Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-kfj7r Total loading time: 1.088 Render date: 2022-12-01T11:44:08.348Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

7 - Arrest and Coercion

from Part II - Criminal Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

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)
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
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), 163.Google Scholar
Auyero, J. and Sobering, K., ‘Violence, the State, and the Poor: A View from the South’, Sociological Forum, 32 (2017), 1018–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, A., ‘Communicating Security? Policing Urban Spaces and Control Signals’, Urban Studies, 51 (2014), 3046–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béchéraoui, D., ‘La Notion de Flagrance en Droits Français, Libanais et Egyptien’, Revue Juridique de l’USEK, 5 (1997), 197232.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), 4788.Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., ‘Arrests, Harm Reduction, and Police Crime Prevention Policy’, Criminology and Public Policy, 16 (2017), 369–74.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 711.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), 377415.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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), 167.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 3651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooderson, R., ‘The Interrogation of Suspects’, Canadian Bar Review, 48 (1970), 270307.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), 2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Die Voraussetzungen der Untersuchungshaft’, Strafverteidiger, 4 (1984), 3842.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, C., ‘Police Response to Domestic Violence’, British Journal of Criminology, 40 (2000), 1436.CrossRefGoogle 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), 7998.Google Scholar
Kamisar, Y., ‘The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective’, Tulsa Law Journal, 31 (1995), 156.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), 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, B. and Mangels, L., ‘The Value of the Arrest’, European Journal of Sociology, 58 (2017), 73112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leipold, A. D., ‘Why Grand Juries Do Not (and Cannot) Protect the Accused’, Cornell Law Review, 80 (1994), 260324.Google Scholar
Lerner, C. S., ‘The Reasonableness of Probable Cause’, Texas Law Review, 81 (2002), 9511029.Google Scholar
Li, E., ‘In the Name of Prevention? Policing “Social Dangerousness” through Arrest in China’, Social & Legal Studies, 30 (2020), 124.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), 120.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E., ‘The Warren Court’s Regulatory Revolution in Criminal Procedure’, Connecticut Law Review, 43 (2010), 182.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), 288313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moak, S. and Carlson, R., Criminal Justice Procedure, 8th edn, London, Taylor & Francis (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momsen, C., ‘U-Haft schafft Rechtskraft. Rechtswidrige “post-mortem”-Absprache, Befangenheit und Fehlurteil’, Strafverteidiger-Forum (2019), 8995.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.CrossRefGoogle 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), 377429.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P. and Blumstein, A., ‘The Criminal Career Paradigm’, Crime and Justice, 30 (2003), 359506.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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), 119.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), 134.Google Scholar
Robinson, C. D., ‘Alternatives to Arrest of Lesser Offenders’, Crime and Delinquency, 11 (1965), 821.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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).CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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), 89123.Google Scholar
Weber, J. K., ‘The Birth of Probable Cause’, Anglo-American Law Review, 11 (1982), 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiß, H., Haft ohne Urteil. Strafprozessuale Freiheitsentziehungen im deutsch-französischen Vergleich, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, Y., ‘Arrest as Punishment: The Abuse of Arrest in the People’s Republic of China’, Punishment & Society, 10 (2008), 924.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×