Rules in policing: Five perspectives
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1080/00071310020015280 · Cited by 2,244 · see citing works
Self-citationGoldstein, J. (1960) · The Yale Law Journal · doi:10.2307/794445 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Relationships and responses: Policing anti-social behaviour in rural Scotland
Wooff, A. (2015) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.003 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Beyond ‘police discretion’: The need for a new conceptual vocabulary
Turner, E. R., & Rowe, M. (2026) · Theoretical Criminology · doi:10.1177/13624806241297311 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ericson, R. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Ericson, Richard V.
- Venue
- Theoretical Criminology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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