Full text of DOI:10.1108/13639510010343047

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
Police brutality or police torture
Budimir Babovic´
Article information:
To cite this document:
Budimir Babovic´, (2000),"Police brutality or police torture", Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, Vol. 23 Iss 3 pp. 374 - 380
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510010343047
Downloaded on: 22 December 2016, At: 00:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 7 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4522 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(
1998),"Police misconduct and malpractice: a critical analysis of citizens’ complaints", Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 80-96 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639519810206619
(
2002),"Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy
implications", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp.
43-580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510210437032
5
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
PIJPSM
3,3
Police brutality or police
torture
2
Budimir BabovicÂ
Police Researcher, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
374
Keywords Police, Individual behaviour
Abstract Focuses on the issue of force by the police and points out differences between police
brutality and police torture. Discusses the factors which can affect the levels of police brutality.
The issue of police brutality appears to be a recurrent topic of discussion and
research related to policing, particularly in the USA and in the UK. Below some
questions related to this difficult issue are analysed.
Many criteria have been used by police scientists to delineate various types
of police brutality as a specific form of police misconduct: unnecessary
violence, the unjustified use of force, the use of excessive force, the excessive
use of force, physical or verbal brutality. James Fyfe, a leading authority on the
subject, underlines the difference between police brutality and unnecessary
force. He defines police brutality as extralegal violence and ``the wilful and
wrongful use of force by officers who knowingly exceed the bounds of their
office'' (Fyfe, 1995).
However, it seems to be particularly important to analyse police torture and
to point out the difference between police brutality and police torture.
Brutality in general, and police brutality also, is an inhuman, cruel and
violent behaviour.
Having in mind this statement, one could say that police are in some way
authorised to be brutal: they are given the right to use force in some
circumstances and it is widely known that the use of the chemical means of
coercion, of the water cannon etc., could not be an act of gentleness. The legal
authorisation to use force (and to be brutal) is somehow limited by the rule of
proportionality.
Neither in law nor in police science is there a definition of police brutality
that would be accepted on a large scale.
So the line is delicate and unfixed between brutality, on the one hand, and
the legitimate use of force, on the other. Its establishment remains in the realm
of police discretion, which appears to be the most important source of police
brutality.
Police torture is a distinctive category of police brutality. It is committed
when police use force with a view to achieving a task or design, most
frequently to extort confessions or to induce compliance. It is practised upon
persons in custody or under control, mostly (but not exclusively) on police
Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2000, pp. 374-380.
Amended version of the lecture given to the International Conference Police in Transition, 18-20
#
MCB University Press, 1363-951X February 1999 in Budapest.

premises or in other hidden places. Although extralegal and illegal, it is a Police brutality
component of what is called police methods and it reflects the conviction that
or police torture
only force is efficient. It is known within the police organization and it is
tolerated somehow. Battery or other inhuman treatments on police premises are
evidenced as a serious problem even in countries of advanced democracy.
Torture in general and police torture as an act committed by police belong to
the category of international crimes because it is present in the international
penal law. In fact, the UN General Assembly has adopted in 1987 the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. In Article 1 of this treaty torture is defined as
follows:
3
75
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or
confession; punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of
having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based
on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions.
The prohibition of torture has become ius cogens inasmuch as international
instruments[1] prescribe it like the constitutions and laws of many individual
countries. Several international mechanisms and bodies, both universal and
regional, have been set up to deal with the problem of torture. The most
important is the UN Committee against Torture established pursuant to article
1
7 of the Convention against Torture to supervise its implementation.
The above-mentioned definition of torture is internationally accepted and it
has that additional quality of being precise enough. Therefore whenever this
kind of brutality is discussed within police science, the notion of torture could
helpfully replace the use of the notion of brutality that appears to be rather
vague and euphemistic. In that way the evil would be called by its proper name.
Given the circumstances under which they occur, the cases of torture are
very difficult to corroborate. The officers stick strictly not only to the ``code of
silence'' that binds them informally, but also to the internal rules imposing
secrecy. Rare (if any) are the cases of this type of police brutality, where the
internal disciplinary mechanism is activated without a complaint or without
another external requirement. A systematic (or automatic) punishing of the
superior (together with the offender) in every proven case would therefore
constitute a pertinent contribution to eradicating such practices.
On the other hand, the brutal proceedings can occur in everyday police work
with no apparent necessity and without a clear purpose. There is widespread
opinion that police needlessly offend a person, verbally or by using physical
force, very often just with a view to establishing its authority by acknowledging
its legal right to use force. Commenting on the overall circumstances that lead to
police use of force, Albert Reiss pointed out ``that many situations that provoke

PIJPSM
3,3
police to use undue force closely resemble those that give rise to assaults by
private citizens. In both cases, the force is exerted in quick anger against real or
imagined aggression'' (Reiss, 1971). Such an analysis is not applicable to torture.
As a rule this kind of police brutality has to be identified as police brutality.
It occurs mostly in public places, on the occasion of searches and arrests,
during protests, mobs, demonstrations.
Police brutality could also be explained by the conclusion that police work in
itself is brutal and dehumanising, coupled with frustration, phobia and tension
and the uncertainty about the outcome of an action or a conflict. The majority
of police officers have no personal experience of violence. Stress is common in
dangerous situations and it makes the self-defensive reaction of the police
officer stronger and intensifies its brutality.
2
376
The origins and explications of police brutality that have been outlined are
only exceptionally applicable to the torture.
The crime rate level has to be mentioned as an element, which, indirectly at
least, can propel police violence in the sense that a high crime rate generates
approval among citizens of police violence. A former Polish anarchist who is
now supportive of a more brutal police as a means to impede crime, disorder
and anarchy provides the most illustrative example. He even implored the
bishop to bless the police's right to be brutal. Almost simultaneously, over
5
,000 citizens of a municipality near Paris signed a petition against the
proposal aimed at restricting police officers' carrying of arms.
Police brutality could be observed from different points of view. A frequent
approach consists of envisaging this problem primarily as a result of
organizational norms. The well-known prison experiments by Zombardo have
proven the correlation between the mandate and structure of a situation, on the
one hand, and the aggressiveness that leads to brutality, on the other. During
the experiments carried out at Stanford University, students were divided into
guards and prisoners. Those acting as guards proved to be exaggeratedly
brutal upon their colleagues acting as prisoners.
Making a distinction between police brutality and police torture is justified
and necessary because they differ from each another in their sources and
motivations, in the difficulties of their uncovering, and in the recognised and
admitted indispensability of their repression.
The responsibility is also dislocated. The repression of torture is chiefly the
responsibility of the government bound by international instruments. Police
brutality generally remains a problem of internal police leadership and local
authorities.
The proposed distinction between torture and police brutality is quite useful
for discussing the question as to whether or not the relationship between
brutality and military status and spirit of the police can be established. The
importance of this issue is enhanced by the conclusion on the rise and
imperativeness of paramilitary policing throughout the European Union states
(
Wright, 1997).

Military status of police force has no substantial incidence on the volume of Police brutality
torture, which is evidenced within both the civilian and military models of
or police torture
police organization. Statistics are difficult to gather, but seemingly there are no
grounds to pretend that torture has been practised by the Guardia Civil more
than by the Cuerpo Nacional de Policia in Spain, by the Carabinieri more than
by the Polizzia di Stato in Italy, by the Gendarmerie more than by the Police
judiciaire in France, by the Belgian Gendarmerie before its ``demilitarisation''
more than after that event, in Ireland more than in England and Wales.
The comparison between the current situation in some countries in
transition and the situation that existed before the beginning of transition is not
possible because of the differences in transparency. Within the so-called
socialist system both police brutality and police torture remained hidden
almost totally; the victims, as a rule, did not dare to reveal information, fearful
of new suffering.
377
The situation is now changing, although slowly. As a result of new
legislation in many countries, of the activity of non-governmental
organizations and of a rise in police research, the brutality and the torture are
starting to be unveiled and evidenced so that one would have the wrong idea of
deterioration in this domain. As a matter of fact the tendency is opposite
despite the fact that in many countries in transition the new authorities do not
reach legitimacy, and they use and misuse the police (and the army). Such a
situation is encouraging police brutality.
On the contrary, when police brutality is discussed, the propensity towards
such behaviour is obviously intensified by the military status and spirit of the
police. Not only is the rawness of the military profession expressed, but also the
military model of the police organization reinforces the alienation and
insulation of the police from the surrounding world. Police observance is
diminished and the propensity for brutal behaviour is augmented compared to
what could happen when the police act within an accustomed population.
The military model does not encourage contact between the police and the
community; it is not suitable to community policing which could be considered
as a deterrent to the improper use of force. The concern of the police for the
overall wellbeing of a given area is rather lacking within such a model.
The militia model is opportune for police brutality and police torture being
committed and remaining uncovered. The party whose regime they protect
against the citizens covers the militia and its members. The law is enforced just
to the degree that does not jeopardize the party's policy and position. It should
be stressed that the militia model can exist under the name of the police as
demonstrated by the current situation in Serbia.
Racism, nationalism and similar phenomena, such as ethnic conflicts,
producing and spreading collective hatred, which is inculcated in the minds of
police officers, regularly generate police brutalities.
In addition ethnic conflicts are originating and nourishing the impunity,
which constitutes one of the reasons for police brutality. In such conflicts
everybody fights under the banner of an ethnic or a nationalist design

PIJPSM
3,3
presented as superior, believing themselves to be protected by the supposed
superiority of the goal. Unfortunately this occurs frequently; ethnic or national
solidarity covers professional solidarity and the wrongdoers remain
unpunished. The Yugoslav conflict, now running for more than eight years,
offers an inexhaustible list of tragic examples.
2
Police brutality against protestors is a distinctive subject. Problems of public
order are the main cause of the resurgence of militarism within policing
378
(
Wright, 1997). Very often the police exert cruel and inhuman force against
innocent people or against people who are using a constitutionally granted
right. During the opposition protests in Belgrade in 1996-97, a high ranking
official of the Belgrade police declared that the police could not beat selectively
in such circumstances, they beat everybody in the way ± women, children, etc.
It may be deduced from his statement that police behaviour is comparable then
to a stampede of buffaloes. A number of years before this declaration Brian
Chapman had concluded:
When a police force moves to break up a riot unpredictable forces are released (Chapman,
1
971).
The position of the police within the political system could be repercussive on
the brutality issue. Obviously the police state is the most auspicious
framework, since it ensures the role of the police as arbitrator. In saying this,
one should bear in mind the factual insignificance of police autonomy today.
David Bayley rightly emphasises that the most important effects police might
have on democracy depend on the policies of regimes (Bayley, 1995).
Numerous factors may reduce police brutality. Related to police brutality in
the USA, a publication (Dudley, 1991) has reproduced an anthology of articles
debating, inter alia, how police brutality can be stopped or reduced. Various
issues are suggested by the articles' titles themselves: strong internal
leadership, internal reform, encouraging contact between the police and the
community, prosecuting police perjury, using police foot patrols, civilian
review boards, stricter laws, both federal and local reforms, sting operations by
private investigators. Obviously these suggestions can be usefully applied to
the countries in transition, and to other countries.
It seems, however, that accountability and oversight could be considered as
particularly important issues in confronting police brutality. All other means
have been essayed already; their deficiencies and their scope have been
evidenced.
There are two principal reasons for impunity: the ``code of silence'' in
misconduct cases, and the dread of the police. The first reason is universal; the
second is particularly characteristic of countries in transition because it is
obviously linked to the degree of democracy. The dread of the police in these
countries is very deeply rooted and it is very often difficult to overcome the fear
as it is based on actual events. Hence the victims of police battery and torture
frequently refuse the barristers' proposal just to file the complaint with no

charges, for fear of further consequences. The dread of the police exists not Police brutality
only among ordinary citizens, but also within institutions including courts, and
prosecution.
or police torture
In conformity with the UN Convention against torture (Article 10), the
prohibition and punishability of torture should be included in the rules or
instructions issued with regard to police duties and functions, aside from the
existence of this prohibition in international and national law. Moreover police
officers should be repeatedly reminded that they are individually answerable
when committing an act of torture; that the order from a superior officer or a
public authority may not be invoked as a justification of instrumental brutality,
or torture, according to the Convention (Article 2).
3
79
The impunity of police brutality could change in some way mostly as a
result of the evolution of international penal law. The demands are more and
more frequent at empowering international legal authority in a way that it
could efficiently enforce fundamental rights.
The Pinochet case has been greeted as a victory for human justice versus the
raison d' e tat and a historic about-turn for international law. Although it does
not belong to the category of ethnic conflicts, the belated activating of the
institution of international law in connection with an internal conflict where the
international humanitarian law norms have been breached undoubtedly
constitutes an important precedent.
The use of force by police may be an unavoidable and fatalistic, although
there are voices demanding the extinction of this right[2]. More realistic is
Jerome Skolnick's conclusion:
As long as some members of society do not comply with law and resist the police, force will
remain an inevitable part of policing (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993).
This statement is probably quite appropriate; it could be applied when police
brutality is discussed. But police torture is the reverse of humanity and it must
be repressed much more vigorously, everywhere.
Notes
1
. Apart from the UN Convention against torture, there are several other international
instruments. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) stipulates, ``No one
shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment''
(
Article 7). The European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3) postulates the same
prohibition. The Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in 1998 at the Rome
Conference, gives a slightly different definition of torture (``intentional infliction of severe
pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the
control of the accused'' ± Article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e). For the purpose of the
Statute, torture constitutes one of the crimes against humanity which are characterised as
``acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic (emphasis added) attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack'' (Article 7, paragraph 1).
Hence police brutality committed in ``normal'' circumstances would not be included in the
jurisdiction of ICC.
2
. For example Harvey Goldstein, in an article in New York Times, April 21, 1991.

References
PIJPSM
3,3
Bayley, D.H. (1995), ``Who are we kidding? Or developing democracy through police reform'',
paper presented to the Workshop on Policing in Emerging Democracies, Washington, DC,
December 14-15, http://www.ncjrs.org
2
Chapman, B. (1971), Police State, Macmillan and Co. Ltd, London, p. 87.
Dudley, W. (Ed.) (1991), Police Brutality, Greenhaven Press, San Diego, CA.
380
Fyfe, J.J. (1995), ``Training to reduce police-civilian violence'', in Geller, W.A. and Toch, H. (Eds),
And Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force, Police Executive
Research Forum, Washington, DC, p. 163.
Reiss, A. Jr (1971), The Police and the Public, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, p. 150.
Skolnick, J.H. and Fyfe, J.J. (1993), Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force, The Free
Press, New York, NY, p. 37.
Wright, A. (1997-1998), ``Slippery slopes? The paramilitary imperative in European policing'', in
Police in Transition, a survey organised by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Budapest,
CD.

This article has been cited by:
1. Loretta PraterInstitutionalized Terror: A Social Systems Analysis of Police Brutality 95-111. [CrossRef]
2. Karen Beckman, Cynthia Lum, Laura Wyckoff, Kristine Larsen‐Vander Wall. 2003. Trends in police
research: A Cross-sectional analysis of the 2000 literature. Police Practice and Research 4:1, 79-96.
[CrossRef]