Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T03:46:58.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Advocate The case for third-party policing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

By
Lorraine Mazerolle  and
Janet Ransley
Edited by
David Weisburd  and
Anthony A. Braga
Lorraine Mazerolle
Affiliation:
Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Griffith University
Janet Ransley
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Griffith University
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Third-party policing is defined as police efforts to persuade or coerce organizations or non-offending persons, such as public housing agencies, property owners, parents, health and building inspectors, and business owners to take some responsibility for preventing crime or reducing crime problems (Buerger and Mazerolle 1998: 301). In third-party policing, the police create or enhance crime control nodes in locations or situations where crime control guardianship was previously absent or non-effective. Sometimes the police use cooperative consultation with community members, parents, inspectors, and regulators to encourage and convince third parties to take on more crime control or prevention responsibility. Central, however, to third-party policing is the police use of a range of civil, criminal, and regulatory rules and laws, to engage, coerce (or force) third parties into taking some crime control responsibility. It is the regulatory and legal provisions that dictate the process for third-party intervention.

In third-party policing, laws and legal mechanisms are directed at willing or unwilling non-offending third parties, with the object of facilitating or coercing them into helping to control the behavior of offending ultimate targets. This type of policing, however, is not new. Some might argue that this is just good, proactive policing. Indeed, for many years the police have sought alternative solutions to regulate activities and solve crime problems (Eck and Spelman 1987; Goldstein 1990; Goldstein 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
Police Innovation
Contrasting Perspectives
 , pp. 191 - 206
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, I. and Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Accountability and governance under the new regulatory state. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 58 (1), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, J. (2000). The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 222–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buerger, M. E. and Mazerolle, L. G. (1998). Third-party policing: A theoretical analysis of an emerging trend. Justice Quarterly, 15 (2), 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheh, M. (1991). Constitutional limits on using civil remedies to achieve criminal law objectives: Understanding and transcending the criminal-civil law distinction. Hastings Law Journal, 42, 1325–1413.Google Scholar
Cheh, M. (1998). Civil remedies to control crime: Legal issues and constitutional challenges. In Mazerolle, L. G. and Roehl, J. (eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, 9 (pp. 45–66). New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. V. (1992). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. New York: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. In Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. P. (eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Crime and justice, 19 (pp. 91–150). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Eck, J. E. (1994). Drug places: Drug dealer choice and the spatial structure of illicit drug markets. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Maryland.
Eck, J. E. and Spelman, W. (1987). Problem solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum and National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Eck, J. E. and Wartell, J. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems. In Mazerolle, L. Green and Roehl, J. (eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, 9 (pp. 161–83). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Eck, J. E. and Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime prevention studies: Crime and place, 4. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Ericson, R. V. and Haggerty, K. D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1994). Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In Nelken, D. (ed.), The futures of criminology (pp. 173–201). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Felson, M. (1994). Crime and everyday life: Insights and implications for society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Finn, P. and Hylton, M. O. (1994). Using civil remedies for criminal behavior: Rational case studies and constitutional issues. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, D. (1997). “Governmentality” and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology, 1 (2), 173–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (2003). On further developing problem-oriented policing: The most critical need, the major impediments and a proposal. In Knutsson, J. (ed.), Crime prevention studies, 15. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Green, L. (1996). Policing places with drug problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Loader, I. (2000). Plural policing and democratic governance. Social and legal studies, 9 (3), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazerolle, L. G. and Ransley, J. (2006). Third-party policing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazerolle, L. G. and Roehl, J. (1998). Civil remedies and crime prevention: An introduction. In Mazerolle, L. Green and Roehl, J. (eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, 9 (pp. 1–20). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, L. G., Kadleck, C., and Roehl, J. (1998). Controlling drug and disorder problems: The role of place managers. Criminology, 36, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Crime Prevention Council. (1996). New ways of working with local laws to prevent crime. Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council.
O'Malley, P. (1992). Risk, power and crime prevention. Economy and Society, 21 (3), 252–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, P. (2000). Risk, crime and prudentialism revisited. In Stenson, K. and Sullivan, R. (eds.), Risk, crime and justice: The politics of crime control in liberal democracies (ch. 5). London: Willan.Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2000). Problem-oriented policing: Reflections on the first 20 years. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Shearing, C. (1996). Reinventing policing: Policing as governance. In Marenin, O. (ed.), Policing change, changing police: International perspectives. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 4 (pp. 285–308). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Shearing, C. and Stenning, P. (1987). Private policing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, G., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising: A report to the United State Congress. College Park: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (1998). Regulating opportunities: Multiple roles for civil remedies in situational crime prevention. In Mazerolle, L. Green and Roehl, J. (eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, 9 (pp. 67–88). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Sparrow, M. (1994). Imposing duties: Government's changing approach to compliance. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Sparrow, M. (2000). The regulatory craft: Controlling risks, solving problems, and managing compliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., and Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology and Public Policy, 2 (3), 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (1998). Curtailing youth: A critique of coercive crime prevention. In Mazerolle, L. Green and Roehl, J. (eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, 9 (pp. 117–140). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×