect security. 301 00:39:25,390 --> 00:39:28,750 We are talking about effectiveness within prisons. 302 00:39:30,050 --> 00:39:36,650 But we can move beyond the perceptual studies to look at cases like this. 303 00:39:37,100 --> 00:39:48,379 So one of the reasons I think it's helpful to not only continue to do interviews and civil based studies, 304 00:39:48,380 --> 00:39:57,080 but also to use, quote unquote, other sources of data or come back to that data. 305 00:39:57,440 --> 00:40:04,220 But also, I think, to move beyond the obligation to be in motion, because this is a particular aspect of public policy. 306 00:40:04,540 --> 00:40:11,690 And how are we going to analyse this particular instance by relying on obligation to debate 307 00:40:12,680 --> 00:40:19,230 what what's the judgement that we're going to make in the activities of GCA HQ and the NSC? 308 00:40:19,580 --> 00:40:25,190 If we've seen that legitimacy has, it's about obligation to be okay. 309 00:40:25,910 --> 00:40:29,330 We are told the NSA has gone and done something really terrible. 310 00:40:29,330 --> 00:40:32,570 So we are interested in analysing the legitimacy of what they have done. 311 00:40:32,990 --> 00:40:41,180 How do we go about this? If our plans, if we rely almost exclusively on an obligation and we see that in the discussion that followed, 312 00:40:41,330 --> 00:40:50,330 the questions that people ask about the NSA, his activities read a presidential report commissioned into into what the NSA 313 00:40:51,080 --> 00:40:55,040 and then we have questions about whether the activities were constitutional. 314 00:40:56,000 --> 00:41:00,980 Right. Did Congress know about the actions of the NSA? 315 00:41:01,520 --> 00:41:04,670 It's a question of lawfulness. Is this lawful? 316 00:41:07,730 --> 00:41:15,110 And when it became clear that the Intelligence Select Committee, or at least some members knew about this, 317 00:41:15,440 --> 00:41:21,140 that somehow if you read the small print in the Patriot Act, there were somewhere they suggested that they could do what they were. 318 00:41:21,650 --> 00:41:27,290 They were doing the discussion, quote, quickly to look at what is the evidence that this is effective. 319 00:41:28,280 --> 00:41:35,450 Show us the evidence that this particular strategy has prevented terrorism. 320 00:41:36,170 --> 00:41:40,610 And again, if you read the report, it's very, very hard to does the conclusion they come to. 321 00:41:40,610 --> 00:41:50,360 That is no evidence to suggest that these are listening into people's conversations and 322 00:41:50,360 --> 00:41:56,660 all those other things that we read about contributed in any way to preventing attacks. 323 00:41:57,290 --> 00:42:02,450 And, of course, The New York Times tells us this was ineffective and constitutionally dangerous. 324 00:42:02,960 --> 00:42:10,070 We are told that it's an activity that violates fundamental rights to privacy. 325 00:42:11,570 --> 00:42:16,940 So this is an issue in part about procedure, justice, because remember, 326 00:42:16,940 --> 00:42:23,480 we said a key element of it is recognition, respect for that particular individual. 327 00:42:25,730 --> 00:42:31,459 Some also suggested and in fact, the presidential report says, 328 00:42:31,460 --> 00:42:37,760 that there's a tendency that this could be used to target people with particular political or religious views, 329 00:42:38,090 --> 00:42:45,080 a concern about distributive injustice in the use of this particular tool or issue. 330 00:42:45,530 --> 00:42:57,800 So this is a legitimacy assessment of the actions of the NSA and questions about whether we then have an obligation to obey that institution. 331 00:42:58,640 --> 00:43:05,450 Secondly, to this, we first have to establish in part, did the NSA act legitimately? 332 00:43:07,220 --> 00:43:10,580 We have tried to answer that by references to this. 333 00:43:12,440 --> 00:43:16,370 If it was an institution like the police that we deal with on a day to day basis, 334 00:43:17,300 --> 00:43:21,440 the NSA doesn't care whether you feel an obligation to abate or not because it doesn't require it. 335 00:43:22,010 --> 00:43:25,490 It will listen in the way we do all the things that they want it to do anyway. 336 00:43:25,810 --> 00:43:29,540 But imagine this was a police force and we ask asking these basic questions. 337 00:43:29,900 --> 00:43:35,690 The question then about whether we have an obligation to obey arise as a consequence 338 00:43:35,690 --> 00:43:42,260 to this just a sequel to this particular issue rather than being one and the same. 339 00:43:45,530 --> 00:43:55,070 And I think that really broadens our analytical framework, for example, because one might wonder why really would the NSA do this? 340 00:43:55,730 --> 00:44:00,440 Didn't they know that people would be rather outraged by some of these issues? 341 00:44:00,470 --> 00:44:04,160 I said earlier that part of the legitimacy is an important aspect of it. 342 00:44:04,460 --> 00:44:12,980 So let's imagine that the NSA thought about it very carefully and they were really confident that this is an illegitimate action to undertake. 343 00:44:13,250 --> 00:44:21,280 Right. So high, medium, low legitimacy, obviously, the public have responded at least some aspects of the public, 344 00:44:21,290 --> 00:44:29,950 those who are really concerned about some of the things that they were doing by saying, no, we think of this as being illegitimate custody and. 345 00:44:30,140 --> 00:44:36,980 The reason this all set in motion various attempts to try to reform what the NSA does. 346 00:44:37,190 --> 00:44:42,170 Okay. So I can come back to this later, if you wish. 347 00:44:43,340 --> 00:44:47,210 But also, let's take another example. And really, I think most of us who know about been lawyers. 348 00:44:51,510 --> 00:44:54,540 It's a particular murder of this young man. 349 00:44:54,600 --> 00:45:01,440 The police have done their investigations. I'm sure they were really confident that what they had done was was appropriate, 350 00:45:01,830 --> 00:45:08,460 including sending undercover officers to surveil the victims families. 351 00:45:10,230 --> 00:45:20,730 But the response to this was that this really violates deep values within this particular community, 352 00:45:21,240 --> 00:45:26,100 that it's because they come from a particular social background that to investigate this. 353 00:45:26,280 --> 00:45:28,850 So I'm not familiar with the case. Could you. Okay. Okay. 354 00:45:28,980 --> 00:45:39,150 So civil Lawrence was, of course, a young black man in the early nineties who was murdered by, I think, three young white guys. 355 00:45:39,750 --> 00:45:48,840 And the police initially did not diagnose the issue as being a racially motivated incident, properly activity at all. 356 00:45:49,350 --> 00:45:54,570 And the investigations into it was rather shoddy. 357 00:45:55,110 --> 00:45:59,220 Okay. Missing key evidence. 358 00:45:59,820 --> 00:46:08,969 And the families of the family of the victim refused to accept the police's botched the prosecutions and all that, 359 00:46:08,970 --> 00:46:12,299 and made a lot of campaigning against the police activity, 360 00:46:12,300 --> 00:46:21,120 which resulted in 1997 and a commission of inquiry which said that the police had acted in a way that was institutionally racist, 361 00:46:21,720 --> 00:46:27,030 not that the police were formally racist, but at least there were some norms of culture within the police force, 362 00:46:27,030 --> 00:46:32,880 which meant that they treated people of certain background differently. 363 00:46:33,120 --> 00:46:40,859 Okay. So the point I'm making here is that even if the police could prove to us that what they did was lawful, 364 00:46:40,860 --> 00:46:44,340 then therefore kickstarts the commission demand box. 365 00:46:44,760 --> 00:46:51,570 There was the additional question about whether this was fair distributed, whether the way they treated the families, 366 00:46:52,320 --> 00:46:58,680 for example, sending in undercover officers to just revealed that that family was fair. 367 00:46:59,850 --> 00:47:04,919 So some of these questions arise in the but I think the also important issue when we think 368 00:47:04,920 --> 00:47:11,250 about legitimacy in this sense is that it expands the explanatory value of the concept. 369 00:47:11,970 --> 00:47:20,370 So a lack of legitimacy is not only restricted to an issue of obeying or disobeying the law at a very micro level, 370 00:47:20,760 --> 00:47:24,000 but it has implications for organisational stability and change. 371 00:47:24,600 --> 00:47:32,670 So this particular instance, as we saw with even the NSA's case, resulted in legislative changes. 372 00:47:32,940 --> 00:47:39,300 But because the police acted illegitimately, some of these followed. 373 00:47:40,440 --> 00:47:45,090 Okay. So just bringing it to an end, because you are now, right? 374 00:47:47,570 --> 00:47:51,280 No, no. They started it up. Oh, okay. Okay. 375 00:47:51,690 --> 00:48:01,420 Excellent. All right. So the point I've been trying to make is that this notion of basic legitimation demand, 376 00:48:01,440 --> 00:48:09,210 I think, offers us some opportunity to build on what we currently know. 377 00:48:09,840 --> 00:48:14,430 But there's also, I think, some important additional issues for us to bear in mind. 378 00:48:14,550 --> 00:48:19,500 One is this distinction often made between normative and empirical legitimacy. 379 00:48:19,860 --> 00:48:25,470 As social scientists, we tend to focus on this partly through Max Weber's influence. 380 00:48:27,180 --> 00:48:33,850 That legitimacy, the conditions for legitimacy are those within the particular community, all of society. 381 00:48:33,870 --> 00:48:45,870 So if in all souls, we agree that these are the basic legitimation demands for the police, that the effective, the the lawful, 382 00:48:46,650 --> 00:48:53,520 that they can discriminate based on racial considerations, for example, or gender considerations, 383 00:48:54,300 --> 00:48:58,560 and that would be sufficient to establish legitimate use of their standard. 384 00:48:59,280 --> 00:49:02,370 That is, the demands satisfied within that community. 385 00:49:02,640 --> 00:49:08,010 Of course, we know the dangers with this relying exclusively on what happens within particular societies. 386 00:49:08,430 --> 00:49:15,149 So people argue that we should try to bridge the gap between the normative and the empirical. 387 00:49:15,150 --> 00:49:27,299 The normative mean somehow we have some benchmark on the basis of which we try to judge the legitimacy or otherwise of police actions, 388 00:49:27,300 --> 00:49:29,070 for example, in different communities. 389 00:49:29,700 --> 00:49:40,680 And if we take the case of the EU or Europe, the European Human Rights Convention might be your starting point as a kind of normative benchmark. 390 00:49:40,800 --> 00:49:48,060 Okay. So if the police do something I don't like, I think they violated my my rights and the whole of England and Wales things. 391 00:49:48,120 --> 00:50:01,839 Yes. What the police do. I could appeal to this higher normative power authority for some sort of redress. 392 00:50:01,840 --> 00:50:06,730 And we know countless examples of people having done this. 393 00:50:07,000 --> 00:50:14,020 Of course, this notion of normative legitimacy is not some God given I. 394 00:50:14,650 --> 00:50:21,700 It's you could argue that it's somewhat this empirical legitimacy, some of these values that are being used to judge everyone else. 395 00:50:21,700 --> 00:50:25,000 Right. I'm sure we can have that discussion. 396 00:50:26,290 --> 00:50:32,530 The second issue is I think we need some sort of maybe not methodological innovation by variation in the approach to legitimacy. 397 00:50:32,890 --> 00:50:40,590 I think we need more qualitative studies, not in terms of testing theories to see, 398 00:50:41,410 --> 00:50:45,460 but at least as the first step to developing some of these survey instruments. 399 00:50:45,970 --> 00:50:53,890 Let's go to Afghanistan or Guyana and engage with the people and interview them. 400 00:50:53,890 --> 00:51:03,400 Do whatever qualitative methods we can. We can apply to understand what the basic legitimation demands of power are in this particular context, 401 00:51:03,940 --> 00:51:07,720 and we can then use that as the basis for building the civil instruments. 402 00:51:07,930 --> 00:51:11,020 If that is what we want to do. So this could be a first step. 403 00:51:11,440 --> 00:51:20,500 It could be sufficient on its own, or it could be the basis on which we develop civil instruments for community studies. 404 00:51:21,040 --> 00:51:32,770 I think this is a useful approach, of course, because I've said many times, but it also I think it leaves room for some sort of surprise. 405 00:51:33,040 --> 00:51:38,529 Okay. Rather than always using the same instrument across different contexts. 406 00:51:38,530 --> 00:51:43,300 And people just tell you what could they tell us? They could only tell us whether they agree or disagree. 407 00:51:44,230 --> 00:51:50,740 Right. But if we are starting from bottom up to understand what is it, how do people perceive power? 408 00:51:51,160 --> 00:51:55,630 What are the expectations of power? What are the demands they make of power? 409 00:51:56,560 --> 00:51:59,860 It might emerge that they are not talking about even effectiveness. 410 00:52:00,490 --> 00:52:03,110 Maybe they are not even talking about lawfulness. 411 00:52:03,130 --> 00:52:11,230 It would be strange if they don't, but all they're talking about, all these four demands, plus something else that we wouldn't have thought about. 412 00:52:11,680 --> 00:52:18,999 So I think there's some merit in doing that. There's also a merit and going beyond, but not, of course, 413 00:52:19,000 --> 00:52:26,710 abandoning or jettisoning perceptual studies and looking at official statistics of some sort. 414 00:52:27,490 --> 00:52:33,549 Of course, we know the problems with official statistics, but I think I mean, if, for example, 415 00:52:33,550 --> 00:52:42,280 how to use some of this data in trying to link legitimacy to homicide rates across different countries. 416 00:52:42,520 --> 00:52:48,940 And also, if you read a recent report on the Ferguson Police Department by the attorney general, 417 00:52:50,530 --> 00:52:55,450 what you find is that the police are actually kept data, very good data. 418 00:52:55,480 --> 00:53:02,560 It turns out on the canine units, the drugs that they use to try to constrain people. 419 00:53:03,220 --> 00:53:07,510 And in analysing the legitimacy of the the police department, 420 00:53:08,200 --> 00:53:15,910 the one of the things they looked at is how the dogs are used across different racial groups. 421 00:53:16,570 --> 00:53:26,140 And they conclude that in almost every case that the data were available, they were used against African-Americans. 422 00:53:26,740 --> 00:53:32,410 Okay. And it's one of the basis with which the police department is literally being threatened, 423 00:53:33,010 --> 00:53:37,180 that if you don't put your arms together, we're going to shut you down, essentially. 424 00:53:38,050 --> 00:53:46,840 So there is room for us to do this. And actually, if you read some book, he argues against opinion data. 425 00:53:46,990 --> 00:53:51,380 I disagree with that. But we should even use survey data at all. 426 00:53:51,440 --> 00:53:57,340 We could just rely on some of this, but of course that's only half true. 427 00:53:59,230 --> 00:54:08,139 We could also try and do more of longitudinal studies to try to understand the life course of a police organisation, 428 00:54:08,140 --> 00:54:24,940 for example, in terms of its legitimacy. How does the police all in fact, what works in repairing damage to police legitimacy and how does it work? 429 00:54:25,270 --> 00:54:35,620 So for example, if a police organisation like Ferguson is hit with these kind of troubles, how does it repair what works in the particular case? 430 00:54:36,190 --> 00:54:40,330 What are the conditions that prevailed before these things happened? 431 00:54:40,360 --> 00:54:48,940 Could we have predicted that based on data that we probably collected on effectiveness and lawfulness, on distributive justice or procedure justice? 432 00:54:50,610 --> 00:55:00,240 So it'll be interesting for us to to see how that turns out if we were to pursue some of those studies. 433 00:55:01,650 --> 00:55:09,450 Of course, we are told that the legitimacy of this is not just informed by these related variables. 434 00:55:10,140 --> 00:55:15,270 We are structural issues, socio political, economic conditions. 435 00:55:16,080 --> 00:55:21,690 But unfortunately, most of the perceptual studies where we measure gender, race, 436 00:55:22,170 --> 00:55:27,630 income levels, we only introduce them into our regression models as control variables. 437 00:55:28,140 --> 00:55:35,879 Okay. We don't really go beyond that to look at the structural conditions, the issue of social exclusion or otherwise, 438 00:55:35,880 --> 00:55:45,360 and all the other factors that I think we could take a bit more seriously in the light of this historical data or assertion. 439 00:55:45,870 --> 00:55:49,080 Okay. So just to reiterate, 440 00:55:50,520 --> 00:55:59,280 understanding legitimacy in terms of this continuous dialogue on the sort of demands that people make of power during this 441 00:55:59,280 --> 00:56:10,170 dialogue is a very I think it's a promising avenue for understanding a bit more than just everyday law abiding behaviour. 442 00:56:10,950 --> 00:56:18,599 It's room for us to do. It offers the scope for us to do policy analysis in terms of legitimacy, to understand, 443 00:56:18,600 --> 00:56:25,290 as some have argued recently, how crime policy is made within particular context. 444 00:56:25,950 --> 00:56:33,990 And of course, in the same way that at the end of this talk, there'll be a lot of dialogues going on, conversations going on. 445 00:56:34,350 --> 00:56:41,840 They are all different. And globally there will be different dialogues going on within different contexts. 446 00:56:42,660 --> 00:56:54,360 So legitimacy of the dialogue offers us a useful opportunity to to understand the nature and the meaning of legitimacy within particular context. 447 00:56:54,360 --> 00:56:58,350 And this might be different across different contexts. 448 00:56:58,890 --> 00:57:00,720 But thank you very much for your time.