See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353378931

The Concept of Police ‘New Visibility’ and its Efficacy on Crime Prevention

Article · March 2013

CITATIONS READS
0 430

1 author:

Abbia Udofia
Anti-Corruption Commission
10 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abbia Udofia on 22 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Concept of Police ‘New Visibility’ and its Efficacy on Crime Prevention

On 1 March 2013, eight South African police officers were charged with murder for
the death of a 27 year old taxi driver Mido Macia, who was dragged by a police
vehicle (with his hands cuffed to the van) through a street in Daveyton township
allegedly for parking his vehicle in a manner that interfered with traffic. The incident
was video-taped on mobile phone by a bystander. Macia was found dead in prison a
few hours later, arising from head and upper abdomen injuries including internal
bleeding (BBC 1 March 2013). The Police Commissioner expressed gratitude to the
people for exposing “callous and unacceptable behaviour.”
Improvements in technological development, especially in the internet and
recording devices, have significantly replaced the need for movements, with easier
capture and sharing of images by people. This means that there is a greater ‘window’
into the world and lives of everyday people, creating more interconnectivity
worldwide, alongside increasing awareness of new issues. With this, the issue of
police misconduct has attracted more concern, with cases of police being caught on
video seemingly violating some aspect of their code of conduct, now more and more
commonly being the subject of court cases and headlines (Novak, 2009; Balko,
2006; Martin, 2005; Weitzer, 2002; Palmiotto, 2001). While police misconduct has
always been a concern to some extent, with people having more access to recording
technology (and the means to share video being the motivation to catch such acts of
lawlessness), the Rodney King case brought police misconduct to the attention of the
‘public eye’ (Martin, 2005). Here it was evident police can not only violate their code
of conduct by skipping steps in normal protocol, but that they were both willing to
use violence unnecessarily, further appearing to enjoy it; the fame of the case caused
other people to speak out, arguing that claims of such actions being commonplace
shocking some and enraging others (Martin, 2005). The additional improvements in

1
technology since this time, such as video cameras with high resolution being less
expensive (and commonly integrated into cellular phones), the potential to catch
police officers in such acts is greater, while in fact more police have been caught
(albeit not always in ways nearly as severe) violating protocol (Levitt, 2009). With this
improved potential for viewing and recording police, some analysts such as
Thompson (2005) and Goldsmith (2010) have referred to this as a sort of ‘new
visibility,’ and therefore something that police have been faced with. Recording
technology in the hands of the public, as well as the increase in closed circuit
televisions (CCTV) monitoring in public places, can cause police to be more self-
conscious, considerate of policy, and potentially altered in their actions. With this,
however, there is also a concern regarding what could possibly be misconstrued as a
violation of protocol. This concern is that police will be so overly cautious that
visibility becomes actually counterproductive to crime prevention efforts, or even
dangerous. This analysis and discussion considers this concept in detail, reviewing a
range of literature and facts regarding misconduct and visibility, ultimately
concluding that while there is much controversy surrounding both the potential and
right to record police, this potential has not been proven to (and does not appear to)
impede any crime prevention efforts.

New Visibility
The visibility of police officers has been increasing since the inception of the
internet and the falling costs (and sizes) of video cameras, increasing sharply since
the 21st century. As mentioned, now cellular phones are commonplace, and cameras
capable of recording video are now a common feature. Moreover, CCTV has
increasingly monitored streets and other public places, while the internet provides a
medium for rapidly exposing cases of police misconduct; people appear to be highly
motivated to share and spread awareness of such cases, and such videos could go

2
‘viral’ or experience rapid sharing with sites such as Youtube.com (Goldsmith,
2010). In the beginning of the 21st century, Salmt, Voeten, & Keskinen (2000) built a
model for the public image while considering the modern visibility of police,
focusing on community policing, police contacts, victimisation, and the backgrounds
of participants. The authors developed a questionnaire for these areas and surveyed
3,271 adults and 986 teenagers in two urban areas. The study found that police on
foot were generally perceived as conducting themselves well, while the respondents
commonly claimed that those in patrol cars were apt to violate protocol in some way.
Soon after this study, Goold (2003) conducted a study of the effect of the increasing
impact of CCTV on police behaviour, citing more frequent cases of misconduct
being caught and more changes to both police behaviour and regulations; however,
the author concluded that the changes would likely not eradicate police misconduct,
especially as they learn when and where they are and are not being watched; the
potential for corruption is assumed to exist so long as the police are not being
constantly video recorded (or they have the power to hide recordings). Burgess &
Green (2009) explained that online video and participatory culture has increased
awareness of the police misconduct cases that exist, while providing a highly efficient
and effective medium for even misconstrued cases of misconduct. Similarly, Hand
(2008) agrees that the internet has become a platform for rapid information and
misinformation spreading, having both positive and negative potential for honest and
corrupt officers alike.
Thompson (2005) elaborated on the concept of the changing visibility in
detail, referring to it as a ‘new visibility,’ elaborating on cases in the US government
and police officers. Here he explained that even the military has been found guilty of
misconduct with the new visibility, while the (theoretical) implications for police
officers if even military officials cannot be persuaded are great. According to
Thompson (2005), “thanks to the media, these previously hidden practices and

3
events had been given an entirely new status as public and, indeed, politically
explosive events; the invisible had been made visible for all to see, even though the
viewers were far removed from the closed corridors and prison cells in which these
disturbing events had transpired” (p. 31). Here Thompson (2005) argued that in the
new world of ‘mediated’ visibility, the visibility of occurrences does not equate the
outcome of leaked events only, as it is also a technique for people who know how to
exploit the phenomena, using it like a political weapon. The author further questions
the traits of the new type of visibility, specifically in terms of the traits that have
become pervasive of the modern world, how they are variant from other types of
visibility, and what are the consequences of the new types of visibility when
considering police consciousness or potential for misrepresentation; as the latter has
potential for honest police efforts to be impeded, while all have implications at a
societal level, the author had pointed out he had long examined some of the
concepts through other works as well (Thompson, 1995; 2000; 2005).
Meanwhile, Thompson (2005) argued that in order to understand the new
visibility, it is important to first understand how the development of communication
media has altered aspects of social interactions at fundamental levels. Here he
argued that technologies facilitate computer-mediated interaction, which is effectively
a ‘double edged sword’ because of the potential to expose corruption or misconstrue
honest work and efforts. The numerous forms of internet interaction, such as emails,
instant messaging, website posts, and now social media all facilitate this, continuing to
‘push the envelope’ as more and more communicative potential and connectivity
becomes available (Slevin, 2000; Thompson, 2005). Thompson (2005) asserted that
through an interactional approach to communications media, people can develop a
unique sociological viewpoint regarding the development of media. With this, the
potential for the government to keep even personal secrets continues to diminish,
the Kennedy affair is an example of such a personal secret, while members of the

4
public were eager to expose this (Hagood, 1998). For the case of police brutality, the
implications are much worse, more people are motivated to expose it, and the
internet provides many more mediums and connectivity compared to the technology
available in Kennedy’s time. While analysts such as Whitacker (1999) had suggested
even the technologies available near the end of the 20th century were an effective end
of privacy, others argue that even the availability of video camera and the accessibility
of the internet have yet to truly bring the public to this point. Meanwhile, however,
the public domain has evolved into an area with more information and accessibility
than conceivable in the early 1990s, and police officials have become concerned that
the potential for police misconduct to be incorrectly represented can have a negative
effect on police officers work. On the contrary, fortunately, this potential has (if not
most commonly) also served to provide a sense of fear for would-be brutes, knowing
the potential for them to be viewed, exposed, and reprimanded has increased
(Thompson, 2005). Thompson (2005) concluded stating “the visibility of actions and
events, and the impact of these words and images on the ways in which ordinary
individuals understand what is happening in distant locales and form opinions and
moral judgements about it, have, in this age of mediated visibility, become an
inseparable part of the unfolding of the events themselves” (p. 49).
Considering this, the potential for both positive and negative outcome is clear,
with the ‘double edged sword’ analogy entirely applicable. While privacy should not
be a concern to police officers, the potential for false accusations and misconstrued
cases is a real threat. However, one should question whether this is actually a valid
reason to alter behaviour, as opposed to simply having faith in the justice system
while acting in accordance with regulations. Other analysts have examined cases of
police misconduct and related theory, often touching on the concepts associated with
the new visibility analysed directly by Thompson (2005) and Goldsmith (2010).
Rome & In Soo (2004) stated that while police misconduct had created social

5
concern in developed nations across the beginning of the 21st century, there had yet
to be any kind of consensus by administrators, activists, or researchers regarding the
true extent of misconduct. Some claimed that misconduct was more commonplace,
while others asserted they were isolated incidents (and therefore not concerns that
needed to be investigated on any kind of large scale). Attempting to gain more
information, Rome & In Soo (2004) surveyed 988 citizens and 665 police officers
regarding misconduct, finding that the perceptions varied comparably as much, even
in their smaller sample. Similarly, Brighenti (2007) argued that visibility was
something that should be more commonly examined in social sciences, with aspects
such as police misconduct evidence that many aspects of social interactions in even
developed countries are poorly understood to any detailed and manageable extent.
As mentioned, five years after Thompson’s (2005) publication, Goldsmith
(2010) would revisit the concept through his own assessment of the ‘new visibility.’
Here the author simply applied the same concepts to more modern occurrences,
pointing out that visibility had increased still further in the past five years, while sites
such as Youtube.com and other social media better facilitated the ‘viral’ spread of
incidents should an accusation related to police misconduct occur through an online
community. Explaining this increase while alluding to two case studies in London
and Vancouver, Goldsmith (2010) concluded that there are indeed new challenges
created for police management, as even false accusations are difficult to address.
Balko (2011) elaborated on an element of this further, pointing out that attempts to
record the police can also be dangerous for the recorder, ultimately creating a
chaotic situation that can be potentially detrimental to all parties regardless of
intention. Citing the case of Michael Allison, a man who faced up to 75 years for
violating a law many people are not even aware of, Balko (2011) elaborated on the
potential detriment in the new era of visibility. The author explained that Allison had
no previous criminal record, and was charged with five counts of wiretapping for

6
simply recording his interactions with officials that were public by definition. Faced
with fines for working with ‘gray areas’ of legislation in his neighbourhood, Allison
attempted to confront the law with a video camera, requesting police officers explain
the law he was accused of violating. With the case moving to court, Allison was
found to have a recorder in his pocket, and the judge accused him of violating a law
for recording someone without their permission; the judge accused him of violating
her privacy, charging him with a Class 1 felony, while Allison had assumed public
officials were liable for their words and not subject to a so-called invasion of privacy
(Balko, 2011). Similar arguments can be made for police officers and citizens,
although this does not make the police officers immune to violating protocol, while
such cases can be all-around detrimental and potentially counterproductive to police
duties.
Other analysts have considered the extent of visibility and its impact on crime
control and prevention efforts, although the true nature of the impact is unclear. De
Lint, Virta, & Deukmedjian (2007) examined the potential for policing efforts to
shift, not drawing any particularly unique or strong conclusions, while Koskela
(2004) could do little more than explain the potential for technology to empower
people with the possibility to catch criminal acts on tape. Recently, Robinson (2012)
was able to explain how surveillance legislation and the improved connectivity of the
internet and social media have increasingly publicised cases of police brutality and
misconduct, while the topic of the criminalisation of police recording has
increasingly become a subject of litigation. While this may be considered common
knowledge amid the improvements in technology and the phenomena of the ‘viral’
video, the potential to truly grasp both the potential to misrepresent misconduct, the
true trends in misconduct, and the potential impact on police officers overall are
more challenging. This section has shown the reality of the new visibility, which is

7
entirely clear unlike these related issues, while the following section attempts to
elaborate more on the implications for crime prevention.

Policing, Misconduct, and Crime Prevention

Numerous analysts have attempted to elaborate on the nature of
consequences of the new visibility of police officers and misconduct, with topics
ranging from the impact on public awareness and media coverage to the potential for
police reform. Walsh (2009) pointed out that the scrutiny brought to the US Army
from videos of misconduct demanded thorough investigations that some worried
may not have taken place otherwise, while no one had (at least successfully) argued
that this exposure or the investigations had a detrimental impact on the capacity of
the military to do its job. Chermak & Wiess (2005) examined the potential to
maintain legitimacy through the use of external communication, assessment police
and media relations, showing a clear increase in exposure attempts (but unable to
draw clear conclusions on potential impact on crime prevention efforts). Similarly,
Cooke & Sturges (2009) pointed out that the freedom of information facilitated
potential exposure efforts, potentially serving as a type of crime prevention in itself,
but this (especially considering the potential for video to be edited or altered to
further misrepresent an actual occurrence) does not translate to an effective ‘policing
of police’ by definition. Prior to his 2010 assessment, Goldsmith (2005) attempted to
draw conclusions regarding police reform and trust issues, pointing out the
difficulties in solving these issues here as well as in the previous article analysed.
Paperman (2003) and Copperfield (2006) explained that this visibility will almost
certainly only increase indefinitely, unless legislation is altered to prevent it (i.e.
alterations in freedom of information or recording laws applicable to police), while
Copperfield (2006) argued that the most detrimental impact on police is a waste of
their time in this visibility and false accusation potential. Huey, Walby, and Doyle
(2006) viewed the new visibility as a resistance tool, although from the literature
8
assessed it is evident that the double edged sword analogy applies quite well to the
circumstances; this appears to be the most objective and accurate perspective.
The potential for an impact on crime prevention is dependent on numerous
variables, and this is why the concept is hard to understand at a fundamental level
while having a full perspective of the reality of circumstance in the developed world.
Many analysts have been aware of this basic fact, which is almost ironic considering
the key topic is an increase in connectivity and communicative potential, while it may
never be possible to fully grasp the true influence amid police biases and the reality
of ‘cover up’ types of situations (MacIntyre, 2009). MacIntyre (2009) assessed police
brutality and power abuse in the UK, focusing on the potential for police ‘cover ups’
related to accusations of innocents shot by police. Here the author cited the cases of
a 27 year old plumber shot on his way to work, a 47 year old vendor shot walking
home from work, both fatally wounded. One of the men was wrongfully identified as
a potential suicide bomber, with video showing him being shot repeatedly in the
head in spite of the ‘potential’ status amid the wrongful identification. This case
implies that the fear of being misrepresented or video recorded does not impede (at
least some of) police activities in related areas. Beyond this, MacIntyre (2009) stated
that Liverpool police had been caught covering up events decades ago, leaving no
reason to believe that this would cease entirely in the modern era, with video
potential only making it more difficult; in the case of the wrongly identified terrorist,
incorrect information was published by the department before the true story came to
light.
In such cases, new visibility has a potential for truth rather than
misrepresentation or impedance, but the potential damage done by an edited video
and false accusation is both real and great (MacIntyre, 2009). Citing other
questionable cases from the 21st century (following a list of prior cases not as related
to changes in visibility), the author listed the cases of a man collapsing in a Brixton

9
police station (dying two hours later, leading to inquiries regarding police treatment
of the mentally ill); a charity worker shot dead driving on the wrong side of a road
(claims regarding the justification had been investigated with no clear details
emerging); and the case of a protestor dying of a heart attack; the police had initially
claimed no contact with the protestor, but video evidence later revealed he was at
least forced to the ground by riot police (MacIntyre, 2009). Although it is difficult to
determine the reality and representative nature of these cases, they imply that
visibility has not only not deterred valid attempts at crime prevention, but that it has
not even done much to deter police misconduct.
Casady & Arp (2009) explained that while urban development continues, law
enforcement continues to be challenged by policy and resources, while the potential
impacts of accusations and cases related to visibility can therefore have an increasing
strain. This potential may be the cause for reports of citizens being increasingly
hassled or even arrested for attempting to record police conduct (Son & Rome,
2004; Cea, 2005; Balko, 2006; Potere, 2012). Similar to the aforementioned case of
the man recording public officials, police officers have been increasingly taking
advantage of their power to arrest as citizens take advantage of their power to exploit
the new visibility potential.
With this, the motivations (or potentially even instructions) to arrest such
individuals have been questioned, while there is naturally difficulty in gaining solid
answers in this area as well. The primary legislation allowing them to get away with
such arrests in the US is a wiretapping statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983), despite the fact no
tapping of private equipment is involved; here many have attempted to file lawsuits
because of this fact, as well as the fact that it violates the US’ First Amendment.
Courts had commonly claimed that the right to record police is a sort of grey area
while it is yet to be clearly established, and thus attempts by police to combat or
minimise negative attention and court cases from misrepresentation, may have

10
effectively led to a comparable or increased amount of negative attention through
such actions. Potere (2012) argued that “the right to monitor the police and report
misconduct is a clearly established, if not fundamental, element
of…policing…arresting and prosecuting individuals who record police conduct
constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech….judicial decisions
rendering the recording of police unquestionably legal would not undermine police
efforts” (p. 273). With this it is evident that the police commonly argue that aspects
of new visibility do impede their efforts, but as mentioned, there has been no study
that has been able to definitively prove this from an academic standpoint.
Potere’s (2012) elaborations on these concepts are highly relevant to the topic
while contributing to the small but increasing knowledge base targeting visibility
impact; potentially the study could serve as a foundation for another seeking to grasp
impact at national or international levels, but the information available leaves analysts
speculating regarding the true nature of impact. Potere (2012) acknowledged the
potential for citizens recording police officers to place either the citizen or officer in
danger, but further pointed out that this is not an immediate conclusion that could
be drawn from all cases; the author asserted that this danger need not be an element.
Explaining through examples, the author described a citizen being exposed to risk if
the officer assumes the phone is a gun, police should be trained to make these types
of quick decisions, and non-invasive recording is not something particularly unusual
that should alarm police.
This is especially true considering the potential to record other people, while
one could just as easily argue that police could mistake parents as holding guns to
children when they are simply using the device for its intended purposes. Potere
(2012) argued that police officers are already subjected to some recording by their
departments, while shows such as COPS record police for the purposes of
entertainment; here it is stated that police are assumedly not placing themselves in a

11
measurable amount of additional danger from entire camera crews, and relates this
to the case of a lone spectator simply observing and recording police conduct.
Beyond this, the author described the institutionalisation of distrust, arguing that “the
police depend on the public’s cooperation to conduct their police work effectively,
and as such, they fear and institutionalisation of distrust. Evidence suggests that the
public reacts negatively to footage of police misconduct, making people less likely to
cooperate with police when called upon to do so. This problem is exacerbated when
a large number of people view the footage in a short time period…Some argue that
once the public develops negative feelings towards the police it is nearly impossible
to reverse those feelings” (Potere, 2012, p. 313). While this is true, it is also
reasonable to assume that some people will view the police with negativity regardless
of their adherence to protocol, but this also implies that it is better to have more
information, rather than less (by barring or arresting individuals that would record
conduct). Potere (2012) concluded that there is no immediately obvious restriction
on crime prevention methods, despite a gap in related research; regardless of this, he
argued, the rarer cases of conduct violation does not grant police a right to violate
their Constitution with special secrecy.

Conclusion
As mentioned, while there is a great deal of controversy surrounding both the
potential and right to record police, this potential has not been proven to (and does
not appear to) impede any crime prevention efforts. In fact, such recordings, as the
Mido Macia’s case in South Africa has revealed among other police brutality cases,
are quite helpful in analysing and assessing police operations and individual police
officer’s behaviour or conduct while on duty. The potential for people to abuse the
access to technology by misrepresenting conduct, or even the potential for
distractibility as police apprehend a violent criminal, are in fact serious issues.

12
Regardless of this, there is no logical reason to argue that the new visibility is a
restriction on crime prevention, or that police should be able to exploit privacy laws
to arrest individuals attempting to record them (regardless of country). While such
abuse of power may be commonplace and go unchecked in third world countries,
the key term used by analysts has been ‘non-invasive,’ while this type of visibility
should only serve as a deterrent to potential misconduct; openly punishing this is
only likely to be continually viewed as a form of misconduct in and of itself. The
concept of Police ‘New Visibility’ has positive impacts on crime prevention - while it
exposing the reality of some police indiscretions or brutalities, it also highlights
police efficiency and good conduct.

13
References

Balko, R. (2006), Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America. Washington, DC:
Cato Institute.

Balko, R. (2011), ‘The War on Cameras’, Reason, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 22-33.

BBC, ‘South Africa: Eight Police Arrested Over Drag Death’ BBC News Africa 1 March 2013
available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21627554 accessed 5 March 2013.

Brighenti, A. (2007), ‘Visibility: A Category for the Social Sciences’, Current Sociology, vol.
55, no. 3, pp. 323-342.

Burgess, J. & Green, J. (2009), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Malden, MA:
Polity Press.

Casady, T. & Arp, D. (2009), ‘Police Practice’, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, vol. 78, no. 12,
pp. 12-16.

Cea, R. (2005), The No Lights, No Sirens: The Corruption and Redemption of an Inner City
Cop. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Chermak, S. & Weiss, A. (2005), ‘Maintaining legitimacy using external communication

strategies: An analysis of police-media relations’, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 33,
no. 5, pp. 501-512.

Cooke, L. & Sturges, P. (2009), ‘Police and media relations in an era of freedom of information’,
Policing & Society, vol. 19, pp. 406-424.

Copperfield, D. (2006), Wasting Police Time: The Crazy World of the War on Crime. New
York, NY: Monday Books.

14
de Lint, W., Virta, S., & Deukmedjian, J. (2007), ‘The simulation of crime control: A shift in
policing?’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1631-1647.

Goldsmith, A. (2005), ‘Police reform and the problem of trust’, Theoretical Criminology, vol. 9,
pp. 443-470.

Goldsmith, A. (2010), ‘Policing New Visibility’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 50, no. 5,
pp. 914-934.

Goold, B. (2003), ‘Public area surveillance and police work: the impact of CCTV on police
behaviour and autonomy’, Surveillance & Society, vol. 1, pp. 191-203.

Hand, M. (2008), Making digital cultures: Access, interactivity, and authenticity. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.

Huey, L., Walby, K., & Doyle, A. (2006), Surveillance and security: Technological politics and
power in everyday life. New York, NY: Routledge.

Koskela, H. (2004), ‘Webcams, TV Shows and Mobile Phones: Empowering Exhibitionism’,

Surveillance and Society, vol. 2, no. 2/3, pp. 199-215.

Levitt, L. (2009), NYPD Confidential: Power and Corruption in the Country's Greatest Police.
New York, NY: Thomas Dunne. Document

Martin, B. (2005), ‘The Beating of Rodney King: The Dynamics of Backfire’, Critical
Criminology, vol. 13, pp. 307-326.

Macintyre, J. (2009), ‘Public Enemy Number One’, New Statesman, vol. 138, no. 4945, pp. 24-
27.

15
Novak, K. (2009), ‘Reasonable Officers, Public Perceptions, and Policy Challenges’,
Criminology and Public Policy, vol. 11, pp. 153-161.

Palmiotto, M. (2001), Police Misconduct: A Reader for the 21st Century. New York, NY:
Prentice Hall.

Paperman, P. (2003), ‘Surveillance Underground: The Uniform as an Interaction Device’,

Ethnography, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 397-419.

Potere, M. (2012), ‘Who Will Watch the Watchmen?: Citizens Recording Police Conduct’,
Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 273-316.

Robinson, D. (2012), ‘Bad Footage: Surveillance Laws, Police Misconduct, and the Internet’,
Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1399-1435.

Rome, D. & In Soo, S. (2004), ‘The Prevalence and Visibility of Police Misconduct: A Survey of
Citizens and Police Officers’, Police Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 179-204.

Salmt, S., Voeten, M., & Keskinen, E. (2000), ‘Relation between police image and police
visibility’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 433-
447.

Slevin, J. (2000), The Internet and Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Son, I. & Rome, D. (2004), ‘The prevalence and visibility of police misconduct: A survey of
citizens and police officers’, Police Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 179-204.

Thompson, J. (1995), The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.

16
 Thompson, J. (2000), Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.

Thompson, J. (2005), ‘The New Visibility’, Theory, Culture, & Society, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 31-51.

Tyler, T. (2005), ‘Policing in Black and White: Ethnic Group Differences in Trust and
Confidence in the Police’, Police Quarterly, vol. 8, pp. 322-342.

Walsh, D. (2009), ‘Army to Investigate Video of Troops Abusing Detainees’, The Guardian
Weekly, no. 9, p. 12.

Weitzer, R. (2002), ‘Incidents of Police Misconduct and Public Opinion’, Journal of Criminal
Justice, vol. 30, pp. 1-12.

Whitaker, R. (1999), The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is becoming a Reality. New
York, NY: The New Press.

17

View publication stats