Cookie Policy

On Wednesday 1^st December @WeCops hosted a chat entitled ‘Bad Cops and Bystanders’ with guest host Graham Goulden.

In this blog, Graham provides his thoughts on peer intervention and how this can be utilised effectively in policing:

The murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021 by police officer Wayne Couzens has realised every woman’s worst nightmare.  In a world where women already order their day to prevent sexual violence we now appear to be adding ‘don’t speak to police officers’ to their list of rules that must be followed to stay safe. 

In the days after the sentencing of Couzen’s we have all been shocked by the emerging reality that this officer was hiding in plain sight.  Known as the ‘Rapist’ to previous colleagues this officer was known for his ability to make people (women) feel uncomfortable. 

As someone who has been looking at bystander involvement for many years, a question that needs discussed is If any of Couzens’s colleagues were uncomfortable with or didn’t agree with what he was saying/doing, why didn’t they act?  I do so not to blame individual officers, but to provide focus on a culture that often communicates to them, not to challenge these behaviours without risk of isolation.  Until we do so, we will, despite, education, and awareness responses, continue to see officers failing to speak up. 

The factors that inhibit bystander action are quite different depending on whether people know each other or not.  Many people do not want to get involved in situations of harassment or violence in which they don’t know the parties involved.  This is largely out of fear of putting themselves at physical risk. Social psychologists use the term “The bystander effect” to describe the ways in which people avoid intervening.  As members of a crowd, they might wait, hoping for someone else to jump in.

Where the bystanders know the people involved, maybe their team, or friendship group, their hesitancy to get involved is typically based on a social fear. They worry that intervening will be awkward and could result in the loss of friendships, social status, or professional standing.  Manyhesitate to intervene when they see a friend, teammate or colleague behaving inappropriately or abusively not because they approve of the behaviour, but because they lack the language, skills and most importantly, the self-confidence to speak up.  Also, they lack the reassurance that others will support them if they do say something.

To make the changes needed, organisations need to perform deeper, more committed work to examine their cultures. For instance, people tend to attribute sexual harassment to a “few bad apples,” ignoring how an organisation’s culture unleashed, allowed, and may have even rewarded misconduct. By simply not tolerating bullying and harassment, the bad apples are kept in check and good apples do not go bad.

In many ways going back to basics is a good start. A focus on the organisations mission works. Current trainings backfire, in part, because they focus on telling people “what not to do,” and are often framed as trying to “make things better for women and minorities” rather than for everyone, and seem unconnected to the organisations mission. 

In the US, peer intervention was introduced to policing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  Trust in the New Orleans police department was failing, and misconduct was on the rise.  Academics and officers convinced police leaders to communicate that loyalty in policing was necessary, however that loyalty included having the difficult conversations when colleagues were behaving in ways that was damaging both the organisation and public confidence.  Active bystander-ship training has become a welcomed part of police training across the US since the death of George Floyd.

As well as a top-down approach to addressing poor behaviour there also needs to be a bottom-up approach, one which supports the majority officers who simply want to do the right thing.  The recent ‘WECOPS’ discussion on peer intervention within policing highlighted the power of the group.  I was reminded of the quote by US anthropologist Margaret Mead.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Evidence from peer intervention training delivered in New Orleans saw a drop in misconduct as well as a building of public trust.  When researchers were asked why, it was suggested that by simply having these conversations officers began to reflect on past behaviours and changed.  Also, the conversations allowed the healthy norms, that we know exist in policing, to rise to the surface so providing officers with reassurance that they are more likely than not, to be supported by colleagues when intervention takes place.  Furthermore, when the public were informed of the training delivery, they began to regain trust in the fact that policing was actively addressing the issues.

To conclude, peer intervention presents many benefits to organisations.  Such training has been used successfully in settings such as the airline industry and within operating theatres where different hierarchies exist.  Policing has similar hierarchies that also extend to those that do not involve rank. 

The question for police leaders is “In your organisation who is harmed when we fail to see active bystanders?”