As a young man growing up in one of the least salubrious parts of South London, I’ve been stopped and searched by the police before. The whole procedure took roughly a minute and was conducted with courtesy from both sides. I considered the matter a minor inconvenience, possibly because I wasn’t carrying a 28-inch ‘zombie killer’ knife at the time. I’ve never taken drugs either, so the police had no reason to detain me. Whenever knife crime is in the news (a cast-iron certainty under mayor Sadiq Khan), I reflect back upon the incident and generally conclude that the police should make more use of stop and search; but like the white population in London, I’m clearly in the minority.
The British constabularies’ use of stop and search has come under heightened scrutiny in recent years, particularly the ‘Section 60’ powers (searches which do not require the usual grounds of reasonable suspicion). Former prime minister, Theresa May, was appalled by the extent of the practise and demanded its use be targeted and reduced. Against this background, it is little wonder that the police are now afraid to implement stop and search for fear of accusations of racism—the consequences of which are most clearly seen in London, where the murder rate occasionally puts New York to shame.
A Braverman than most, our home secretary has called upon Britain’s 43 police forces to grasp the nettle, and “ramp up” their use of stop and search in order to “save more lives,” a decision for which she deserves to be commended. The “dangerous culture” of carrying weapons must end, she commented in a statement to the House of Commons earlier this week. The home secretary has also instructed police forces to publish body camera footage promptly, in order to avoid “trial by social media.”
The opposition she faces is considerable, as stop and search has become synonymous with racism and disproportionality in policing. Sadiq Khan’s mayoral campaign was actually run on the pledge of reducing the policy: “I’d do everything in my power to cut stop and search.” While former shadow justice secretary, David Lammy (the man whose answer to black over representation in crime is to allow them to “hide” their convictions) deemed the practice “ineffectual and racially unjust.”
But it’s not just the usual suspects on the opposition benches. Braverman’s decision has attracted criticism from far and wide. The human rights advocacy group Liberty called the move “deeply irresponsible”:
We all want to feel safe in our communities, but calling on police to ramp up use of ineffective #StopAndSearch that is driven by systemic racism is no answer
This will just put more people at risk of harsh and traumatising treatment at the hands of police
Deeply irresponsible https://t.co/nnh7Mtm1oV
— Liberty (@libertyhq) June 19, 2023
Amnesty International saw it in terms of “institutional racism”:
Stop and search is counterproductive and it is widely misused against Black people. Institutional racism already exists within policing and the wider criminal justice system. Stop and search powers are widely misused against Black people in particular, being 6 or 7 times more likely to be stopped than white people.
Such powers have also been proven to be largely counterproductive. They have no or at best marginal effect in preventing crime, while undermining relationships between police and communities.
Even the United Nations considers the expansion of stop and search powers to be “deeply troubling”:
It is especially worrying that the law expands the powers of the police to stop and search individuals, including without suspicion; defines some of the new criminal offences in a vague and overly broad manner; and imposes unnecessary and disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organizing or taking part in peaceful protests.
Taken in the round, the three major criticisms of stop and search are as follows: first, that the policy is ineffective, second that it is used disproportionately against minorities, and third that it erodes public trust in the police. Let’s examine those in turn.
Stop, search, and save lives
In terms of efficacy, stop and search unequivocally saves lives, most especially black lives, as pointed out by former MET chief Cressida Dick: “somewhere between 23 and 25% of those we stop have something on them they shouldn’t have and that’s the same whether they’re black, white, or Asian.”
Scotland Yard proved the effectiveness of stop and search back in 2018, when they reduced killings by 30% by increased engagement in violence hot spots. And the latest government data shows that over 100,000 weapons have been taken off the streets since 2019, almost half of which were seized through stop and search. All of which means that more young black men (9 times more likely to be murdered) will not become an addition to the murder rates.
This leaves Liberals without much to do except to quibble over the conviction rate, which will never be high enough in their eyes to justify the policy: Only 4% of Section 60 stop and searches lead to arrest. Only 15%of stop and searches lead to arrest. Only 1 in 5 stop and searches lead to arrests. Would the conviction rate of ‘suspicion-based’ searches need to be 80-90% before left-wing politicians considered it worthwhile?
The next point is the disproportionate use of the powers vis-a-vis young, black men. There is no doubt that this demographic is more likely to be stopped by police, and in the sense that this may be attributable to race, they have a right to be offended. However, what the critics of stop and search repeatedly get wrong is that crime is a disproportionate business; it is hardly the fault of the police or lawmakers that criminals do not factor diversity quotas into their operations.
Despite comprising just 13% of London’s total population, black Londoners account for 45% of London’s knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators, and 53% of knife crime perpetrators. Which means that as well as being sexist and ageist, effective stop and search will inevitably be ‘racist.’
This leaves us the issue of public trust in the police. MET Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley is clearly less confident in the employment of stop and search than Suella Braverman:
We are going to use the right tactics to tackle violence on the streets of London. Stop and search is a key tactic in that, so it is part of our armoury. … If it’s done badly, it burns through trust.
So, whether a politician is philosophically enthusiastic or not about it is sort of interesting to the side … but surely the communities of London should expect us to be doing the right amount of stop and search in the right places that has the best effect on crime and keeping them safe and building their trust.
That must be the most important driving factor, that professional evidence.
I disagree strongly with Rowley on this. He is talking about optics, when the situation is much too grave for such considerations. “Doing the right amount of stop and search” is not something to be gauged by communities, or the media. It is the duty of the police in their professional capacity. Furthermore, his use of the phrase “philosophically enthusiastic” in terms of knife crime, seems to miss the point completely. We’re not talking about the niceties of law here, we’re talking about life and death. How much succour does he think it brings a grieving mother, to be told “I’m afraid your son is dead, because his murderer might have found our intervention racist”?
Stop and search, implemented properly, is clearly an effective tool the police must take advantage of. Of course, this must be done professionally and with courtesy from both sides. The Left’s opposition to such a policy cannot be trusted, because they insist upon manufacturing grievances, rather than admit the obvious truth: young, black men are disproportionately involved in knife crime; any worthwhile prevention will acknowledge that.
Clearly, black lives matter to liberals, but not nearly as much as their votes do.
This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Pingback: Cricket Elitism: Yes, Please! - The New Conservative