Cited by 94Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and PenologyCriminal Law and Evidence

Rules in policing: Five perspectives

Ericson, Richard V.·2007·Theoretical Criminology

Abstract

This article examines five perspectives on how rules relate to police power and discretion. Each perspective is appreciated for its heuristic value, depending upon the types of rules in question and the pragmatic circumstances faced in police decisions. At the same time, it is argued that policing is undergoing rapid transformation involving a new division of labor with regulatory agencies and private police, an attendant reconfiguration of the principles, standards and procedures of criminal law and the rise of surveillance-based control without the law. This `counter-law' environment of policing networks, legal exceptions and surveillance technologies is increasingly relied upon to ensure that the police are watched as well as watchers and the bearers of their own control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362480607079583

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The liminal character of the concept of discretion is reflected in the disjuncture between the politico-legal ideal of officers as individual agents (autonomous, unbiased, rational) and the observed reality of officers as co-agents of common social actions.

    “The liminal character of the concept of discretion is reflected in the disjuncture between the politico-legal ideal of officers as individual agents (autonomous, unbiased, rational) and the observed reality of officers as 'co-agent[s] of common social actions' (Ericson, 2007: 379).”

    From Beyond ‘police discretion’: The need for a new conceptual vocabulary (2026) · cites this paper as Ericson, 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ericson, R. V.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Ericson, Richard V.
Venue
Theoretical Criminology
Published
2007-08
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
367-401
ISSN
  • 1362-4806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7439
OpenAlex
W2078787055
Cited by
94
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
17.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Theoretical Criminology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
Keywords
police discretion, police powers, private policing, regulatory agencies, legal exceptions, surveillance technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review