Gp blog

Topic:Should the police force be armed?
The police in the United Kingdom are routinely unarmed, whereas in North America and most European countries – as elsewhere – policemen are routinely armed. In countries such as the United States, police arms are commonly cited as links to abuse of power e.g. victimisation of certain ethnic communities, and so there are sometimes calls for a reduction in police reliance on firepower. There are also calls, however, for extending their presence, e.g. using armed air marshals: this is essentially a different debate involving air safety issues etc., although many of the points below may still have some relevance.

Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europe and North America routinely arm police officers, in part to deter criminal acts. Armed criminals operate in at least some areas in almost every jurisdiction. GivenBy routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values. this, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence without any corresponding risk to themselves.

On the other hand,Routinely arming the police causes a spiral of violence. Where the police are not routinely armed, a proportion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider a shooting option which they did not formerly possess. This effectively reduces the options currently available, for example the police are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as “stun guns”, CS spray, negotiation, etc.

The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighbourhood light policing reflected the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. There is also a network effect involved in being a state with unarmed police when others have them. The nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can effectively encourage an importation of criminality.

However,by routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values.