批评并没有限制:在乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被谋杀后,对去监管化的证据进行测试

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Wendy M. Koslicki
{"title":"批评并没有限制:在乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被谋杀后,对去监管化的证据进行测试","authors":"Wendy M. Koslicki","doi":"10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeFollowing the shooting of Michael Brown, much scholarly attention has been paid to the so-called “Ferguson effect” resulting from rhetoric that public scrutiny of the police will lead to de-policing. The present study tests this effect due to similar rhetoric that has re-emerged in public and media dialogue in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd in May 2020.Design/methodology/approachUsing Open Minneapolis' Police Use of Force dataset, the study employs interrupted time series analysis models of weekly use of force events against all citizens, as well as use of force against Black citizens specifically. Two models for each population are conducted due to data concerns: a set from January 2019 to June 2021, and a set from January 2019 to September 2020, with the week of George Floyd's death as the interruption point.FindingsBoth models using September 2020 as the cutoff show no statistically significant variance in police use of force against subjects overall or against Black citizens following the immediate aftermath of protests. However, both models using June 2021 as the cutoff demonstrate a statistically significant rise in use of force against both populations following the interruption point.Originality/valueThis study is among the first to examine de-policing following the George Floyd protests, and among the first to examine use of force rates beyond fatal force. Implications for research and practice are discussed, such as data availability and quality, as well as diverse perspectives surrounding de-policing and their implications for police practice.","PeriodicalId":47881,"journal":{"name":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","volume":"193 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criticism does not constrain: testing for evidence of de-policing following the murder of George Floyd\",\"authors\":\"Wendy M. Koslicki\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeFollowing the shooting of Michael Brown, much scholarly attention has been paid to the so-called “Ferguson effect” resulting from rhetoric that public scrutiny of the police will lead to de-policing. The present study tests this effect due to similar rhetoric that has re-emerged in public and media dialogue in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd in May 2020.Design/methodology/approachUsing Open Minneapolis' Police Use of Force dataset, the study employs interrupted time series analysis models of weekly use of force events against all citizens, as well as use of force against Black citizens specifically. Two models for each population are conducted due to data concerns: a set from January 2019 to June 2021, and a set from January 2019 to September 2020, with the week of George Floyd's death as the interruption point.FindingsBoth models using September 2020 as the cutoff show no statistically significant variance in police use of force against subjects overall or against Black citizens following the immediate aftermath of protests. However, both models using June 2021 as the cutoff demonstrate a statistically significant rise in use of force against both populations following the interruption point.Originality/valueThis study is among the first to examine de-policing following the George Floyd protests, and among the first to examine use of force rates beyond fatal force. Implications for research and practice are discussed, such as data availability and quality, as well as diverse perspectives surrounding de-policing and their implications for police practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management\",\"volume\":\"193 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0114\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

迈克尔·布朗枪击事件之后,学术界对所谓的“弗格森效应”给予了极大的关注,这一效应源于公众对警察的监督将导致警察去监管化的言论。在2020年5月乔治·弗洛伊德被杀后,类似的言论再次出现在公众和媒体对话中,以回应“黑人的命也是命”抗议活动,本研究对这一影响进行了测试。使用开放明尼阿波利斯的警察使用武力数据集,该研究采用中断时间序列分析模型,分析每周对所有公民使用武力的事件,特别是对黑人公民使用武力的事件。出于数据考虑,对每个人群进行了两个模型:一组是2019年1月至2021年6月,另一组是2019年1月至2020年9月,以乔治·弗洛伊德去世的那一周为中断点。两种以2020年9月为截止点的模型都显示,在抗议活动刚刚结束后,警察对整体对象或对黑人公民使用武力的情况没有统计学上的显著差异。然而,使用2021年6月作为截止点的两个模型都表明,在中断点之后,对两个人群使用武力的统计上显着增加。原创性/价值本研究是在乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)抗议之后第一批对去警务化进行研究的研究之一,也是第一批对致命武力以外的武力使用率进行研究的研究之一。讨论了对研究和实践的影响,例如数据的可用性和质量,以及围绕非警务化及其对警察实践的影响的不同观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Criticism does not constrain: testing for evidence of de-policing following the murder of George Floyd
PurposeFollowing the shooting of Michael Brown, much scholarly attention has been paid to the so-called “Ferguson effect” resulting from rhetoric that public scrutiny of the police will lead to de-policing. The present study tests this effect due to similar rhetoric that has re-emerged in public and media dialogue in response to Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd in May 2020.Design/methodology/approachUsing Open Minneapolis' Police Use of Force dataset, the study employs interrupted time series analysis models of weekly use of force events against all citizens, as well as use of force against Black citizens specifically. Two models for each population are conducted due to data concerns: a set from January 2019 to June 2021, and a set from January 2019 to September 2020, with the week of George Floyd's death as the interruption point.FindingsBoth models using September 2020 as the cutoff show no statistically significant variance in police use of force against subjects overall or against Black citizens following the immediate aftermath of protests. However, both models using June 2021 as the cutoff demonstrate a statistically significant rise in use of force against both populations following the interruption point.Originality/valueThis study is among the first to examine de-policing following the George Floyd protests, and among the first to examine use of force rates beyond fatal force. Implications for research and practice are discussed, such as data availability and quality, as well as diverse perspectives surrounding de-policing and their implications for police practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: ■Community policing ■Managerial styles and leadership ■Performance measurement and accountability ■Pursuit guidelines ■Crime trends and analysis ■Crisis negotiation ■Civil disorder ■Organized crime ■Victimology ■Crime prevention ■Career development ■High risk police activities ■Routine policing ■Traffic enforcement ■Civil litigation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信