CJPR284736.vp


10.1177/0887403405284736Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMartin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing

Restoring Justice Through
Community Policing
The Northern Ireland Case

Margaret E. Martin
Eastern Connecticut State University, Willimantic, CT

Principles of restorative justice guide new approaches to criminal justice policy and prac-
tice worldwide; however, scant attention is paid to policing within this paradigm. This
article describes the theoretical, practice, and value dimensions of restorative justice and
examines these in relation to community policing ideology and practice. It presents a pol-
icy analysis of the bold Northern Ireland police reform experience and explores the cen-
tral dilemmas and opportunities inherent in transforming police within communities in
conflict. In spite of substantial implementation challenges, community policing may
restore justice because of the demand for a sustained peace, dynamism generated when
police reform is part of larger social reform, and determination elicited from the poignant
recognition of prior injustice. Through police reform, there is potential for greater local
democratic control and accountability of the state social control mechanism.

Keywords: community policing; restorative justice; Northern Ireland

Principles of restorative justice guide new approaches to criminal justice policy andpractice worldwide. Central to the ideals of restorative justice are prevention of
harm, human rights and dignity, empowerment of those disempowered, and peace-
making. Both the philosophy and practice of restorative justice within communities at
peace and communities in conflict have been advanced significantly during the past
decade. Much of the practice, however, has focused on postcrime events such as
offender-victim mediation, alternative sentencing, restitution, conferencing, and
offender reintegration. Little attention has been placed on the beginning stages of the
process, especially policing. This article examines, from theoretical and practical per-
spectives, the development of new policing policy as part of the peace process in
Northern Ireland. It frames the study within the context of restorative justice. It exam-
ines new structures (organizational, interorganizational, political, and community),
processes, and cultures that are being created to redress historical wrongs and propel
peace building. It examines policing in societies in transition within the context of
emerging criminal justice ideologies and practices as well as international structures,
opportunities, and threats.

314

Criminal Justice
Policy Review

Volume 17 Number 3
September 2006 314-329
© 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/0887403405284736
http://cjp.sagepub.com

hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com























Northern Ireland is engaged in a tumultuous and historic change. With the Good
Friday Agreement of 1998 (United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, 1998) the
foundation for peace building was established, but the processes of changing social
institutions and individual beliefs have been difficult. Although almost all elements of
social structures and processes must change in the process of peace, no one aspect of
this change has been more contentious and central to the development of a new civil
society than the reconstruction of policing. Constantly challenged and modified, the
newest construction of policing and policing policy represents one of the largest and
boldest experiments in community policing globally.

Fundamental Questions

Restorative justice ideas have emerged as newly acceptable in American and global
criminal justice practice. Although not yet considered mainstream, certainly some of
the principles of restorative justice are reshaping justice policies. Yet there has been
little attention to the role of policing in this shift. Although there has been some atten-
tion to problem mediation, arrest diversion, and antiarrest approaches, there remains
question about how or if policing practice could be restorative.

Perhaps to discuss whether policing can be congruent with restorative justice prin-
ciples, it must first be necessary to ask whether policing itself is essential to social
functioning or holds intrinsic value for society. Certainly in any articulation of
nonutopian society, we must argue that some form of social control is necessary for
community to function. In complex societies in which informal means of social con-
trol are no longer sufficient, policing may be necessary to ensure fundamental human
needs of safety and security. Morris argues that both public safety or security, and per-
sonal safety, require peace and order and are components of restorative justice (Mor-
ris, 1992). Policing is fundamental to these goals and to the protection of domestic and
international human rights. Policing is a public good (Loader & Walker, 2001), but as
the legitimate purveyor of state coercion, it must be held accountable to democratic
control.

Policing may be necessary for the effective functioning of other social institutions.
The battered women’s movement for instance, demonstrated that personal safety
within the family might require police intervention. The use of police to intervene in
institutions such as families, schools, and workplaces is however not without problem
(Berger, 2003; Martin, 1999). Abuses of police power are well documented and the
ability to protect the most vulnerable members of society is questioned as police are
cited for both their failures to protect and their continuation of oppression.

There is enough evidence, however, from societies in conflict and in transition
from war to peace to demonstrate that although complex and wrought with significant
challenge, there is a fundamental need for police to act as maintainers of peace and
order (Brewer, 1991; United Nations, 2003). The vulnerability and risk faced by per-
sons in societies in conflict demonstrate the centrality of policing to the maintenance
of order and safety of persons as well as the preservation of cultural identities through

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 315

























protection of cultural artifacts. In the process of peace building, states must often wrest
control of policing from paramilitaries or other forces. Marenin (1982) argues that
although there is no state during revolutions or in anarchy, the state is a practical neces-
sity during other periods, for there is a demand for order. Order may be general, assur-
ing the safety of the public, or specific, using the power of the state to advance
particular interests.

Policing, seen through the lens of critical criminology, has traditionally been
viewed as a state mechanism for repression, oppression, and entry into the punitive
apparatus of the justice system of the state. It is without doubt that policing has been
used as an instrument of repression and has been integral to the maintenance of the
state (Williams, 2003). But as Marenin (1982) states, “The police, a priori, are neither
repressive nor deserving of support as defenders of a universal consensus on the public
good” (p. 259). Historically, policing developed concurrently with private capital and
the centralization of political power (Bayley, 1994). These associations may not be
essential or inevitable. If societies develop transitional practices to produce a more
ideal set of social relations centered in civil society and human rights, they must begin
by crafting new social structures and processes that are consonant with ideals of
restorative justice. Therefore, I will examine whether there are elements of emerging
practice in community policing that may be consistent with restorative justice
principles.

Restorative justice poses complex questions about equality and justice. These
questions are highlighted in police policy and practice. Can community policing be a
transitional structure to promote a nonpunitive, restorative justice system? Can polic-
ing itself ever be restorative? Could policing be restorative in stable societies, in soci-
eties in conflict, or in both? This article will present a policy analysis of the Northern
Ireland police reform experience. It will examine the policy now in formation, with
some attention to the process of the policy development. Although it is too early to
examine the impact of the policy in relation to restorative justice principles, it will
examine contradictions and challenges in the policy framework.

Congruence of Community Policing
With Restorative Justice Principles

Community policing may be a fashionable policy buzz word or a complex and
changeable set of philosophies, values, and practices that are simultaneously old and
very new. Undoubtedly, however, community policing does represent a particular
approach to police practice that can be contrasted with militaristic and managerialist
policing and that has gained popularity and credibility globally, especially during the
past decade. Community policing is characterized as democratic, accountable, and
transparent. It fits with emerging notions of civil society (Munck, 2002) that view
social institutions as reflecting local needs and representing the multiple interests
within communities.

316 Criminal Justice Policy Review









































Community policing is now the dominant paradigm of policing in the United
States, with more than 85% of the U.S. population now served by some type of com-
munity policing force (Hickman & Reaves, 2001). It is rapidly becoming a preferred
policy of policing internationally. Community policing differs from recent traditional
American and British policing in its goals, accountability mechanisms, processes, and
values. Until the late 1980s, both United States and British police operated as an arm
of the justice system concerned with crime solving, apprehension of lawbreakers, and
the promotion of law and order. The organizations were accountable to the executive
branch of government, often shaped by political processes and sentiments. Organiza-
tionally, police departments valued authority, loyalty, efficiency, and managerial and
technical competence. The new approach to policing took hold at a time when fear of
crime continued to climb while the crime rate receded, and research suggested that lit-
tle in police practice actually reduced crime rates (Bayley, 1994). A new or renewed
focus on developing knowledge about, and relationship with, neighborhoods and
communities emerged. This new approach to policing highlighted the importance of
knowing the community, not just to solve crimes but also to actively prevent crime and
to solve social problems that were associated with crime. Community policing was
intended to promote a heightened quality of life. Accountability broadened to include
sanction from representatives of the community and its various interests. Acceptance
required more transparency in police operations, openness in communication, and
values that supported these new structures and processes. Perhaps most important, the
community-policing philosophy necessitated values change that included respect for
diversity, power sharing, collaboration, and problem solving.

Restorative justice practices emerged from the victims’ rights movements and very
early approaches to offender rehabilitation. These practices ultimately reject punitive,
retributive policy and practice, and embrace peacemaking and human need attain-
ment. Restorative justice approaches seek to make whole the victims of crime. They
also assist offenders in restoring their humanity, lost too in the process of crime.
Restorative justice approaches move beyond the individuals affected by crime, to
include understanding of the structural aspects of society and communities that create
harm and foster violence. Restorative justice is an active, collaborative strategy to pre-
vent injury and harm as well as promote human well-being and equality (Quinney,
2000; Sullivan & Tifft, 2001).

In examining the relationships between restorative justice and community polic-
ing, it is important to note that they exist at different levels of abstraction and, perhaps
more fundamentally, emerged in opposite directions. Restorative justice is an ideal
that is given meaning and relevance through practitioners seeking alternatives to puni-
tive justice practices. It continues to evolve and be tested against ideals. Community
policing, on the other hand, emerged from a set of practices that eventually became
characterized and rationalized by an ideology. Given this challenge, we can examine
the congruence of restorative justice principles with the ideals of community policing
practice in three key areas: the expressed goals or ideology of each, the values
espoused, and the practices and processes employed.

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 317







































































Three areas of analysis will be used to examine larger goals of community policing
and restorative justice: the relationship to the state, critique of social structures, and
human needs and relationships. Perhaps the most congruent goals of restorative jus-
tice with community policing are those that relate to individual well-being and human
need. Clearly, restorative justice seeks to prevent harm and promote human well-
being. Community policing too articulates this goal. More specifically, it seeks to pre-
vent injury and loss as the result of crime and to promote human safety and security.
Human relationships and the uniqueness of human experience are the focus of both
restorative justice and community policing. In both, the meaning of crime and the felt
needs of community are central. Restorative justice principles seek to repair relation-
ships that were harmed through crime, either the relationship of the victim with
offender or offender with community. The goal of restorative justice is to return the
victim to a previctimized or improved state—to make the victim whole. It also seeks
equality as a component of a restored relationship. Whereas these goals can more
appropriately be met through postarrest practice (mediation, conferencing, alternative
sentencing, restitution, and the like), there can be a police role in restoring relation-
ships. In fact, community policing does seek to engage factions within communities
that are in conflict and to provide nonpunitive community alternatives, such as referral
to resources or treatment, for persons in need. But here too there are differences.
Restorative justice principles seek not only social harmony but also inner transforma-
tion of the individual through processes of understanding, empathy, compassion, and
forgiveness. Community policing ideally seeks social harmony through the promotion
of law-abiding and community-enhancing behavior with little overt concern for
cognitive, emotional, or spiritual change or transformation.

In relation to values and practices, there may be less correspondence. Although the
ideal of restorative justice articulates an understanding of how social institutions and
structures have created and sustained harm to individuals and groups (and, in some
instances, fostered violence), there is little structural critique in the community polic-
ing idea. Individual failing, including the problems of drug abuse, family and peer dif-
ficulties, and the lack of deterrent effect of the justice system reinforce police ideology
about the causes of crime (Crawford, 1997). Problems of racism, unemployment, pov-
erty, and other social-structural problems are not central to community policing
rhetoric.

Neither restorative justice nor community police practice are necessarily anti-
statist, although the ideals of restorative justice acknowledge the role the state plays in
producing and maintaining oppression. Many restorative justice practices seek to
remove the state’s formal mechanisms of social control to create community-based
systems of change. Theoretically, neither restorative justice nor community policing
are antibusiness, as business is seen as having a vital role in community life. Although
neither restorative justice nor community policing are delinked from the state (as both
in practice are at least partially accountable to the state), they are community centered.
Both have the potential for greater amounts of delinking, especially through the evolu-
tion of civil society approaches that will be discussed later.

318 Criminal Justice Policy Review





















































There is some value congruence between the ideals of restorative justice and the
espoused principles of community policing. In each domain, human rights, equality
and equity, power sharing, respect for diversity, culturally competent and inclusive
practice, and accountability to the community are core values. Perhaps less evident in
restorative justice principles is the notion of transparency. This feature of civil society
emphasizing community accountability is critical to reformed policing and certainly
related to a legacy of corrupt and secretive policing. Peacemaking is central to restor-
ative justice values and included in this are the values of nonretribution and non-
punishment. Especially in societies in conflict, community policing can be viewed as
a component of peace building. Its approach is through order maintenance first, then
the prevention of harm and crime. There seems, however, to be little critique of retribu-
tive ideals or policing as the point of entry into a punishment-based criminal justice
system.

In practice and process, there are some areas of correspondence between restorative jus-
tice and community policing, yet ironic differences. The practices of community policing
appear to be similar to central restorative justice practices, such as victim-offender mediation
and conflict management. Problem solving, collaborative, democratic, action-oriented, and
empowerment-based practices are identified in community policing as important to best
practice. In both restorative justice and community policing, the work is local, decentralized,
and based on intimate knowledge of the community and fosters respect for the felt needs
and unique meanings of the experiences of persons in the community. Restorative jus-
tice practice gives voice to persons silenced in retributive justice systems. Both vic-
tims and offenders are able to express their needs and wants in the search for under-
standing and change, whether the goal is peace, forgiveness, safety, restitution,
rehabilitation, or other outcome. Importantly, offenders are a focus of intervention
both to recognize and restore their humanity in the process and to ensure reintegration
into community. In community policing, there is an emphasis on the voice of multiple
communities. There is an acknowledgement that in managerialist or professional
forms of policing, professional expertise and political considerations shape policy and
practice. Conversely, the development of trust, fairness, and effective decision making
are considered central to effective community policing practice. The public views
these as central to the legitimacy of police (Tyler & Wakslak, 2004).

Community policing reform reflects the practice principles of antibureaucratic
organizational practice (Pranis, 1998). Counter to the typical managerialist orga-
nizational structure of policing, community policing places strong emphasis on
accountability mechanisms, including the development of feedback systems, access
opportunities, evaluation mechanisms, and independent oversight. The emphasis on
accountability to community is one of the most significant distinctions of community
policing from recent policing ideologies and the one with the greatest potential for
organizational and social reform and transformation (Herbert, 2001).

There is, however, little attention to the role of offenders in community policing
rhetoric, the focus being quite consistently on the law-abiding public. In fact, the prev-
alent association of “broken windows policing” (Kelling & Coles, 1996, p. 20) with
community policing has produced an order-maintenance focus that has vilified and

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 319







































































criminalized many with little evidence of social benefit (Harcourt, 2001). Crime is
constructed traditionally, as Bergalli and Sumner (1997) state, “Crime is a category to
bifurcate the normal [law abiding] from the pathological [criminal]” (p. 200). Com-
munity policing is best described as police practice to protect and develop the law-
abiding community, saving those who can be saved from persons who are potential
offenders. The practice continues to create and maintain “the other.” As in early social
welfare policy development, some persons are considered deserving of efforts to be
saved but others may never be integrated into the law-abiding community.

Community Policing in Northern Ireland:
The Attempted Transformation of an Organization

Northern Ireland’s embrace of community policing is unique and complex. It rep-
resents both the best of historical policing in Britain, the legacy of the peeler, and a
necessary strategy to create a way forward in a divided society. The Royal Ulster Con-
stabulary (RUC), the police force for the six counties that comprise Northern Ireland,
was until recently the police force of the province, implemented at the time of partition
of the island of Ireland. The force was seen as either the protector of the state and way
of life by some residents (Brewer, Guelke, Hume, Moxon-Browne, & Wilford, 1996)
or as a brutal violator of human rights and corrupt arm of a colonial power by others
(Ellison & Smyth, 1996). The reformed police service, the Police Service of Northern
Ireland (PSNI), is being reconstructed as the result of the peace accord known as the
Good Friday Agreement (United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, 1998), the report
from the Independent Commission on Policing,The Patten Report(Independent Com-
mission on Policing for Northern Ireland, 1999), and numerous legislative changes in the
British Parliament. The RUC and PSNI have also undertaken organizational change inter-
nally (Police Authority of Northern Ireland, 2000).

Patten states, “The issue of policing is at the heart of many of the problems that pol-
iticians have been unable to resolve in Northern Ireland” (Independent Commission
on Policing for Northern Ireland, 1999, p. 2). The charge for community policing was
clear. Peace requires “a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police
service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole”
(United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, 1998, p. 22). Without providing a thor-
ough and nuanced description of the RUC to better assist in understanding the context
of the transformation of the service to the PSNI, we will simply present that the RUC
was one of the largest police forces per capita in the world; it employed 92% of per-
sons from the dominant (Protestant and unionist) community when the community
was divided approximately 52% to 48%; and although it was perceived as acceptable
to many persons in the province, it was seen as highly unacceptable to relatively large
segments of the community (Ellison & Smyth, 2000; Independent Commission on
Policing for Northern Ireland, 1999; Mulcahy, 1998; Pickering, 2002). Its organiza-
tional structure and culture could be described as managerialist, professional, and

320 Criminal Justice Policy Review



























Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 321

bureaucratic (Brewer et. al., 1996) at best, or, according to other observers, racist and
corrupt (Ellison & Smyth, 2000; Mulcahy, 1998).

Although the RUC did begin efforts to change the organization from within and
attempted to escape the quagmire of deeply divided political positions and a crisis of
public legitimacy (Mulcahy, 1998), the thorough, balanced, and cutting-edge recom-
mendations of the Patten Commission were the most significant blueprint for organi-
zational and policy change. Initially met with modest acceptance by international
observers and many of Northern Ireland’s centrist political parties, the recommenda-
tions were challenged by both left and right. In the ensuing few years, Sinn Féin, a
political party and voice of the republican movement, has moved from criticism to
acceptance of Patten and has pressured the British government to revise policing legis-
lation to be more consonant with Patten. Although significant reforms have occurred,
Sinn Féin stands as a major critic of new police structures and refuses to sit on plan-
ning and oversight boards until all of the reforms recommended by Patten are fully
implemented (Sinn Féin, 2003). This party explicitly challenges the society to pro-
mote restorative justice, to achieve ideals of human rights and equity in policing. Its
stance is explicitly antistatist, antiracist, and anticapitalist.

In spite of Sinn Féin’s refusal to participate in community policing until reforms are
complete and in spite of the reticence of some community members to proceed with
reform (36% of Protestants recently polled considered it unacceptable to complete the
process of police reform, 2% of Catholics so agreed [personal communication,
Republican Mailing List, 2003]), the transformation of the police service is under way.
Innovative and visionary community steering and accountability mechanisms have
been implemented. The Mission Statement and Core Values of the Northern Ireland
Policing Board (NIPB), the independent body charged with directing and monitoring
policing, identifies core community policing characteristics.

To secure in partnership with the chief constable, the police service and staff associations,
for all of the people living in Northern Ireland an effective, efficient and impartial police
service that will secure the confidence of the whole community and work in partnership
with this community to contribute to the development of a safe, more harmonious and
peaceful society. On behalf of the community, the Board will set high standards for the
behavior and performance of the police service and hold the police to account for
achievement of these standards. In addition, it will set high standards for itself in its deal-
ings with the Police Service and the general public. (NIPB, 2002, p. 7)

The NIPB is an appointed body, ostensibly independent of the police service and
the government. It consists of 19 members, a chair and vice-chair appointed by the sec-
retary of state, 10 members of the Northern Ireland Assembly appointed through the
d’Hondt process that strengthens minority representation, and 9 independent mem-
bers appointed by the secretary of state through open competition. It identifies its core
values as “accessibility, accountability, responsiveness, objectivity and independence,
impartiality, integrity, partnership and mutual respect” (NIPB, 2002, p. 7).

Perhaps what is most significant about the attempted transformation of the police is
the scope and comprehensiveness of change, its visionary qualities, and its reform of a













































force that had faced international disapprobation. The board’s objectives include the
promotion of community policing and human rights principles. The board directs and
holds the police force accountable for achieving objectives set by the board and by
new district police boards. These local boards, district police partnerships (DPP), are
community-based boards that direct and evaluate the PSNI in local neighborhoods or
communities. The reform of the police force includes the implementation of an inde-
pendent office of police ombudsman, establishment of an affirmative action plan that
requires 50% of hiring be from the Catholic community, adherence to a comprehen-
sive code of ethics, and institution of a training and education center.

In many respects, the process of reforming the police service in Northern Ireland
holds promise to achieve goals that are restorative. There is a clearly articulated goal to
restore community, to build peace, to protect human rights, and to ensure the security
of all persons in the community. There is overt recognition that there is a legacy of
exclusion, marginalization, violence, and pain that must be overcome. There is an
attempt to address the fears of abuse of power and protect citizens from police miscon-
duct. There is a broad-based system of democratic boards, which are local and repre-
sentative of and responsible to community and direct and evaluate local policing
efforts. There is transparency in the effort, with, for instance, substantial biographical
and financial information about members of the board available publicly (NIPB,
2005). Importantly, the approach is comprehensive and establishes accountability
mechanisms that are independent of the state.

Opportunities and Challenges

Northern Ireland presents a provocative case study in the establishment of commu-
nity policing as a vehicle to build peace and ensure safety. In many respects, it presents
goals, values, and practices that are consistent with restorative justice ideals. However,
numerous contradictions to these ideals are possible in the policy implementation.
Additionally, the developing police policies raise questions about the nature of restor-
ative justice itself, especially in relation to the role of the state.

The republican party, Sinn Féin, has leveled the most powerful criticism of reform
efforts. This party represents the interests of persons most marginalized in the society,
predominantly Catholic and lower socioeconomic class persons who seek to unite
with the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin has consistently challenged police practice and
new police policy. It currently will not take its position on the NIPB because of dis-
agreements regarding community control and accountability for policing, recourse for
wrongs, the lack of legitimacy regarding diversity on the force, and prior human rights
violations by current officers (Sinn Féin, 2004). The history of this party’s acceptance
of most of the new policing strategies is remarkable in that it had begun its position
from the base of arguing for the total elimination of the RUC. It has maintained pres-
sure on the British and Irish governments to ensure that its positions regarding polic-
ing have been accommodated resulting in continual Parliamentary modifications of
the new police policy. Sinn Féin also places policing at the heart of the peace process,

322 Criminal Justice Policy Review



































arguing vehemently that community members need and want police. Currently, some
persons in the republican community, as well as some unionist communities, reject
state policing (McGarry & O’Leary, 1999; Pickering, 2002) and employ local
paramilitaries or former paramilitaries (such as the IRA and the UDA) to ensure
safety, settle disputes, solve crime, recover stolen merchandise, and punish offenders.
There are neighborhood justice centers that have emerged to provide community-
based mediation and conflict management outside of the paramilitary structure (Hall,
2000).

Sinn Féin and republican community organizations demand the right of citizens to
have a legitimate police service to protect the elderly, to address violent youth, and to
prevent crime. They also insist on the creation of a fair judiciary (Falls Community
Council, 1998; Sinn Féin, 2003). This stance poses both a challenge and an opportu-
nity for criminal justice reform in Northern Ireland. If the party is able to leverage
these changes in new legislation, it will promote progressive reform, fully implement
the policing oversight bodies as it takes its seats on the NIPB and DPP, and propel the
peace-building process through the establishment of new legitimized community
institutions. If it is unable to gain these reforms, a significant proportion of the popula-
tion will continue to see the police and justice systems as oppressive arms of the state.
The result may be continued lack of legitimacy, reliance on paramilitary organiza-
tions, and lack of access to state-based welfare and security.

Northern Ireland’s policing project, if fully implemented, is venturesome and inno-
vative in its embrace of democratic design and accountability mechanisms. It may in
practice provide a model for the transformation of policing in the early 21st century
not only for divided or conflict-ridden societies but stable, pluralistic societies as well.
It may fit the ideals of restorative justice, although not fully, but incrementally and
transitionally in the movement to a more humane criminal justice system and society.
But new policing policy in Northern Ireland poses enormous challenges in practice.
Although the legacy of violence in a divided society propelled the creation of such
comprehensive and radical change, it simultaneously presents extraordinary difficul-
ties in implementation. These challenges are similar to those faced in the implementa-
tion of other community policing proposals, but the stakes may be higher.

The human rights, crime prevention, and equality components of Northern Ire-
land’s policy are highly monitored and visible elements of the policy change. There
are numerous bodies internal to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (Human
Rights Commission, Secretary of Northern Ireland, Committee on Justice, Office of
the Oversight Commissioner, and others), external (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, The Lawyers’ Committee on Northern Ireland), and supranational
(European Commission on Human Rights) responsible for oversight or monitoring.
Certainly, however, the legacy of oppression and the existence of racism and sectarian-
ism in society are not eliminated through policy. Websdale’s (2001) account of the use
of community policing as a new form of apartheid dramatically demonstrates the
potential for abuse of human rights in community policing practice.

A major question about community policing’s restorative potential is its relation to
the state and whether the state’s interests (and perhaps the interests of capital or even

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 323





































global capital) will always supercede the interests of community. This is a fundamen-
tal question for the future of restorative justice as well. Much of the debate regarding
the future of civil society centers on whether community-based, grassroots, or local
governance and interests are a countervailing force to the interests of the state, global
capital, and their interlocking interests (Habermas, 1996; Munck, 2002).

In an ideal form, community policing would represent the interests of a local com-
munity. Marenin (1982) compellingly argues that it is possible for police to be
delinked from the state. Although policing emerged simultaneously with the develop-
ment of the state and markets, it does not necessarily serve the interests of property
only. Bayley (1994) contends that although police up until the 19th century protected
the interests of government by suppressing unrest and controlling the population,
20th-century policing evolved to respond to the needs of the public and is democrati-
cally responsible to the populace. It is, he argues, a “renegotiation of the social con-
tract between the police and society” (p. 120). Johnstone (2002) contends that restor-
ative justice practices can in fact build community. Major questions in this regard must
be raised. Can police be fully delinked from the state if the state does not punish, but
must policing be linked to the state if there is punishment to ensure fairness and legiti-
macy? Can there be a partial delinking that can adequately serve the needs of commu-
nity and not the state or global elites? Might suprastate entities play a much more
important role than the state in the 21st century, the “hollowing out of the state”
(Rhodes, 1996, p. 661), further facilitating the delinking of police with state and pro-
viding opportunity for more local control? Bass (2000) demonstrates that community
organizations do have the capacity to shape police organizations. Loader and Walker
(2001) reconceptualize the role of the police in the 21st century as a vehicle to trans-
form communities, from traditional interest and territorial communities to sustaining
affiliated or attached communities.

The public interest is multidimensional and policing reflects this. Loader (2000)
identifies the challenges to democratic accountability of policing that is increasingly
“fragmented, diverse and networked” (p. 324). If community policing is to be truly
reflective of and responsible to the community, however, might local interests be as
easily, or more easily, shaped by elites, the interests of capital, or even sectarian agen-
das than if responsible to the state? The rhetoric of community policing includes atten-
tion to the interests of local business, in fact partnering with business. At the local
level, is there compatibility between business and other community interests, or might
the tension between the interests of various elements in the community result in domi-
nation by some interests, withdrawal by others? How will the role of elites and class
shape community policing? How can interest in directing and monitoring police be
maintained to ensure community control? The local and global dilemma will shape the
immediate future of policing with both opportunities for democratic, community-
based policing and national and global impediments to serving local needs promoting
instead the interests of state and global capitalism (Anderson et al., 1995; Crawford,
1997). Might true community control of police, incorporating informal means of
social control and targeted efforts to prevent crime result in the loss of procedural
safeguards for offenders, net widening, or replication of current inequities?

324 Criminal Justice Policy Review











































Northern Ireland at this very early stage of implementation suggests some of these
challenges of implementation. Although the NIPB is an independent body directing
the actions of the PSNI, its chairs and its funding derive from the United Kingdom.
Although some members are elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the
Northern Ireland secretary selects others. At present, the British government has sus-
pended the democratic local assembly. The Northern Ireland secretary gives goals to
the policing board, the policing board establishes goals, and then requests local goals
from the DPP. These boards have just begun, but already questions have been raised
about whose priorities are most important: How will conflicts between community
goals and state-level goals be addressed, and how will communities ensure continuity
of police personnel to ensure that the knowledge of and relationship with communities
so necessary for community policing can develop (McGarry & O’Leary, 1999; NIPB,
2002).

The role of class and elites in society is far more recognized in Europe than the
United States, and this may play a positive role in ensuring that police serve the inter-
ests of the entire community, especially the poor and marginalized. As in many societ-
ies, the police are drawn from the ranks of the blue collar, and in Europe, police are
more attuned to this and even aware that their interests are more alike those policed
than the interests of other members of the justice system, such as lawyers and judges.
The members of the PSNI who had been members of the RUC may have a mixed class
consciousness because of their high salaries, their exclusion from community for
security, and other reasons. Marenin (1982) contends that the drive toward the
professionalization of the police was to alienate them from their working-class roots,
their class identification, which would make them unreliable protectors of elites. The
influx of half of new recruits from the Catholic community may connect the new ser-
vice to the working class, but the process of change may be too slow. Ironic is the role
that police labor unions play in restraining progress toward community policing, with
the Police Federation of Northern Ireland (1999) rejecting affirmative action plans and
community accountability mechanisms. Similarly, the Cincinnati police union voted
unanimously to cancel a creative community-policing plan that attempted to redress
the wrongs committed by police for racial profiling and violation of civil rights (Kay,
2003). Community policing may have some potential to counter these tendencies
through training, integration, accountability mechanisms, organizational structure,
and ethos.

In practice, the values of community policing pose continual challenges for police
organizations, oversight agencies, and the community. Ideals of human rights, equal-
ity, transparency, accountability, power-sharing, respect for diversity, and peace are
lofty challenges for any organization to achieve, even those whose purpose is not
crime prevention or human safety. Northern Ireland’s experience as a society and its
policing history is rife with very serious transgressions in these regards. Can the his-
tory be overcome and a new organizational culture be established? Will other aspects
of the justice system be similarly willing to change? How will the newest recruits who
are vetted in human rights standards and trained in cultural understanding relate to
members of the PSNI who are not vetted or trained, and how will this affect the organi-

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 325



























zational culture? Thatcher (2001) demonstrates that values conflicts between police
and community organizations present either possible failures of these ideals or new
opportunities for organizational change.

Community policing practice poses serious challenges for individual police offi-
cers and their organizations. The skills and orientation of the police pose difficulties
for the achievement of community policing ideals. Police are asked to engage in dual
roles—those of social welfare and social control. Although most of traditional polic-
ing activities do not deal directly with crime but relate more to serving a variety of
human needs and emergencies, the police have generally viewed their expertise and
focused their skills in areas such as investigation, crime control, and apprehension of
offenders. Community policing requires an orientation to understanding and valuing
community needs. Empathy, community organization, problem solving, mediation,
empowerment practice, and other attitudes and skills are necessary. Some police com-
plain vehemently that they are not social workers, and neither their training nor values
support this new role.

In Northern Ireland and in many communities in which community policing is
adopted, departments expect most of the force to engage in community policing.
There often becomes a fracturing of the organization into community policing and real
policing. Although a new training academy is a central feature of the new force, police
training does not attend to the more humanistic and social welfare skills and attitudes.
There is often goal displacement in such organizations away for community policing
toward prior models (Goetz & Mitchell, 2003) and emerging police practice (terror-
ism, cross-border issues, security, intelligence). In fact, some of the skills necessary
for investigation, such as suspiciousness following the unlikely lead or the unusual
event, may counter the necessary orientation to collaboration. Often, internal values
within the police organization may favor the work of investigation, international polic-
ing, counterterrorism, organized crime, or undercover work. Officers who engage suc-
cessfully in community policing may not receive the rewards to encourage their work.

Conversely, community policing may be in competition with other state and com-
munity goals that may be more efficiently served and met without the use of social
control. Policing is an expensive social service. Resources that assist the community
in meeting its needs may be better distributed to social work, education, or health ser-
vices. In Northern Ireland, there is not yet the devolution of police services to these
other arenas, although an optional tax may be levied locally to allow contracting for
complimentary services (Ryder, 2000).

Community policing purports to resolve problems and prevent crime and expects
that crime will more likely be solved by intimate knowledge of the community. There
are many conundrums embedded in these beliefs. Although members of a community
may be willing to work with police to ensure that problems are resolved and even that
offenders are apprehended and brought to justice, as arrests increase in communities,
may communities become destabilized and residents’ attachments to communities
weaken? In Northern Ireland, a major goal of the NIPB is that there will be a decrease
in crime. New policing policy promotes engaging communities that have been alien-
ated from the police. An increase in crime reporting from these communities would

326 Criminal Justice Policy Review























































indicate acceptance of the legitimate role of the PSNI in these communities but, ironi-
cally, would be contradictory to the police objectives.

Conclusion

In the most favorable analysis, community policing may be the way forward for
communities in conflict to seek justice in the formal justice system. In fact, commu-
nity policing may be more likely to be sustained and practiced in societies that are
emerging from conflict. There may be a clear vision of, and a demand for, a sustained
peace; dynamism generated when police reform is part of a restructuring of major
social institutions; and determination elicited from the poignant recognition of the
injustices produced when policing is unavailable to all. There is enormous potential
for local democratic control and accountability of the state social control mechanism,
probably more than in any other area of the justice system. Policing provides for the
fundamental needs of safety and security and can do so with respect for human rights,
attention to the equitable distribution of resources, and recognition of vulnerability.
Northern Ireland’s dramatic policy plan demonstrates that the integration of princi-
pled vision, establishment of local democratic structures, and major restructuring of
the organization, culture, and ethos of policing can gain the support of broad segments
of the population and represent a new social institution that can bridge sectarian
history in a divided society.

The Northern Ireland community policing plan may be the most important and
comprehensive national community policing endeavor of the new century. It may
begin the process of this century’s momentous shift in the location of the authority
over police (Bayley, 1994) and may transform this leading edge of the criminal justice
system. But there are many possible contingencies that can scuttle the plan, for there are no
easy answers to the conundrums now evident or likely to surface in implementation. The
major strength and essential element is accountability to community—real, not advisory.
Legitimacy must arise from procedural justice: There must be mechanisms to ensure that
human rights are central and minorities’ voices are heard regarding control and fair treat-
ment. Comprehensiveness too is important. Piecemeal reforms, the veneer of community-
style policing cannot fundamentally change organizational structure and ethos sufficiently
to achieve the goals of community policing. The power of supranational entities, whether
nongovernment organizations or quasi-state bodies, may also ensure that communi-
ties maintain control and that standards of justice are enforced. Finally, the willingness
of communities to accept or even forgive the pain of past community relations may be
central to their vision and motivation to transform policing. In the process of policy
development and in outcome, community policing can become fully compatible with
restorative ideals.

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 327









































References

Anderson, M., den Boer, M., Cullen, P., Gilmore, W., Raab, C., & Walker, N. (1995).Policing the European
Union. London: Oxford University Press.

Bass, S. (2000). Negotiating change: Community organizations and the politics of policing. Urban Affairs
Review, 36(2), 148-177.

Bayley, D. H. (1994). Police for the future. London: Oxford University Press.
Bergalli, R., & Sumner, C. (1997). Social control and political order: European perspectives at the end of

the century. London: Sage.
Berger, R. R. (2003). The “worst of both worlds”: School security and the disappearing fourth amendment

rights of students. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 336-354.
Brewer, J. D. (1991). Policing in divided societies: Theorising a type of policing. Policing and Society, 1,

179-191.
Brewer, J. D., Guelke, A., Hume, I., Moxon-Browne, E., & Wilford, R. (1996).The police, public order and

the state (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s.
Crawford, A. (1997). The local governance of crime: Appeals to community and partnership. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.
Ellison, G., & Smyth, J. (1996). Bad apples or rotten barrel? Policing in Northern Ireland. In O. Marenin

(Ed.), Policing change, changing police: International perspectives(pp. 171-197). New York: Garland.
Ellison, G., & Smyth, J. (2000). The crowned harp: Policing Northern Ireland. London: Pluto.
Falls Community Council. (1998). A new beginning: A new police service. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Inde-

pendent Commission on Policing.
Goetz, B., & Mitchell, R. (2003). Community-building and reintegrative approaches to community polic-

ing: The case of drug control. Social Justice, 30, 222-247.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms (W. Rehg, Trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hall, M. (Ed.). (2000). Restoring relationships: A community exploration of anti-social behavior, punish-

ment beatings and restorative justice. (Island Pamphlet No. 29). Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland:
Island.

Harcourt, B. E. (2001). Illusion of order: The false promise of broken windows policing. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Herbert, S. (2001). Policing the contemporary city: Fixing broken windows or shoring up neo-liberalism?
Theoretical Criminology, 5, 445-466.

Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2001). Community policing in local police departments (Bureau of Justice
Statistics Report NCJ-184794). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. (1999). A new beginning: Policing in Northern
Ireland. Belfast, Northern Ireland: The Northern Ireland Office.

Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Portland, OR: Willan.
Kay, J. (2003). Cincinnati police union wants out of deal aimed at better ties with black community. Associ-

ated Press Report. Retrieved July 27, 2004, from LexisNexis database.
Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows. New York: Touchstone.
Loader, I. (2000). Plural policing and democratic governance. Social & Legal Studies, 9, 323-345.
Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2001). Policing as a public good. Theoretical Criminology, 5(1), 9-35.
Marenin, O. (1982). Parking tickets and class repression: The concept of policing in critical theories of crim-

inal justice. Contemporary Crises, 6, 241-266.
Martin, M. E. (1999). From criminal justice to transformative justice: The challenges of social control for

battered women. Contemporary Justice Review, 2, 415-436.
McGarry, J., & O’Leary, B. (1999). Policing Northern Ireland: Proposals for a new start. Belfast, Northern

Ireland: Blackstaff.

328 Criminal Justice Policy Review



Morris, R. (1992, Spring). Restorative justice: Path to the future. Odyssey: Creative Alternatives in Criminal
Justice, pp. 90-95.

Mulcahy, A. (1998). The dynamics of the police legitimation process. Dissertation Abstracts International,
59(06A), 2195. (UMI No. 9838244)

Munck, R. (2002). Global civil society: Myths and prospects. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, 13, 349-361.

Northern Ireland Policing Board. (2002). Northern Ireland Policing Board corporate plan: 2002-2005. Bel-
fast, Northern Ireland: Author.

Northern Ireland Policing Board. (2005). Our people: Members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.
Retrieved December 8, 2005, from http://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/our%20people/our_people.htm

Pickering, S. (2002). Women, policing and resistance in Northern Ireland. Belfast, Northern Ireland:
Beyond the Pale.

Police Authority of Northern Ireland. (2000). A policing plan for Northern Ireland 2000-2001. Belfast,
Northern Ireland: Author.

Police Federation of Northern Ireland. (1999). The federation’s final response to the Patten Report. Belfast,
Northern Ireland: Author. Retrieved December 8, 2005, from http://www.policefed-ni.org.uk/patten/
section12.shtml

Pranis, K. (1998). Guide for implementing the balanced and restorative justice model (NCJ No. 167887).
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Quinney, R. (2000, February). Peacemaking criminology. Paper presented at the conference Peace and
Policing in a Divided Society, San Diego, CA.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(3),
652-667.

Ryder, C. (2000). The RUC: A force under fire. London: Arrow Books.
Sinn Féin. (2003). Transfer of policing and justice powers. From Irish Republican News and Information, 26

January 2003. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://sinnfein.org/documents
Sinn Féin. (2004, March 15). The truth about policing in the north of Ireland. The New York Times, p. A25.
Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2001). Restorative justice: Healing the foundations of our everyday life. Monsey,

NY: Willow Tree.
Thatcher, D. (2001). Equity and community policing: A new view of community partnerships.Criminal Jus-

tice Ethics, 20(1), 3-18.
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of

motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-281.
United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. (1998). The agreement: Agreement reached in the multi-party

negotiations. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Author.
United Nations. (2003). Of conflict, and post-conflict, situations. UN Chronicle, 40(1), 16-18.
Websdale, N. (2001). Policing the poor: From slave plantation to public housing. Boston: Northeastern Uni-

versity Press.
Williams, K. (2003). The demand for order and the birth of modern policing. Monthly Review, 55(7), 16-23.

Margaret E. Martin, MSW, PhD, is a professor of social work at Eastern Connecticut State University. Her
research examines social policy and organizational change in justice systems with a focus on social justice
and human rights.

Martin / Restoring Justice Through Community Policing 329