The police and punishment: understanding the pains of policing

This article argues that police studies should draw on the sociology of punishment to better understand state pain-delivery. Whereas penal theorists commonly assess the pain and punishment of inmates in relation to wider social sentiments, police theory has yet to regard police violence and harm in the same fashion. As a result, police scholars often fail to address why the damage caused by public constabularies, even when widely publicized, is accommodated and accepted. Adapting the idea of ‘punitiveness’ from penal theory allows some explanation of how the public views injury and suffering caused by the police by illuminating the emotions and sentiments their actions generate.

The police and punishment: understanding the pains of policing

This article argues that police studies should draw on the sociology of punishment to better understand state pain-delivery. Whereas penal theorists commonly assess the pain and punishment of inmates in relation to wider social sentiments, police theory has yet to regard police violence and harm in the same fashion. As a result, police scholarsoften fail to address why the damage caused by public constabularies, even when widely publicized, is accommodated and accepted. Adapting the idea of ‘punitiveness’ from penal theory allows some explanation of how the public views injury and suffering caused by the police by illuminating the emotions and sentiments their actions generate.

Is a 24 hour ban such a bad thing?

A key element in Australian policing in recent years is the growth of police-imposed discretionary summary justice. The rise and impact of on-the-spot fines, infringement notices, exclusion orders and move-on powers enable police-initiated resolutions and punishments to be imposed, often without legal or judicial intervention. These operational policing mechanisms reflect underlying pressures to reduce costs, ease the burden on the court system, and speed up the decision-making process, but when viewed from a human rights perspective the potential consequences are significant. Focusing on the legislative development of banning notices in Victoria, this article highlights the impact of such a police-imposed punishment upon individual due process procedural protections. Banning notices deny the recipient the right to conduct a defence, undermine the presumption of innocence, and conflate notions of pre-emption and punishment. The rhetoric upon which the banning notice legislation is predicated obviates meaningful scrutiny of the diminution of individual rights that are implicit in its enactment. A perceived ‘need’ to control disorder and ‘re-balance’ justice to prioritise community protection is used to legitimise any consequential impact upon the principles of criminal law, due process and human rights.

Victoria’s banning provisions: ‘balancing’ discretionary police powers and individual rights

This thesis examines the parliamentary passage, implementation and ongoing scrutiny of Victoria’s banning notice provisions. Underlying political assumptions and justifications are explored to reveal how banning notices exemplify a move towards police-imposed discretionary justice, which undermines individual rights and reconfigures the notion of balance in the criminal justice system.

A comparison of the psychological, social, and legal factors contributing to speeding and drink driving behaviour

Within Australia, motor vehicle injury is the leading cause of hospital admissions and fatalities. Road crash data reveals that among the factors contributing to crashes in Queensland, speed and alcohol continue to be overrepresented. While alcohol is the number one contributing factor to fatal crashes, speeding also contributes to a high proportion of crashes. Research indicates that risky driving is an important contributor to road crashes. However, it has been debated whether all risky driving behaviours are similar enough to be explained by the same combination of factors. Further, road safety authorities have traditionally relied upon deterrence based countermeasures to reduce the incidence of illegal driving behaviours such as speeding and drink driving. However, more recent research has focussed on social factors to explain illegal driving behaviours. The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the psychological, legal, and social factors contributing to two illegal driving behaviours: exceeding the posted speed limit and driving when over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for the drivers licence type. Complementary theoretical perspectives were chosen to comprehensively examine these two behaviours including Akers’ social learning theory, Stafford and Warr’s expanded deterrence theory, and personality perspectives encompassing alcohol misuse, sensation seeking, and Type-A behaviour pattern. The program of research consisted of two phases: a preliminary pilot study, and the main quantitative phase. The preliminary pilot study was undertaken to inform the development of the quantitative study and to ensure the clarity of the theoretical constructs operationalised in this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Queensland drivers recruited from Queensland Transport Licensing Centres and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). These interviews demonstrated that the majority of participants had engaged in at least one of the behaviours, or knew of someone who had. It was also found among these drivers that the social environment in which both behaviours operated, including family and friends, and the social rewards and punishments associated with the behaviours, are important in their decision making. The main quantitative phase of the research involved a cross-sectional survey of 547 Queensland licensed drivers. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between speeding and drink driving and whether there were any similarities or differences in the factors that contribute to a driver’s decision to engage in one or the other. A comparison of the participants self-reported speeding and self-reported drink driving behaviour demonstrated that there was a weak positive association between these two behaviours. Further, participants reported engaging in more frequent speeding at both low (i.e., up to 10 kilometres per hour) and high (i.e., 10 kilometres per hour or more) levels, than engaging in drink driving behaviour. It was noted that those who indicated they drove when they may be over the legal limit for their licence type, more frequently exceeded the posted speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour or more than those who complied with the regulatory limits for drink driving. A series of regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that predict self-reported speeding, self-reported drink driving, and the preparedness to engage in both behaviours. In relation to self-reported speeding (n = 465), it was found that among the sociodemographic and person-related factors, younger drivers and those who score high on measures of sensation seeking were more likely to report exceeding the posted speed limit. In addition, among the legal and psychosocial factors it was observed that direct exposure to punishment (i.e., being detected by police), direct punishment avoidance (i.e., engaging in an illegal driving behaviour and not being detected by police), personal definitions (i.e., personal orientation or attitudes toward the behaviour), both the normative and behavioural dimensions of differential association (i.e., refers to both the orientation or attitude of their friends and family, as well as the behaviour of these individuals), and anticipated punishments were significant predictors of self-reported speeding. It was interesting to note that associating with significant others who held unfavourable definitions towards speeding (the normative dimension of differential association) and anticipating punishments from others were both significant predictors of a reduction in self-reported speeding. In relation to self-reported drink driving (n = 462), a logistic regression analysis indicated that there were a number of significant predictors which increased the likelihood of whether participants had driven in the last six months when they thought they may have been over the legal alcohol limit. These included: experiences of direct punishment avoidance; having a family member convicted of drink driving; higher levels of Type-A behaviour pattern; greater alcohol misuse (as measured by the AUDIT); and the normative dimension of differential association (i.e., associating with others who held favourable attitudes to drink driving). A final logistic regression analysis examined the predictors of whether the participants reported engaging in both drink driving and speeding versus those who reported engaging in only speeding (the more common of the two behaviours) (n = 465). It was found that experiences of punishment avoidance for speeding decreased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving; whereas in the case of drink driving, direct punishment avoidance increased the likelihood of engaging in both behaviours. It was also noted that holding favourable personal definitions toward speeding and drink driving, as well as higher levels of on Type-A behaviour pattern, and greater alcohol misuse significantly increased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving. This research has demonstrated that the compliance with the regulatory limits was much higher for drink driving than it was for speeding. It is acknowledged that while speed limits are a fundamental component of speed management practices in Australia, the countermeasures applied to both speeding and drink driving do not appear to elicit the same level of compliance across the driving population. Further, the findings suggest that while the principles underpinning the current regime of deterrence based countermeasures are sound, current enforcement practices are insufficient to force compliance among the driving population, particularly in the case of speeding. Future research should further examine the degree of overlap between speeding and drink driving behaviour and whether punishment avoidance experiences for a specific illegal driving behaviour serve to undermine the deterrent effect of countermeasures aimed at reducing the incidence of another illegal driving behaviour. Furthermore, future work should seek to understand the factors which predict engaging in speeding and drink driving behaviours at the same time. Speeding has shown itself to be a pervasive and persistent behaviour, hence it would be useful to examine why road safety authorities have been successful in convincing the majority of drivers of the dangers of drink driving, but not those associated with speeding. In conclusion, the challenge for road safety practitioners will be to convince drivers that speeding and drink driving are equally risky behaviours, with the ultimate goal to reduce the prevalence of both behaviours.

What's instinct got to do with it? A blueprint for a coherent approach to punishing criminals

As a result of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing, decisions are often based on the intuitive inclinations and sentiments of sentencers, as opposed to binding rules and principles. In particular, insufficient regard is paid to the purposes and objectives that can be achieved through a state-imposed system of punishment. Momentum is gathering for the High Court to revisit the manner in which the sentencing inquiry is undertaken. We believe that the court should use the opportunity to implement fundamental reform in sentencing and direct the sentencing process down a more transparent and forensic path. We suggest that there are seven basic steps that need to be undertaken to achieve enlightened sentencing reform. Ideally this is a role for the legislature. However, given the populist climate in which we live we have little confidence that the legislature will undertake such an exacting task – one which would almost certainly lead to a less severe sentencing regime. The judiciary offers the strongest hope that at least some of these steps will be taken. This article offers a blueprint for how such reform can be implemented. The first step is simply to assume that the institution of state-imposed punishment is justified – this has already been undertaken. The second is to select the theory which best justifies punishing wrongdoers. Thirdly, public opinion must be ignored in developing sentencing principle. Next it must be determined which objectives (such as deterrence and rehabilitation) can be achieved through sentencing. The fifth step involves matching the punishment to the crime. Step six is to critically analyse the foundation, and reassess the relevance, of the hundreds of aggravating and mitigating considerations that presently affect the sentencing calculus. Finally, sentencing law and practice should be subject to ongoing reform to take into account emerging empirical evidence concerning the positive benefits that can be achieved through sentencing.

Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities

Purpose Alcohol-related disorder in Australia’s night-time economy has precipitated an expanding regulatory and legislative framework. A key feature is the growth of police-imposed discretionary justice, one example of which are Victoria’s banning provisions. Banning notices are imposed on-the-spot, may be issued pre-emptively, but permit no right of independent appeal. However, there has been little analysis of the enactment, implementation or use of police-imposed banning provisions. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach This paper draws upon a detailed examination of the record of parliamentary debate of the banning notice legislation to document how the provisions, and their embedded procedural vulnerabilities, were legitimised. In addition, an analysis of Victoria Police data informs consideration of the ongoing scrutiny of the police power to ban.

FindingsThe absolute discretion afforded to police officers, and a lack of effective oversight, has created the potential for the disproportionate and discriminatory implementation of Victoria’s banning notice powers. The findings highlight procedural vulnerabilities within the provisions, and concern regarding the particular risk of banning notices for vulnerable recipients.

Research limitations/implications The nature of Victoria’s banning provisions created the circumstances for their inequitable imposition, but public scrutiny of their use and effect is limited. Omissions and deficiencies in the published data restricts meaningful analysis of how banning works in practice.

Originality/value The research underpinning this paper was the first detailed examination of the implementation and ongoing scrutiny of Victoria’s banning notice provisions. The findings presented in this paper highlight key procedural vulnerabilities resulting from the passage of the legislation and the absence of effective oversight.

The disparity between human rights policy and parliamentary practice in Australia : a Victorian case study

Over the past decade alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises has given rise to significant legislative, regulatory and operational policing developments. In Australia, the State of Victoria introduced police-imposed banning notices as part of a range of provisions and new powers targeting alcohol-related disorderly behaviour. Banning notices exemplify a broader shift towards discretionary, pre-emptive, regulatory, summary justice which circumvents the criminal law, dilutes individual rights, and reconfigures expectations of balance in the administration of justice. The legal principles upon which banning notices are based and the way in which they were enacted by the Victorian Parliament challenge both the purpose and specific requirements of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Detailed analysis of the application of the Charter compliance processes to the banning notice provisions point to a notable disparity between the expectations of formal human rights policy and the reality of substantive practice. The broader effect of such a disconnect is potentially significant, but has been largely opaque to meaningful scrutiny.

Examining psychosocial influences on speeding in Australian and Chinese contexts : a social learning approach

Speeding remains a significant contributing factor to road trauma internationally, despite increasingly sophisticated speed management strategies being adopted around the world. Increases in travel speed are associated with increases in crash risk and crash severity. As speed choice is a voluntary behaviour, driver perceptions are important to our understanding of speeding and, importantly, to designing effective behavioural countermeasures. The four studies conducted in this program of research represent a comprehensive approach to examining psychosocial influences on driving speeds in two countries that are at very different levels of road safety development: Australia and China. Akers’ social learning theory (SLT) was selected as the theoretical framework underpinning this research and guided the development of key research hypotheses. This theory was chosen because of its ability to encompass psychological, sociological, and criminological perspectives in understanding behaviour, each of which has relevance to speeding. A mixed-method design was used to explore the personal, social, and legal influences on speeding among car drivers in Queensland (Australia) and Beijing (China). Study 1 was a qualitative exploration, via focus group interviews, of speeding among 67 car drivers recruited from south east Queensland. Participants were assigned to groups based on their age and gender, and additionally, according to whether they self-identified as speeding excessively or rarely. This study aimed to elicit information about how drivers conceptualise speeding as well as the social and legal influences on driving speeds. The findings revealed a wide variety of reasons and circumstances that appear to be used as personal justifications for exceeding speed limits. Driver perceptions of speeding as personally and socially acceptable, as well as safe and necessary were common. Perceptions of an absence of danger associated with faster driving speeds were evident, particularly with respect to driving alone. An important distinction between the speed-based groups related to the attention given to the driving task. Rare speeders expressed strong beliefs about the need to be mindful of safety (self and others) while excessive speeders referred to the driving task as automatic, an absent-minded endeavour, and to speeding as a necessity in order to remain alert and reduce boredom. For many drivers in this study, compliance with speed limits was expressed as discretionary rather than mandatory. Social factors, such as peer and parental influence were widely discussed in Study 1 and perceptions of widespread community acceptance of speeding were noted. In some instances, the perception that ‘everybody speeds’ appeared to act as one rationale for the need to raise speed limits. Self-presentation, or wanting to project a positive image of self was noted, particularly with respect to concealing speeding infringements from others to protect one’s image as a trustworthy and safe driver. The influence of legal factors was also evident. Legal sanctions do not appear to influence all drivers to the same extent. For instance, fear of apprehension appeared to play a role in reducing speeding for many, although previous experiences of detection and legal sanctions seemed to have had limited influence on reducing speeding among some drivers. Disregard for sanctions (e.g., driving while suspended), fraudulent demerit point use, and other strategies to avoid detection and punishment were widely and openly discussed. In Study 2, 833 drivers were recruited from roadside service stations in metropolitan and regional locations in Queensland. A quantitative research strategy assessed the relative contribution of personal, social, and legal factors to recent and future self-reported speeding (i.e., frequency of speeding and intentions to speed in the future). Multivariate analyses examining a range of factors drawn from SLT revealed that factors including self-identity (i.e., identifying as someone who speeds), favourable definitions (attitudes) towards speeding, personal experiences of avoiding detection and punishment for speeding, and perceptions of family and friends as accepting of speeding were all significantly associated with greater self-reported speeding. Study 3 was an exploratory, qualitative investigation of psychosocial factors associated with speeding among 35 Chinese drivers who were recruited from the membership of a motoring organisation and a university in Beijing. Six focus groups were conducted to explore similar issues to those examined in Study 1. The findings of Study 3 revealed many similarities with respect to the themes that arose in Australia. For example, there were similarities regarding personal justifications for speeding, such as the perception that posted limits are unreasonably low, the belief that individual drivers are able to determine safe travel speeds according to personal comfort with driving fast, and the belief that drivers possess adequate skills to control a vehicle at high speed. Strategies to avoid detection and punishment were also noted, though they appeared more widespread in China and also appeared, in some cases, to involve the use of a third party, a topic that was not reported by Australian drivers. Additionally, higher perceived enforcement tolerance thresholds were discussed by Chinese participants. Overall, the findings indicated perceptions of a high degree of community acceptance of speeding and a perceived lack of risk associated with speeds that were well above posted speed limits. Study 4 extended the exploratory research phase in China with a quantitative investigation involving 299 car drivers recruited from car washes in Beijing. Results revealed a relatively inexperienced sample with less than 5 years driving experience, on average. One third of participants perceived that the certainty of penalties when apprehended was low and a similar proportion of Chinese participants reported having previously avoided legal penalties when apprehended for speeding. Approximately half of the sample reported that legal penalties for speeding were ‘minimally to not at all’ severe. Multivariate analyses revealed that past experiences of avoiding detection and punishment for speeding, as well as favourable attitudes towards speeding, and perceptions of strong community acceptance of speeding were most strongly associated with greater self-reported speeding in the Chinese sample. Overall, the results of this research make several important theoretical contributions to the road safety literature. Akers’ social learning theory was found to be robust across cultural contexts with respect to speeding; similar amounts of variance were explained in self-reported speeding in the quantitative studies conducted in Australia and China. Historically, SLT was devised as a theory of deviance and posits that deviance and conformity are learned in the same way, with the balance of influence stemming from the ways in which behaviour is rewarded and punished (Akers, 1998). This perspective suggests that those who speed and those who do not are influenced by the same mechanisms. The inclusion of drivers from both ends of the ‘speeding spectrum’ in Study 1 provided an opportunity to examine the wider utility of SLT across the full range of the behaviour. One may question the use of a theory of deviance to investigate speeding, a behaviour that could, arguably, be described as socially acceptable and prevalent. However, SLT seemed particularly relevant to investigating speeding because of its inclusion of association, imitation, and reinforcement variables which reflect the breadth of factors already found to be potentially influential on driving speeds. In addition, driving is a learned behaviour requiring observation, guidance, and practice. Thus, the reinforcement and imitation concepts are particularly relevant to this behaviour. Finally, current speed management practices are largely enforcement-based and rely on the principles of behavioural reinforcement captured within the reinforcement component of SLT. Thus, the application of SLT to a behaviour such as speeding offers promise in advancing our understanding of the factors that influence speeding, as well as extending our knowledge of the application of SLT. Moreover, SLT could act as a valuable theoretical framework with which to examine other illegal driving behaviours that may not necessarily be seen as deviant by the community (e.g., mobile phone use while driving). This research also made unique contributions to advancing our understanding of the key components and the overall structure of Akers’ social learning theory. The broader SLT literature is lacking in terms of a thorough structural understanding of the component parts of the theory. For instance, debate exists regarding the relevance of, and necessity for including broader social influences in the model as captured by differential association. In the current research, two alternative SLT models were specified and tested in order to better understand the nature and extent of the influence of differential association on behaviour. Importantly, the results indicated that differential association was able to make a unique contribution to explaining self-reported speeding, thereby negating the call to exclude it from the model. The results also demonstrated that imitation was a discrete theoretical concept that should also be retained in the model. The results suggest a need to further explore and specify mechanisms of social influence in the SLT model. In addition, a novel approach was used to operationalise SLT variables by including concepts drawn from contemporary social psychological and deterrence-based research to enhance and extend the way that SLT variables have traditionally been examined. Differential reinforcement was conceptualised according to behavioural reinforcement principles (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement and punishment) and incorporated concepts of affective beliefs, anticipated regret, and deterrence-related concepts. Although implicit in descriptions of SLT, little research has, to date, made use of the broad range of reinforcement principles to understand the factors that encourage or inhibit behaviour. This approach has particular significance to road user behaviours in general because of the deterrence-based nature of many road safety countermeasures. The concept of self-identity was also included in the model and was found to be consistent with the definitions component of SLT. A final theoretical contribution was the specification and testing of a full measurement model prior to model testing using structural equation modelling. This process is recommended in order to reduce measurement error by providing an examination of the psychometric properties of the data prior to full model testing. Despite calls for such work for a number of decades, the current work appears to be the only example of a full measurement model of SLT. There were also a number of important practical implications that emerged from this program of research. Firstly, perceptions regarding speed enforcement tolerance thresholds were highlighted as a salient influence on driving speeds in both countries. The issue of enforcement tolerance levels generated considerable discussion among drivers in both countries, with Australian drivers reporting lower perceived tolerance levels than Chinese drivers. It was clear that many drivers used the concept of an enforcement tolerance in determining their driving speed, primarily with the desire to drive faster than the posted speed limit, yet remaining within a speed range that would preclude apprehension by police. The quantitative results from Studies 2 and 4 added support to these qualitative findings. Together, the findings supported previous research and suggested that a travel speed may not be seen as illegal until that speed reaches a level over the prescribed enforcement tolerance threshold. In other words, the enforcement tolerance appears to act as a ‘de facto’ speed limit, replacing the posted limit in the minds of some drivers. The findings from the two studies conducted in China (Studies 2 and 4) further highlighted the link between perceived enforcement tolerances and a ‘de facto’ speed limit. Drivers openly discussed driving at speeds that were well above posted speed limits and some participants noted their preference for driving at speeds close to ‘50% above’ the posted limit. This preference appeared to be shaped by the perception that the same penalty would be imposed if apprehended, irrespective of what speed they travelling (at least up to 50% above the limit). Further research is required to determine whether the perceptions of Chinese drivers are mainly influenced by the Law of the People’s Republic of China or by operational practices. Together, the findings from both studies in China indicate that there may be scope to refine enforcement tolerance levels, as has happened in other jurisdictions internationally over time, in order to reduce speeding. Any attempts to do so would likely be assisted by the provision of information about the legitimacy and purpose of speed limits as well as risk factors associated with speeding because these issues were raised by Chinese participants in the qualitative research phase. Another important practical implication of this research for speed management in China is the way in which penalties are determined. Chinese drivers described perceptions of unfairness and a lack of transparency in the enforcement system because they were unsure of the penalty that they would receive if apprehended. Steps to enhance the perceived certainty and consistency of the system to promote a more equitable approach to detection and punishment would appear to be welcomed by the general driving public and would be more consistent with the intended theoretical (deterrence) basis that underpins the current speed enforcement approach. The use of mandatory, fixed penalties may assist in this regard. In many countries, speeding attracts penalties that are dependent on the severity of the offence. In China, there may be safety benefits gained from the introduction of a similar graduated scale of speeding penalties and fixed penalties might also help to address the issue of uncertainty about penalties and related perceptions of unfairness. Such advancements would be in keeping with the principles of best practice for speed management as identified by the World Health Organisation. Another practical implication relating to legal penalties, and applicable to both cultural contexts, relates to the issues of detection and punishment avoidance. These two concepts appeared to strongly influence speeding in the current samples. In Australia, detection avoidance strategies reported by participants generally involved activities that are not illegal (e.g., site learning and remaining watchful for police vehicles). The results from China were similar, although a greater range of strategies were reported. The most common strategy reported in both countries for avoiding detection when speeding was site learning, or familiarisation with speed camera locations. However, a range of illegal practices were also described by Chinese drivers (e.g., tampering with or removing vehicle registration plates so as to render the vehicle unidentifiable on camera and use of in-vehicle radar detectors). With regard to avoiding punishment when apprehended, a range of strategies were reported by drivers from both countries, although a greater range of strategies were reported by Chinese drivers. As the results of the current research indicated that detection avoidance was strongly associated with greater self-reported speeding in both samples, efforts to reduce avoidance opportunities are strongly recommended. The practice of randomly scheduling speed camera locations, as is current practice in Queensland, offers one way to minimise site learning. The findings of this research indicated that this practice should continue. However, they also indicated that additional strategies are needed to reduce opportunities to evade detection. The use of point-to-point speed detection (also known as sectio

Mileage, car ownership, experience of punishment avoidance and the risky driving of young drivers

Objective: Young drivers are at greatest risk of injury or death from a car crash in the first six months of independent driving. In Queensland, the graduated driver licensing (GDL) program was extensively modified in July 2007 in order to reduce this risk. Increased mileage and car ownership have been found to play a role in risky driving, offences and crashes; however GDL programs typically do not consider these variables. In addition, young novice drivers’ experiences of punishment avoidance have not previously been examined. The paper explores the mileage (duration and distance), car ownership and punishment avoidance behaviour of young newly-licensed intermediate (Provisional) drivers and their relationship with risky driving, crashes and offences. Methods: Drivers (n = 1032) aged 17-19 years recruited from across Queensland for longitudinal research completed Survey 1 exploring pre-licence and Learner experiences and sociodemographic characteristics. Survey 2 explored the same variables with a subset of these drivers (n = 341) after they had completed their first six months of independent driving. Results: Most young drivers in Survey 2 reported owning a vehicle and paying attention to Police presence. Drivers who had their own car reported significantly greater mileage and more risky driving. Novices who drove more kilometres, spent more hours each week driving, or avoided actual and anticipated Police presence were more likely to report risky driving. These drivers were also more likely to report being detected by Police for a driving-related offence. The media, parents, friends and other drivers play a pivotal role in informing novices of on-road Police enforcement operations. Conclusions: GDL programs should incorporate education for the parent and novice driver regarding the increased risks associated with greater driving particularly where the novices own a vehicle. Parents should be encouraged to delay exclusive access to a vehicle for the novice driver. Parents should also consider whether their young novice will deliberately avoid Police if they tell them their location. This may reinforce not only the risky behaviour but also the young novice’s beliefs that their parents condone this behaviour.

‘Just stupid drama queens’ : how police constrain, regulate, and punish the public visibilities of sexual/gender diversity as out of place

Using interview data on LGBT young peoples’ policing experiences, I argue policing practices work to constrain public visibilities of sexual and gender diversity in public spaces. Police actions recounted by LGBT young people suggest the workings of a certain kind of visuality (Mason, 2002) and evidenced more subtle actions that sought to constrain, regulate, and punish public visibilities of sexual and gender diversity. Aligning with the work of sexualities academics and theorists, this paper suggests that, like violence is itself a bodily spectacle from which onlookers come to know things, policing works to subtly constrain public visibilities of “queerness”. Policing interactions with LGBT young people serves the purpose of visibly yet unverifiably (Mason, 2002) regulating displays of sexual and gender diversity in public spaces. The paper concludes noting how police actions are nonetheless visible and therefore make knowable to the public the importance of keeping same sex intimacy invisible in public spaces.

The relationship between drivers’ perceptions toward police speed enforcement and self-reported speeding behaviour

Exceeding the speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions are regularly cited as significant contributing factors in traffic crashes, particularly fatal and serious injury crashes. Despite an extensive body of research highlighting the relationship between increased vehicle speeds and crash risk and severity, speeding remains a pervasive behaviour on Australian roads. The development of effective countermeasures designed to reduce the prevalence of speeding behaviour requires that this behaviour is well understood. The primary aim of this program of research was to develop a better understanding of the influence of drivers’ perceptions and attitudes toward police speed enforcement on speeding behaviour. Study 1 employed focus group discussions with 39 licensed drivers to explore the influence of perceptions relating to specific characteristics of speed enforcement policies and practices on drivers’ attitudes towards speed enforcement. Three primary factors were identified as being most influential: site selection; visibility; and automaticity (i.e., whether the enforcement approach is automated/camera-based or manually operated). Perceptions regarding these enforcement characteristics were found to influence attitudes regarding the perceived legitimacy and transparency of speed enforcement. Moreover, misperceptions regarding speed enforcement policies and practices appeared to also have a substantial impact on attitudes toward speed enforcement, typically in a negative direction. These findings have important implications for road safety given that prior research has suggested that the effectiveness of speed enforcement approaches may be reduced if efforts are perceived by drivers as being illegitimate, such that they do little to encourage voluntary compliance. Study 1 also examined the impact of speed enforcement approaches varying in the degree of visibility and automaticity on self-reported willingness to comply with speed limits. These discussions suggested that all of the examined speed enforcement approaches (see Section 1.5 for more details) generally showed potential to reduce vehicle speeds and encourage compliance with posted speed limits. Nonetheless, participant responses suggested a greater willingness to comply with approaches operated in a highly visible manner, irrespective of the corresponding level of automaticity of the approach. While less visible approaches were typically associated with poorer rates of driver acceptance (e.g., perceived as “sneaky” and “unfair”), participants reported that such approaches would likely encourage long-term and network-wide impacts on their own speeding behaviour, as a function of the increased unpredictability of operations and increased direct (specific deterrence) and vicarious (general deterrence) experiences with punishment. Participants in Study 1 suggested that automated approaches, particularly when operated in a highly visible manner, do little to encourage compliance with speed limits except in the immediate vicinity of the enforcement location. While speed cameras have been criticised on such grounds in the past, such approaches can still have substantial road safety benefits if implemented in high-risk settings. Moreover, site-learning effects associated with automated approaches can also be argued to be a beneficial by-product of enforcement, such that behavioural modifications are achieved even in the absence of actual enforcement. Conversely, manually operated approaches were reported to be associated with more network-wide impacts on behaviour. In addition, the reported acceptance of such methods was high, due to the increased swiftness of punishment, ability for additional illegal driving behaviours to be policed and the salutary influence associated with increased face-to-face contact with authority. Study 2 involved a quantitative survey conducted with 718 licensed Queensland drivers from metropolitan and regional areas. The survey sought to further examine the influence of the visibility and automaticity of operations on self-reported likelihood and duration of compliance. Overall, the results from Study 2 corroborated those of Study 1. All examined approaches were again found to encourage compliance with speed limits, such that all approaches could be considered to be “effective”. Nonetheless, significantly greater self-reported likelihood and duration of compliance was associated with visibly operated approaches, irrespective of the corresponding automaticity of the approach. In addition, the impact of automaticity was influenced by visibility; such that significantly greater self-reported likelihood of compliance was associated with manually operated approaches, but only when they are operated in a less visible fashion. Conversely, manually operated approaches were associated with significantly greater durations of self-reported compliance, but only when they are operated in a highly visible manner. Taken together, the findings from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that enforcement efforts, irrespective of their visibility or automaticity, generally encourage compliance with speed limits. However, the duration of these effects on behaviour upon removal of the enforcement efforts remains questionable and represents an area where current speed enforcement practices could possibly be improved. Overall, it appears that identifying the optimal mix of enforcement operations, implementing them at a sufficient intensity and increasing the unpredictability of enforcement efforts (e.g., greater use of less visible approaches, random scheduling) are critical elements of success. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were also performed in Study 2 to investigate the punishment-related and attitudinal constructs that influence self-reported frequency of speeding behaviour. The research was based on the theoretical framework of expanded deterrence theory, augmented with three particular attitudinal constructs. Specifically, previous research examining the influence of attitudes on speeding behaviour has typically focussed on attitudes toward speeding behaviour in general only. This research sought to more comprehensively explore the influence of attitudes by also individually measuring and analysing attitudes toward speed enforcement and attitudes toward the appropriateness of speed limits on speeding behaviour. Consistent with previous research, a number of classical and expanded deterrence theory variables were found to significantly predict self-reported frequency of speeding behaviour. Significantly greater speeding behaviour was typically reported by those participants who perceived punishment associated with speeding to be less certain, who reported more frequent use of punishment avoidance strategies and who reported greater direct experiences with punishment. A number of interesting differences in the significant predictors among males and females, as well as younger and older drivers, were reported. Specifically, classical deterrence theory variables appeared most influential on the speeding behaviour of males and younger drivers, while expanded deterrence theory constructs appeared more influential for females. These findings have important implications for the development and implementation of speeding countermeasures. Of the attitudinal factors, significantly greater self-reported frequency of speeding behaviour was reported among participants who held more favourable attitudes toward speeding and who perceived speed limits to be set inappropriately low. Disappointingly, attitudes toward speed enforcement were found to have little influence on reported speeding behaviour, over and above the other deterrence theory and attitudinal constructs. Indeed, the relationship between attitudes toward speed enforcement and self-reported speeding behaviour was completely accounted for by attitudes toward speeding. Nonetheless, the complexity of attitudes toward speed enforcement are not yet fully understood and future research should more comprehensively explore the measurement of this construct. Finally, given the wealth of evidence (both in general and emerging from this program of research) highlighting the association between punishment avoidance and speeding behaviour, Study 2 also sought to investigate the factors that influence the self-reported propensity to use punishment avoidance strategies. A standard multiple regression analysis was conducted for exploratory purposes only. The results revealed that punishment-related and attitudinal factors significantly predicted approximately one fifth of the variance in the dependent variable. The perceived ability to avoid punishment, vicarious punishment experience, vicarious punishment avoidance and attitudes toward speeding were all significant predictors. Future research should examine these relationships more thoroughly and identify additional influential factors. In summary, the current program of research has a number of implications for road safety and speed enforcement policy and practice decision-making. The research highlights a number of potential avenues for the improvement of public education regarding enforcement efforts and provides a number of insights into punishment avoidance behaviours. In addition, the research adds strength to the argument that enforcement approaches should not only demonstrate effectiveness in achieving key road safety objectives, such as reduced vehicle speeds and associated crashes, but also strive to be transparent and legitimate, such that voluntary compliance is encouraged. A number of potential strategies are discussed (e.g., point-to-point speed cameras, intelligent speed adaptation. The correct mix and intensity of enforcement approaches appears critical for achieving optimum effectiveness from enforcement efforts, as well as enhancements in the unpredictability of operations and swiftness of punishment. Achievement of these goals should increase both the general and specific deterrent effects associated with enforcement through an increased perceived risk of detection and a more balanced exposure to punishment and punishment avoidance experiences.

Reducing alcohol-related driving on China's roads : Traffic police officers' perceptions and practice

Alcohol-related driving is a longstanding, serious problem in China (Li, Xie, Nie, & Zhang, 2012). On 1st May, 2011 a national law was introduced to criminalize drunk driving, and imposed serious penalties including jail for driving with a blood alcohol level of above 80mg/100ml. This pilot study, undertaken a year after introduction of the law, sought traffic police officers’ perceptions of drink driving and the practice of breath alcohol testing (BAT) in a large city in Guangdong Province, southern China. A questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews were used to gain an in-depth understanding of issues relevant to alcohol-related driving. Fifty-five traffic police officers were recruited for the survey and six traffic police officers with a variety of working experience including roadside alcohol breath testing, traffic crash investigation and police resourcing were interviewed individually. The officers were recruited by the first author with the assistance of the staff from Guangdong Institute of Public Health, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Interview participants reported three primary reasons why people drink and drive: 1) being prepared to take the chance of not being apprehended by police; 2) the strong traditional Chinese drinking culture; and 3) insufficient public awareness about the harmfulness of drink driving. Problems associated with the process of breath alcohol testing (BAT) were described and fit broadly into two categories: resourcing and avoiding detection. It was reported that there were insufficient traffic police officers to conduct routine traffic policing, including alcohol testing. Police BAT equipment was considered sufficient for routine traffic situations but not highway traffic operations. Local media and posters are used by the Public Security Bureau which is responsible for education about safe driving but participants thought that the education campaigns are limited in scope. Participants also described detection avoidance strategies used by drivers including: changing route; ignoring a police instruction to stop; staying inside the vehicle with windows and doors locked to avoid being tested; intentionally not performing breath tests correctly; and arguing with officers. This pilot study provided important insights from traffic police in one Chinese city which suggest there may be potential unintended effects of introducing more severe penalties including a range of strategies reportedly used by drivers to avoid detection. Recommendations for future research include a larger study to confirm these findings and examine the training and education of drivers; the focus and reach of publicity; and possible resource needs to support police enforcement.

Punishment Avoidance and Intentional Risky Driving Behaviour : What are the Implications for ‘Getting Away with it’?

Every motorised jurisdiction mandates legal driving behaviour which facilitates driver mobility and road user safety through explicit road rules that are enforced by regulatory authorities such as the Police. In road safety, traffic law enforcement has been very successfully applied to modify road user behaviour, and increasingly technology is fundamental in detecting illegal road user behaviour. Furthermore, there is also sound evidence that highly visible and/or intensive enforcement programs achieve long-term deterrent effects. To illustrate, in Australia random breath testing has considerably reduced the incidence and prevalence of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. There is, however, evidence that many road rules continue to be broken, including speeding and using a mobile phone whilst driving, and there are many instances where drivers are not detected or sufficiently sanctioned for these transgressions. Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that experiences of punishment avoidance – that is, successful attempts at avoiding punishment such as drivers talking themselves out of a ticket, or changing driving routes to evade detection –are associated with and predictive of the extent of illegal driving behaviour and future illegal driving intentions. Therefore there is a need to better understand the phenomenon of punishment avoidance to enhance our traffic law enforcement procedures and therefore safety of all road users. This chapter begins with a review of the young driver road safety problem, followed by an examination of contemporary deterrence theory to enhance our understanding of both the experiences and implications of punishment avoidance in the road environment. It is noteworthy that in situations where detection and punishment remain relatively rare, such as on extensive road networks, the research evidence suggests that experiences of punishment avoidance may have a stronger influence upon risky driving behaviour than experiences of punishment. Finally, data from a case study examining the risky behaviour of young drivers will be presented, and the implications for ‘getting away with it’ will be discussed.

Vetting Sexual Offenders: State Over-extension, the Punishment Deficit and the Failure to Manage Risk

This article examines the state regulation of sexual offenders in the particular context of pre-employment vetting. A successive range of statutory frameworks have been put in place, culminating in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, to prevent unsuitable individuals from working with the vulnerable, and children in particular. Contemporary legislative and policy developments are set against a backdrop of broader concerns in the area of crime and justice, namely risk regulation, preventative governance and ‘precautionary logic.’ Proponents of these approaches have largely ignored concerns over their feasibility. This article specifically addresses this fissure within the specific field of vetting. It is argued that ‘hyper innovation’ and state over-extension in this area are particularly problematic and have resulted in exceptionally uncertain and unsafe policies. These difficulties relate principally to unrealistic public expectations about the state’s ability to control crime; unintended and ambiguous policy effects; and ultimately the failure of the state to deliver on its self-imposed regulatory mandate to effectively manage risk.