the introduction of the metropolitan police force by robert peel in 1829 was a response to rising crime in london. it replaced previously unorganised men by a professional and centralised police force. along with the parliamentary act was also an essay on the "principles of law enforcement" (1829), which laid out the "instructions" of police officers to the public. the first principle given is that the purpose of policing is not the punishment of criminals, but the prevention of crime itself. in the further principles, peel states that the police may only act with co-operation with public respect, and that this respect declines in proportion to force used by the police. peel wanted "policing by consent", by the decision of communitoes. of course, the respect of the citizen from a policing body has always been part of english tradition, from the time of the magna carta (1215) stating the right of habeas corpus (protection from false imprisonment). peel gave further reforms in the justice system with his gaols act (1823) which focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, something consistent in his ethos, such as the ninth and final principle of law enforcement; that the perfection of policing is the absence of crime, not the appearance of the punishing of crime.
of course, what became of the police was a gang of intimidating thugs, alienated from communities, more concerned on imprisoning people than helping them. an american conservative, samuel francis, describes this predicament perfectly in his often cited article, "anarcho-tyranny" (1994). his central claim is that the purpose of the police is like any other business; to create customers. he looks at cases of legal entrapment to see how the police will commit crimes to stop "criminals". the notion of an "undercover cop" has become part of a prevailing modern narrative all the same. the point in stating this is that where there is no crime, there is a lacking demand for police, and so the purpose of policing is to create crime rather than prevent it. part of the idea of "anarcho-tyranny" is also the imprisonment of people for minor offences while those guilty of serious offences are thought of leniently. the murderer is given a softer sentence by reforms, while the dissident is humiliated by maximum penalties. its not that the law ceases to exist, but that it inverts. as edward snowden once said, "When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals." s
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.