Skip to main content
Log in

Penalty notices for disorder: influences on police decision making

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examined, via a multi-method linked design, the influences over police decision making when disorderly behaviour is being dealt with in the context of a new type of offence disposal, the penalty notice for disorder (PND). The results of a multivariate analysis of the factors predicting the real-life issuance of PNDs to offenders formed the basis of an experiment (using serving police officers as participants) that probed officers’ decision-making processes in disorder scenarios. This approach presents an opportunity to gain insight into how police use the power of arrest when an alternate, less-punitive, option is available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Disorderly behaviour, under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, is, technically, a magistrate-determined question of fact. In practice, however, the officer issuing the PND determines whether the disorderly behaviour meets the conditions for Section 5, except when the PND is contested or the offender is arrested.

  2. These were issued (1) for one of the two target offences, (2) by officers in the target division and (3) in the target timeframe. Additionally, since PNDs may be withdrawn for a variety of reasons, the sample was limited to those that were not withdrawn and for which the offender ultimately paid the requisite fine.

  3. These calculations are based on the Fisher F distribution, which is appropriate for determining the a priori sample size for multivariate regression.

  4. Graham (1997) developed a scale of the levels of verbal and physical aggression exhibited by offenders. The 5-point scale, as adapted by Deehan et al. (2002), shows how the types of behaviours exhibited can be sifted into serious and less serious offences. The use of this scale overcomes the difficulty of making value based judgements about types of behaviours that may be offensive (such as urinating in a pubic place) by grading them in terms of their harmfulness (e.g. verbal aggression and gestures towards another person).

  5. Section 5 does not cover more severe forms of aggression. Such acts would constitute more serious offences that would not qualify for a PND and therefore not appear in these data.

  6. Specifically, their described reactions provided evidence that members of the public had been ‘harassed, alarmed or distressed’ by the actions of the offender. As this criterion is one requisite for the issuance of a PND for disorder (see earlier discussion), we are confident that officers specifically included such references whenever bystanders were present.

  7. To link this information, we sorted the PND sample chronologically by offence time and date. Then, for each, the number of detainees in custody at the time of each PND was recorded and added to the electronic database to give an indication as to whether the custody centre had been full or nearly full at the time of the incident. For the purposes of this component, any detainee in the custody centre who had been detained before the time and date given in the PND but not yet released by that same time and date was counted as being in the custody centre.

  8. This level was chosen because cell occupancy fluctuates and it was not possible to predict retrospectively whether the officer had knowledge of the precise number of free cells at any given point. One may be more confident that they would be aware when a large number of arrests had been made and that the custody centre was likely to be nearing its full capacity. This is because all police officers monitor the police radio channel for their division and will be aware of incidents that have resulted in arrests. They may even ask for updates on cell availability during busy periods if they anticipate the need to make an arrest.

  9. Previous research with regard to the effect of offender ethnicity has been contradictory, and any significant effects have often been explained by other influences (Brown and Frank 2005; Smith and Klein 1984). Moreover, the problem of illegible, inaccurate and/or incomplete ethnicity data in the relatively small research sample rendered further exploration of this potential influence unfeasible. However, to ensure that the omission of this factor did not significantly bias the analytical model, we tested its impact via a regression analysis of only the cases that had offender ethnicity available. In this model it was not a significant predictor of arrest (P = 0.75), suggesting that the choice to omit ethnicity from the final model did not result in misspecification.

  10. However, the number of bystanders was not available in the research, so the theoretical relationship between crowd size and officer decision making remains unresolved by this study.

  11. This is because, unlike a questionnaire, the PND and other police reports do not specifically state that particular characteristics were not present. For example, rather than saying the offender was sober or was not intoxicated, a PND would instead say nothing with regard to that factor. It is only with the noticeable presence of intoxication that the officer will note this factor. This is because, unlike a data collection tool used expressly for research purposes, the PND is used to prove specific evidential points

  12. In between-subjects experiments, random variation is supposed to be minimised through randomisation, but, especially for relatively small sample sizes like those used in typical psychological or criminological research, randomisation may not always achieve completely comparable samples.

  13. In a within-subjects design with repeated measures it is possible that the results might be affected by the order of presentation. In order to test for such an order effect we re-ran the same repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with order of presentation as an added between-subjects factor. Since order did not show a significant main effect (F(3,36) = 1.44, P = 0.248, partial eta2 = 0.11, observed power = 0.35), the analysis without order as a between-subject factor is reported in the main body of the paper.

  14. The responses for this participant were included in the experiment, as it may be typical of the wider population of police officers. As the participant was the oldest officer in the experiment (with 17 years of service), this was seen as a conscious choice, rather than a lack of opportunity or experience.

  15. Notably, our choice to use ANOVA might have violated the assumption of heterogeneity of variance. Although, ANOVA is robust to this when there are equal cell sizes with 40 or more cases per cell, this is less certain when there are cells with either low or high base rates. Unfortunately, in these analyses, several cells had high (over 0.90) base rates. While log-linear models would typically be employed when dichotomous outcomes are being analysed, they are inappropriate for a within-subjects design. Thus, we employed multilevel analysis in hierarchical linear modelling to assess whether heterogeneity of variances between subjects on scenario decisions was a problem. The homogeneous and heterogeneous sigma-squared model comparison was not significant, indicating that the ANOVA results were not likely to be affected by heterogeneity of variance.

  16. Note that, although these were computed as means (see Table 4), for ease of interpretation they can also be expressed as the percentage of those who chose to arrest, because the decision was dichotomous [arrest (=1) or not (=0)].

  17. This strategy entails the creation of new variables. The values are composed of the values of the original target variables (for example, severity and intoxication) minus the mean value of those variables. The resultant variables are then multiplied together so that a total of three new variables is created. Rather than the original variables (in this case severity, intoxication and the severity/intoxication interaction) in the regression equation, the three new variables are entered into the regression equation. This procedure substantially reduces the amount of collinearity produced by the inclusion of the direct effects and interaction terms in the regression equation.

  18. Of course, this result may also reflect that many Section 5 offenders are at low risk of re-offending. This study could, only in a limited way, assess this possibility. To do this, we used the archival PND files to check whether any sample offenders were subsequently rearrested within 48 hours of receiving a PND. This was considered to be sufficient duration for a detained offender to be processed, released and experience another ‘night out’, if he or she wished. The data show that the offender was re-arrested in only two of the 150 cases. Moreover, none of the offenders in the sample was issued with a second PND during 2006. These results suggest that, in alignment with officers’ beliefs, offenders are deterred, at least for a short period, from further offending behaviour. However, future research might investigate this further. This would be particularly interesting in larger cities, where the more anonymous, late night, entertainment centres attract sizeable visiting populations and offenders may feel that they can evade police attention.

References

  • Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avakame, E. F., Fyfe, J. J., & McCoy, C. (1999). “Did you call the police? What did they do?” An empirical assessment of Black's theory of mobilization of law. Justice Quarterly, 16(4), 765–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. (1971). The social organisation of arrest. Stanford Law Review, 23, 1087–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. E. (2006). Incivilities, offence and social order in residential communities. In A. P. Simester & A. Von Hirsch (Eds.), Incivilities: regulating offensive behaviour. Portland, Oregon: Hart Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Frank, J. (2005). Police citizen encounters and field citations: do encounter characteristics influence ticketing? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28, 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. A., & Frank, J. (2006). Race and officer decision making: examining differences in arrest outcomes between black and white officers. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 96–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buren, R. M., & Stenzel, W. (1984). The impact of police work scheduling on police productivity. Public Productivity Review, 8, 236–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 595–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J. (1996). Changing police culture. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 109–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, A. T., MacDonald, J. M., & Manz, P. W. (2006). Organizational determinants of police arrest decisions. Crime and Delinquency, 52(2), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). Women and crime: the female offender. Signs, 12, 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, R., & Datesman, S. (1987). Gender, race and crime: an analysis of urban arrest trends 1960–1980. Gender and Society, 1, 152–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deehan, A., Marshall, E., & Saville, E. (2002). Drunks and disorder: processing intoxicated arrestees in two city-centre custody suites. HMSO (Ed.) Police Research series, paper 150: London: HMSO.

  • Engel, R. S. (2002). Patrol officer supervision in the community policing era Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, R. S., Sobol, J. J., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Further exploration of the demeanor hypothesis: the interaction effects of suspects' characteristics and demeanor on police behavior. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, J. A. (1990). Intoxication and Aggression. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and Crime (Vol. 13). Chicago: University of Chicago.

  • Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to design and report experiments. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P. (2003). Clinical psychology. Exeter: Crucial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, J. J., Klinger, D. A., & Flavin, J. M. (1997). Differential police treatment of male-on-female spousal violence. Criminology, 35(3), 455–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, K. W. (1997). A framework for applying explanations of alcohol-related aggression to naturally occurring aggressive behaviour. Contemporary Drug Problems, 24, 625–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office Research, D. a. S. D. (2005). Criminal Justice and Police Act (S.1-11) Penalty notices for disorder: operational guidance. In D. a. S. D. Home Office Research (Ed.): The Home Office.

  • Innes, M., & Fielding, N. (2002). From community to communicative policing: 'signal crimes' and the problem of public reassurance. Sociological Research Online, 7(2), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelling, G. E., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinig, J. (1996). Handled with discretion. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, D. (1996). Bringing crime back in: toward a better understanding of police arrest decisions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3), 333–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: an ecological theory of police response to deviance. Criminology, 35(2), 277–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraina, C. & Carroll, L. (2006). Penalty notices for disorder: review of practice across police forces: Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: an introduction (Vol. 22). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Liao, T. F. (1994). Interpreting probability models: Logit, Probit, and other generalized linear models (Vol. 101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Lundman, R. J. (1994). Demeanor or crime? The midwest city police-citizen encounters study. Criminology, 32(4), 631–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundman, R. J. (1996). Demeanor and arrest: additional evidence from previously unpublished data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3), 306–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S. D. (2004). Controlling street-level police discretion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 100–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S., Ritti, R., & Snipes, J. (1994). Expectancy theory and police productivity in DUI enforcement. Law & Society Review, 28, 113–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., Parks, R. B., & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). The helping hand of the law: police control of citizens on request. Criminology, 38(2), 307–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendias, C., & Kehoe, E. J. (2006). Engagement of policing ideals and their relationship to the exercise of discretionary powers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(1), 70–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, H. & Babb, P. (2007). Crime detected in England and Wales 2006–2007 (Statistical bulletin no. 15). London, UK: Home Office.

  • Moore, S., & Scourfield, P. (2003). Eliminating the visible: exploring the community response to anti-social behaviour. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 7, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, I. (1981). Demeanor, sex and race in police processing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncer, S., Campbell, A., Jervis, V., & Lewis, R. (2001). ‘Ladettes,’ social representations, and aggression. Sex Roles, 44(1–2), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, K. J., Frank, J., Smith, B. W., & Engel, R. S. (2002). Revisiting the decision to arrest: comparing beat and community officers. Crime & Delinquency, 48(1), 70–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgement and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. (1999). Criminal women. Cincinnati: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M., McCluskey, J., Mastrofski, S., & Terrill, W. (2004). Suspect disrespect towards the police. Justice Quarterly, 21, 241–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riksheim, E., & Chermak, S. (1993). Causes of police behaviour revisited. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 353–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M. (2007). Rendering visible the invisible: police discretion, professionalism and decision-making. Policing and Society, 17(3), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2005). Police leniency in traffic enforcement encounters: exploratory findings from observations an interviews. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (1980). Causes of police behaviour: the current state of quantitative research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 69–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., & Klein, J. (1984). Police control of interpersonal disputes. Social Problems, 31, 468–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., & Visher, C. (1981). Street-level justice: situational determinants of police arrest decisions. Social Problems, 29, 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, K. & Kilsby, P. (2004). Penalty notices for disorder: early results from the pilot. In D. a. S. D. Home Office Research (Ed.) (Findings no. 232).

  • Swatt, M. L. (2002). Demeanor and arrest revisited: reconsidering the direct effect of demeanor. Journal of Crime and Justice, 25(1), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas, J. (2006). Crimes of offence. In A. P. Simester & A. Von Hirsch (Eds.), Incivilities: regulating offensive behaviour. Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, pp. 149–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression and coercive actions. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A. (2007). Nonarrest decision making in police-citizen encounters. Police Quarterly, 10(3), 308–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (1978). Demand analysis: a powerful productivity improvement technique. Public Productivity Review, 3, 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visher, C. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, P. (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture: an appreciation. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. B. (1978). The effects of police on crime. Law and Society Review, 12, 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behaviour: the management of law and order in eight communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. E. (1982). Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly(March), 29–38.

  • Worden, R. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behaviour: a theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23, 667–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worden, R., & Shepard, R. (1996). Demeanor, crime and behaviour: a reexamination of the police services study data. Criminology, 34, 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, J. L. (2006). Does targeting minor offenses reduce serious crime? A provisional, affirmative answer based on an analysis of county-level data. Police Quarterly, 9(1), 47–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortley, R. (1997). Attributions as a function of expertise: the case of the police decision to arrest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Kautt.

Appendices

Appendix 1: scenario briefing

You are asked to deal with the following scenarios. Please decide how you would deal with each case using the available information only.

There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, so please answer by marking the decision that corresponds best with how you would deal with the situation.

All other information on which you should base your decision is included in each case. Please do not assume any additional information based on your local knowledge and experience.

Once you have completed a question please move on to the next scenario. Try to avoid going back over cases. They can seem repetitive, but it is necessary for them to appear that way, so bear with me.

When it is completed, please fill in the brief demographic details attached. Hand the completed sheets back to the researcher.

Thank you for your help.

Please do NOT write your name anywhere on the response sheets.

Appendix 2: examples of experimental scenarios

In the scenario examples below, the varied conditions are italicized. These are (1) cell space availability (yes/no), (2) severity (low/high), (3) level of intoxication (low/high) and (4) abusive (no/yes). Other variables were kept constant in the scenarios and the briefing that preceded the experiment (see Appendix 1). These included: the presence of bystanders, third-party report and offender gender (indicated by name, 50:50, M:F). Scenario 0000 represents all of the ‘negative’ conditions, whilst Scenario 1111 shows all the ‘positive’ conditions. When all 16 scenario variations are used, they test all possible combinations of these conditions.

Scenario 0000 Andrew

You are on duty in uniform on patrol in a busy public street in the city of **** when you witness the following incident taking place:

You are already aware that the custody centre has cell spaces available. You see Andrew arguing with another person. As you approach them, the other person walks off. Andrew shouts after them, “You fucking useless piece of shit” and follows them. You see members of the public turn around to look at Andrew; they seem shocked and uneasy. They cross the street away from Andrew. As you approach Andrew, he says, “What do you want?” You take Andrew to one side and advise him about his behaviour. You note that Andrew smells strongly of intoxicating liquor but is otherwise unimpaired. He walks away from you and begins to follow the other person.

Scenario 1111 Julie

You are on duty in uniform on patrol in a busy public street in the city of **** when you witness the following incident taking place:

You are already aware that the custody centre has no/very limited space available. You see Julie arguing with another person. As you watch, you see Julie jabbing a member of public in the chest with her finger and shouting, “You are a fucking twat, you fucking piece of shit ”. The other person appears distressed. You see members of the public turn around to look at Julie; they seem shocked and uneasy. They cross the street away from Julie. As you approach Julie, she says, “What the fuck do you want? You take Julie to one side and advise her about her behaviour. You note that Julie smells strongly of intoxicating liquor and her speech is slurred. Julie shouts at you, “I don’t know why you lot turn up, you never fucking do anything”. Julie pulls away and says to you, “You useless twat, why don’t you just piss off”. She walks away from you and lunges towards the other person in an aggressive manner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coates, S., Kautt, P. & Mueller-Johnson, K. Penalty notices for disorder: influences on police decision making. J Exp Criminol 5, 399–428 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9084-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9084-6

Keywords

Navigation