FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4281485757> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4281485757 endingPage "569" @default.
• W4281485757 startingPage "556" @default.
• W4281485757 abstract "Purpose The article examines the apparent absence of accountability in the aftermath of police related deaths (PRDs) in the US and England and Wales. It considers regulatory mechanisms such as investigations by independent regulators and internal affairs departments; and legal mechanisms such as cases heard in criminal, civil and coroners' courts. The processes used by these approaches, and outcomes produced are examined in terms of their perceived effectiveness in holding police to account. Design/methodology/approach The article considers qualitative research based on interviews undertaken with the relatives of 59 people who died as a result of police contact in both countries. The research examined how families attempted to pursue justice and accountability in the aftermath of the death of a relative. Findings Whilst the mechanisms of legal and regulatory accountability employed in each country are somewhat different, the outcomes they produce are remarkably similar: few officers are sanctioned in the aftermath of such deaths in either country. The article argues these mechanisms can provide a façade of accountability in terms of process, but not in terms of outcome. They enable systemic issues that produce police related deaths to go more or less unchanged. Research limitations/implications As the research project is highly original, there are necessarily limitations in terms of the generalisability of its findings because it represents the subjective views of participants affected by PRDs. The article suggests that further research be conducted to extend our understanding of issues related to PRDs. Practical implications The article argues that the investigation and regulation of PRDs in both countries is essentially flawed. Consequently, there needs to be a fundamental rethink of how such deaths are investigated, and how police could be better held to account for PRDs. Social implications Without significant change to the processes and outcomes that occur in the aftermath of PRDs, it is argued that the legitimacy of police and the criminal justice system will continue to be questioned. Originality/value There is no known empirical academic research into PRDs that considers the views of family members in both the US and England and Wales. As such, the article produces unique insights from the perspectives of relatives of those who have died following contact with the police." @default.
• W4281485757 created "2022-05-26" @default.
• W4281485757 creator A5012024609 @default.
• W4281485757 date "2022-05-26" @default.
• W4281485757 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W4281485757 title "Accountability in the aftermath of police related deaths in the US and England and Wales: processes and outcomes" @default.
• W4281485757 cites W1987149434 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W2058646674 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W2079973626 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W2342561679 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W2761042086 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W2974318689 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W2979660391 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W3005985242 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W3203150498 @default.
• W4281485757 cites W4242800648 @default.
• W4281485757 doi "https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-08-2021-0115" @default.
• W4281485757 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4281485757 type Work @default.
• W4281485757 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4281485757 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4281485757 hasAuthorship W4281485757A5012024609 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C102587632 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C190248442 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C2776007630 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C102587632 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C139621336 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C144024400 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C17744445 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C190248442 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C199539241 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C2776007630 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C3116431 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C36289849 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C39549134 @default.
• W4281485757 hasConceptScore W4281485757C73484699 @default.
• W4281485757 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4281485757 hasLocation W42814857571 @default.
• W4281485757 hasOpenAccess W4281485757 @default.
• W4281485757 hasPrimaryLocation W42814857571 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W2255214866 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W2737743304 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W3186744964 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W339025726 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W4206064022 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W4285366032 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W4313680359 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W596441448 @default.
• W4281485757 hasRelatedWork W6878567 @default.
• W4281485757 hasVolume "45" @default.
• W4281485757 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4281485757 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4281485757 workType "article" @default.