Arrest and Coercion

doi:10.1017/9781009037136.007

7 - Arrest and Coercion

from Part II - Criminal Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022

Richard Vogler and

Dominik Brodowski

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Judge Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In recent years, the question of arrest has been at the forefront of global attention, with mass protests across the world against the inappropriate, discriminatory and brutal exercise of this formidable coercive power.1 At the same time, research in some jurisdictions has revealed a progressive ‘de-coupling’ between the practice of arrest and the core objectives of criminal justice2 so that in many countries arrest has instead become associated with mere intimidation, summary punishment or satisfying the public enraged by a crime.3 The selection of candidates for arrest by some forces seems to be based more on ‘people with particular appearances, behavior and demeanor’4 than on suspicion of offending or culpability5 and recent studies, which we will review below, have also demonstrated gross inequalities in terms of ethnicity and social class.

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 219 - 259

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

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

Abdul-Rahman, L., Espín Grau, H., Klaus, L. and Singelnstein, T., Rassismus und Diskriminierungserfahrungen im Kontext polizeilicher Gewaltausübung. Zweiter Zwischenbericht zum Forschungsprojek ‘Körperverletzung im Amt durch Polizeibeamt innen’ (KviAPol), Ruhr-Universität Bochum (2020).Google Scholar

Arcila Jr, F., ‘In the Trenches: Searches and the Misunderstood Common-Law History of Suspicion and Probable Case’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 10 (2007), 1–63.Google Scholar

Auyero, J. and Sobering, K., ‘Violence, the State, and the Poor: A View from the South’, Sociological Forum, 32 (2017), 1018–31.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barker, A., ‘Communicating Security? Policing Urban Spaces and Control Signals’, Urban Studies, 51 (2014), 3046–61.Google Scholar

Béchéraoui, D., ‘La Notion de Flagrance en Droits Français, Libanais et Egyptien’, Revue Juridique de l’USEK, 5 (1997), 197–232.Google Scholar

Bingham, T., The Rule of Law, London, Penguin (2010).Google Scholar

Borchert, U., ‘Die vorläufige Festnahme nach § 127 StPO’, Juristische Arbeitsblätter, 14 (1982), 338–46.Google Scholar

Bottoms, A. E. and Tankebe, J., ‘Police Legitimacy and the Authority of the State’, indu, Bois-Pedain, A., Ulvant, M. and Asp, P. (eds.), Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, Oxford, Hart (2017), 47–88.Google Scholar

Braga, A. A., ‘Arrests, Harm Reduction, and Police Crime Prevention Policy’, Criminology and Public Policy, 16 (2017), 369–74.Google Scholar

Brame, R., Bushway, S. D., Paternoster, R. and Turner, M. G., ‘Demographic Patterns of Cumulative Arrest Prevalence by Ages 18 and 23’, Crime and Delinquency, 60 (2014), 471–86.Google Scholar

Brodeur, J.-P., ‘Violence and the Police’, in Heitmeyer, W. and Hagan, J. (eds.), International Handbook of Violence Research, Dordrecht, Springer (2003), 207–24.Google Scholar

Brodowski, D., ‘Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms in Germany’, in Dyson, M and Vogel, B (eds.), The Limits of Criminal Law, Cambridge, Intersentia (2018), 365–95.Google Scholar

Brodowski, D., Jahn, M. and Schmitt-Leonardy, C., ‘Gefahrenträchtiges Gefährderrecht. Aufgaben, Anwendungsfälle und Aporien der Gefahrenabwehr durch Strafrecht heute. Teil 2’, Zeitschrift für das Gesamte Sicherheitsrecht, 2 (2018), 7–11.Google Scholar

Bülte, J., ‘§ 127 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO als Eingriffsbefugnis für den Bürger und als Rechtfertigungsgrund’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121 (2009), 377–415.Google Scholar

Burchard, C., ‘“Räuber oder Gendarm?” Notwehr gegen unangekündigte Hausdurchsuchungen im Spiegel deutsch-amerikanischer Rechtsvergleichung’, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Strafrecht, 13 (2012), 421–53.Google Scholar

Cape, E. and Young, R., Regulating Policing: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Past, Present and Future, London, Bloomsbury (2008).Google Scholar

Celiksoy, E., ‘Overruling “the Salduz Doctrine” in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s Further Retreat from the Salduz Principles on the Right to Access to Lawyer’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 10 (2019), 342–62.Google Scholar

Cone, C., ‘Text and Pretext: The Future of Material Witness Detention after Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd’, American University Law Review, 62 (2012), 333–81.Google Scholar

Cook, J. G., ‘Probable Cause to Arrest’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 24 (1970), 317–39.Google Scholar

Davies, T., ‘How the Post-Framing Adoption of the Bare-Probable-Cause Standard Drastically Expanded Government Arrest and Search Power’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 73 (2010), 1–67.Google Scholar

Deckers, R., ‘Verteidigung beim ersten Zugriff der Polizei’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 44 (1991), 1551–8.Google Scholar

Edwards, F., Lee, H. and Esposito, M., ‘Risk of Being Killed by Police Use of Force in the United States by Age, Race–Ethnicity, and Sex’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (2019), 16793–8.Google Scholar

Eidam, L., ‘Zur Selbstverständlichkeit von Rechtsbrüchen beim Vollzug von Untersuchungshaft’, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Strafrecht, 9 (2008), 241–6.Google Scholar

Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 136 StPO’, in Satzger, H. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Satzger · Schluckebier · Widmaier, Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK Kommentar, Cologne, Wolters Kluwer (2020).Google Scholar

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2010, Clarksburg, WV, US Department of Justice (2011).Google Scholar

Fradella, H. F. and White, M. D., Stop and Frisk, Phoenix, AZ, Academy for Justice (2017).Google Scholar

Gärtner, K., ‘§ 127 StPO’, in Becker, J.-P., Erb, V. and Esser, R. (eds.), Löwe-Rosenberg Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz Großkommentar, vol IV/1, Berlin, De Gruyter (2019).Google Scholar

Gilmore, J., Jackson, W. and Monk, H., ‘“That is Not Facilitating Peaceful Protest. That is Dismantling the Protest”: Anti-Fracking Protesters’ Experiences of Dialogue Policing and Mass Arrest’, Policing and Society, 29 (2019), 36–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gooderson, R., ‘The Interrogation of Suspects’, Canadian Bar Review, 48 (1970), 270–307.Google Scholar

Graalmann-Scheerer, K., ‘§ 36 StPO’, in Becker, J.-P., Erb, V. and Esser, R. (eds.), Löwe-Rosenberg Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz Großkommentar, Berlin, De Gruyter (2016), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Harmon, R. A., ‘Why Arrest?’, Michigan Law Review, 115 (2016), 307–64.Google Scholar

Harris, C. J., ‘Police Use of Improper Force: A Systematic Review of the Evidence’, Victims and Offenders, 4 (2009), 25–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hassemer, W., ‘Die Voraussetzungen der Untersuchungshaft’, Strafverteidiger, 4 (1984), 38–42.Google Scholar

Henstock, D. and Ariel, B., ‘Testing the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force During Arrests: A Randomised Controlled Trial in a Large British Police Force’, European Journal of Criminology, 14 (2017), 720–50.Google Scholar

Herrmann, D., ‘§ 112 StPO’, in Satzger, H. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Satzger · Schluckebier · Widmaier, Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK Kommentar, Cologne, Wolters Kluwer (2020).Google Scholar

Herrmann, D., ‘§ 127 StPO’, in Satzger, H. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Satzger · Schluckebier · Widmaier, Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK Kommentar, Cologne, Wolters Kluwer (2020).Google Scholar

Houborg, E., Kammersgaard, T. and Mulbjerg Pedersen, M., ‘Drug Policing in Four Danish Police Districts’, Police Practice and Research, 17 (2016), 329–40.Google Scholar

Hoyle, C., ‘Police Response to Domestic Violence’, British Journal of Criminology, 40 (2000), 14–36.Google Scholar

Joseph-Salisbury, R., Connelly, L. and Wangari-Jones, P., ‘“The UK Is Not Innocent”: Black Lives Matter, Policing and Abolition in the UK’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (2020).Google Scholar

Jung, H., ‘Das Institut der Untersuchungshaft im rechtsvergleichenden Überblick’, in Jung, H. and Müller-Dietz, H. (eds.), Reform der Untersuchungshaft. Vorschläge und Materialien, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Bundeszusammenschluß für Straffälligenhilfe (1983), 79–98.Google Scholar

Kamisar, Y., ‘The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective’, Tulsa Law Journal, 31 (1995), 1–56.Google Scholar

Kamisar, Y., ‘The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later’, Boston University Law Review, 97 (2017), 1293–307.Google Scholar

Karsch, M. W., ‘Excessive Force and the Fourth Amendment: When Does Seizure End’, Fordham Law Review, 58 (1989), 823–41.Google Scholar

Krauß, K., ‘§ 115 StPO’, in Graf, J. (ed.), BeckOK StPO mit RiStBV und MiStra, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Krieger, N., Chen, J. T., Waterman, P. D., Kiang, M. V. and Feldman, J., ‘Police Killings and Police Deaths Are Public Health Data and Can Be Counted’, PLOS Medicine, 12 (2015), 1–7.Google Scholar

Lande, B. and Mangels, L., ‘The Value of the Arrest’, European Journal of Sociology, 58 (2017), 73–112.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leipold, A. D., ‘Why Grand Juries Do Not (and Cannot) Protect the Accused’, Cornell Law Review, 80 (1994), 260–324.Google Scholar

Lerner, C. S., ‘The Reasonableness of Probable Cause’, Texas Law Review, 81 (2002), 951–1029.Google Scholar

Li, E., ‘In the Name of Prevention? Policing “Social Dangerousness” through Arrest in China’, Social & Legal Studies, 30 (2020), 1–24.Google Scholar

Lopez Segoviano, M. G., ‘The Criminal Justice Standard for Determining Whether Police Officers Used Excessive Force: A Validation of White Supremacy’, Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, 16 (2019), 233–62.Google Scholar

Mather, L. M., Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal-case Disposition, Lanham, MD, Heath (1979).Google Scholar

May, L., Gewehr, E., Zimmermann, J., Raible, Y. and Volbert, R., ‘How Guilty and Innocent Suspects Perceive the Police and Themselves: Suspect Interviews in Germany’, Legal and Criminological Psychology (2020), 1–20.Google Scholar

Mazza, J. D., ‘The Eric Garner Incident: Sentinel Calls for Greater Scholarly Support in Policymaking’, Journal of Criminal Justice and Law, 2 (2018), 136–42.Google Scholar

McBarnet, D., ‘The Fisher Report on the Confait Case: Four Issues’, Modern Law Review, 41 (1978), 455–63.Google Scholar

McBarnet, D., ‘The Royal Commission and the Judges’ Rules’, British Journal of Law and Society, 8 (1981), 109–17.Google Scholar

Mears, D. P., Stewart, E. A., Warren, P. Y. and Simons, R. L., ‘Culture and Formal Social Control: The Effect of the Code of the Street on Police and Court Decision-Making’, Justice Quarterly, 34 (2017), 217–47.Google Scholar

Miller, E., ‘The Warren Court’s Regulatory Revolution in Criminal Procedure’, Connecticut Law Review, 43 (2010), 1–82.Google Scholar

Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2012, London, HMSO (2013).Google Scholar

Mitchell, O. and Caudy, M. S., ‘Examining Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests’, Justice Quarterly, 32 (2015), 288–313.CrossRef Google Scholar

Moak, S. and Carlson, R., Criminal Justice Procedure, 8th edn, London, Taylor & Francis (2014).Google Scholar

Momsen, C., ‘U-Haft schafft Rechtskraft. Rechtswidrige “post-mortem”-Absprache, Befangenheit und Fehlurteil’, Strafverteidiger-Forum (2019), 89–95.Google Scholar

Morgenstern, C., Untersuchungshaft: eine Untersuchung unter rechtsdogmatischen, kriminologischen, rechtsvergleichenden und europarechtlichen Aspekten, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016).Google Scholar

Munday, R., ‘The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure’, Cambridge Law Journal, 40 (1981), 193–8.Google Scholar

Nasheri, H., Betrayal of Due Process: A Comparative Assessment of Plea Bargaining in the United States and Canada, Lanham, MD, University Press of America (1998).Google Scholar

Oliver, W. M., ‘The Modern History of Probable Cause’, Tennessee Law Review, 78 (2010), 377–429.Google Scholar

Paeffgen, U., ‘§ 112 StPO’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), SK-StPO Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK, II: §§ 94–136a StPO, Cologne, Carl Heymanns (2016).Google Scholar

Paeffgen, U., ‘§ 114 StPO’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), SK-StPO Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK, II: §§ 94–136a StPO, Cologne, Carl Heymanns (2016).Google Scholar

Paeffgen, U., ‘§ 127 StPO’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), SK-StPO Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK, II: §§ 94–136a StPO, Cologne, Carl Heymanns (2016).Google Scholar

‘Vorbemerkungen vor § 112 ff. StPO’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), SK-StPO Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung Mit GVG und EMRK, II: §§ 94–136a StPO, Cologne, Carl Heymanns (2016).Google Scholar

Peters, A., ‘Mass Arrests & the Particularized Probable Cause Requirement’, Boston College Law Review, 60 (2019), 217–70.Google Scholar

Philips, C., Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, London, HMSO (1981).Google Scholar

Piliavin, I. and Briar, S., ‘Police Encounters with Juveniles’, American Journal of Sociology, 70 (1964), 206–14.Google Scholar

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P. and Blumstein, A., ‘The Criminal Career Paradigm’, Crime and Justice, 30 (2003), 359–506.Google Scholar

Ray, R., Marsh, K. and Powelson, C., ‘Can Cameras Stop the Killings? Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Body‐Worn Cameras in Police Encounters’, Sociological Forum, 32 (2017), 1032–50.Google Scholar

Rengifo, A. and Fratello, J., ‘Perceptions of the Police by Immigrant Youth Looking at Stop-and-Frisk and Beyond Using a New York City Sample’, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 13 (2014), 1–19.Google Scholar

Roberts, P., Hunter, J., Young, S. N. and Dixon, D., ‘Re-examining Criminal Process through the Lens of Integrity’, in Hunter, J., Roberts, P., Young, S. N. and Dixon, D. (eds.), The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory into Practice, London, Bloomsbury (2016), 1–34.Google Scholar

Robinson, C. D., ‘Alternatives to Arrest of Lesser Offenders’, Crime and Delinquency, 11 (1965), 8–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rogers, R., Sharf, A., Clark, J., Drogin, E., Winningham, D. and Williams, M., ‘One American Perspective on the Rights of Accused: An Initial Survey of Miranda Rights in a Broader Context’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 34 (2016), 477–94.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schlothauer, R., Weider, H.-J. and Nobis, F., Untersuchungshaft: mit Erläuterungen zu den UVollzG der Länder, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2016).Google Scholar

Schmitt, B. and Köhler, M., Meyer-Goßner. Strafprozessordnung. Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Nebengesetze und ergänzende Bestimmungen,Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Shapiro, B. J., Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press (1991).CrossRef Google Scholar

Singelnstein, T., ‘Bildaufnahmen, Orten, Abhören – Entwicklungen und Streitfragen beim Einsatz technischer Mittel zur Strafverfolgung’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 30 (2010), 305–11.Google Scholar

Spronken, T., EU-Wide Letter of Rights in Criminal Proceedings: Towards Best Practice, University of Maastricht (2010).Google Scholar

Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), Rechtspflege. Strafverfolgung. 2019. Fachserie 10 Reihe 3, Wiesbaden, Destatis (2020).Google Scholar

Steidley, T. and Ramey, D. M., ‘Police Militarization in the United States’, Sociology Compass, 13 (2019), e12674.Google Scholar

Terrill, R., World Criminal Justice Systems: A Comparative Survey, 8th edn, London, Taylor & Francis (2014).Google Scholar

Thaman, S. C. and Brodowski, D., ‘Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Trial: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 428–62.Google Scholar

Vogler, R. K., Promoting Effective Safeguards During Criminal Pre-Trial Detention in China. Evaluation of the Kunming Project, University of Sussex (2018).Google Scholar

Vogler, R. K. and Wilde, B., Reform of Witness Interrogation Rules in Georgia, Tbilisi, Open Society Foundation (2015).Google Scholar

Weaver, V. M., Papachristos, A. and Zanger, T., ‘The Great Decoupling: The Disconnection Between Criminal Offending and Experience of Arrest across Two Cohorts’, The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5 (2019), 89–123.Google Scholar

Weber, J. K., ‘The Birth of Probable Cause’, Anglo-American Law Review, 11 (1982), 155–67.Google Scholar

Weiß, H., Haft ohne Urteil. Strafprozessuale Freiheitsentziehungen im deutsch-französischen Vergleich, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2015).Google Scholar

Yi, Y., ‘Arrest as Punishment: The Abuse of Arrest in the People’s Republic of China’, Punishment & Society, 10 (2008), 9–24.Google Scholar

Book contents

7 - Arrest and Coercion

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive