Towards a socio-technical understanding of discretion: a case study of Taser and police use of force

Abi Dymond

doi:10.1080/10439463.2019.1660338

Abstract

ABSTRACT Using a case study of the ‘less lethal’ electric-shock weapon the Taser in English and Welsh policing, this article argues that the notion of discretion as an arena in which police officers are able to exercise free will can be overstated. Drawing on insights from Science and Technology Studies, it is argued that discretionary decisions may well be structured not only by the human agency but also by the presence and agency of nonhumans and the socio-technical networks within which they are embedded. Whilst existing work has recognised the human and societal influences impacting officer decision making, this article draws on Science and Technology Studies to argue there are merits to a distinctly socio-technical approach to discretion. Broader implications for discretion by police officers and other ‘street level bureaucrats’, for STS and criminology and for policies around Taser are also discussed.

Highlights

The concept of discretion is seen as central to our understanding of officials, and their exercise of power, in the criminal justice system and civil service
Terrill and Mastrofski’s (2002) classic study differentiates between two approaches to police use of force: a psychological approach which focuses on the characteristics, experiences and views of police officers and a ‘sociological perspective’ that focuses on the characteristics and behaviours of those subjected to force
This both advances the literature on discretion – by broadening out its focus to include the non-human – and advances the literature on technologies in policing, by showing how STS can contribute to a third way between materialist and humanist approaches

Summary

Introduction

The concept of discretion is seen as central to our understanding of officials, and their exercise of power, in the criminal justice system and civil service. It is seen as key to understanding how Judges, Coroners, police officers and other ‘street-level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky 2010) operate and has been found at all levels of the criminal justice system and policing hierarchy in multiple countries worldwide (Beek et al 2016, Barlow and Walklate 2018). In many of these discussions, discretion tends to be conceptualised of as distinctly human in nature, as indistinguishable with human agency. Law and legal guidelines are contrasted with the free choice of the officer, and the challenge has often been seen as identifying the situational, systemic and offender variables that may influence the choices an officer makes (Buvik 2016, this journal)

DYMOND

Findings

Discussion

Disclosure statement