This article is a contemplative reflection on a research paper we previously wrote on police street work during the Covid-19 crisis, which we believe cannot be separated from the nature of our complex risk society. During the Covid-19 crisis, police officers on the street had to enforce nationally promulgated precautions aimed at preventing the risk of the spread of the coronavirus. This changed the profile of police street work, which became more concerned with everyday social intercourse, rather than the social domain that police officers normally focus on in their function of maintaining law and order and providing assistance. Because of this, police officers were confronted with the broader social effects of the ‘Covid-19 measures’ the national government had lost sight of. This regularly led to ethical dilemmas, such as the question of whether it was right to act against people who had engaged in behavior that was before (and after) the Covid-19 crisis not worthy of punishment. We draw two broad lessons regarding the function of the police in times of crisis from this. First, it is important not to position the police one-dimensionally as a sword force that enforces national measures, but as an enforcement agency that helps society to get through a crisis. Local custom work, under the authority of the mayor, is in line with this. Second, there needs to be explicit discussion within the police about the ethical dilemmas involved in maintaining precautionary measures.

In recent years, our society has become increasingly digitized, leading to increased datafication. The rise of computers, the internet, mobile devices, social media, artificial intelligence (AI), and related technologies has transformed various aspects of our daily lives, the way we work, and the way we recreate. This increasing digitization and datafication have also significantly impacted the police function and police work. As a result, there has been a growing emphasis on ‘big data policing’ as police departments increasingly rely on big data and related applications to steer both operational (e.g., public order enforcement and investigative research) and strategic (e.g., allocation of police resources) processes. This contribution delves into the implications of digitization and datafication for the police function and police work, with a particular focus on big data policing. On one hand, we clearly define and conceptualize big data policing, providing examples of its practical applications in today’s society. On the other hand, we examine the broad implications of big data policing for both the police function and police work. It is clear that big data policing contributes to further fragmentation of the police function by involving actors from various levels of the criminal justice system. Additionally, it introduces significant changes to socio-technological police practices, such as the extent of proactive police work and the impact on the discretion of police officers. The contribution concludes with a brief reflection on how these changes can be appreciated and considers the potential impact of the European AI Act on both the police and other stakeholders who utilize AI in their work. This legislation promises to have substantial consequences for all those directly or indirectly involved in AI-powered police practices.

This article is about digitalization and the police function. Digitalization has brought about changes that have significantly altered the playing field for the police function. Especially, actors outside the police function have gained additional opportunities to challenge or contribute to the legal order. This is due to changes in organizational capacity, information capacity and normative capacity. We provide examples of this by examining the influence of digitalization on crime and public order. This 'new' reality forces the police to reflect on their role. In this article, we offer several possible approaches to fuel further debate about the police function and the role that the police can or should play in it. These approaches include: 1) collaboration with citizens and private organizations, and regulating social control, 2) moving from investigation to an integral approach, and 3) ensuring legal protection by monitoring the use of new capabilities by citizens and organizations. These changes require a proactive approach to ensure and strengthen the effectiveness of the police function in the digital age.

The main issue of this scientific essay is that the police identity, seen as a social construction created, objectified and internalized by police officers and other relevant stakeholders, is increasingly under pressure not only because of external social developments, but also because of several internal developments in the police. This paper analyses three of these internal developments: the digitalization and datafication of the police, resulting in the rise of new (data)professions in the police organization; changes in the dominant institutional logics in the police, less reactive and incident-driven and more proactive and risk- and data-driven; the introduction of new social-cultural contradictions because of changes in the social and educational backgrounds of new police officers. Each of these changes has created new conflicts and contradictions in the police organization, or what is called here new fracture lines. One of the main consequences is that it has become much more difficult to maintain an integrated identity or a shared feeling of a collective ‘blue’ mission among police officers. This paper concludes with the question of why integrity and unity of police identity and mission may still be considered as important in the contemporary age of individualization, fragmentation and differentiation.

The Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (RNLM) is part of the Dutch plural police system and executes police tasks whereby officers can use force. Political debate or academic research into this use of force is lacking despite an increased public discussion about police powers and discretion, and despite the announced rethinking of the Dutch police model by the Minister for Justice and Security. This lack of research and knowledge stands in the way of an informed debate or (inter)national comparison of use of force. This article aims to initiate public and scientific interest in the RNLM as police force in general and its use of force specifically. In doing so, it contributes to the process of rethinking the Dutch police model. To achieve this, unique quantitative data on the use of force by the RNLM is presented and analysed. The results of the analysis are discussed against the background of the (inter)national literature on the pluralization of the police. It is found that, between 2012 and 2022, there is an increase in RNLM use of force. The use of force is largely by physical means, although instrumental force is also used, such as pepper spray, baton, and firearms. The use of firearms is stable over time, but it appears that RNLM officers use their firearm often in combination with other means of force. This research also found that the reporting system for use of force and the managerial overview of use of force by the RNLM is not complete and inadequate, especially concerning cross border operations and cooperation with other organizations such as the Dutch National Police. This results in the need for further research and stresses the importance of including the RNLM in public and academic debate about rethinking the Dutch plural police system, police authorities, discretionary decision-making, and use of force.

The police are without a doubt an important actor in policing. However, there is a strong tendency to go one step further and limit the essence of police work to activities performed in the context of policing. As a result, enforcement and especially crime control are seen as the most important tasks performed by the police. This opinion calls for a renewed focus on the first responder and general assistance task, which brings the police officer into closer contact with the citizen. The essence of police work is to make society safer by tackling social problems, or in other words, providing assistance. However, this requires a number of preconditions. At a micro level, police training must be strengthened so that, in addition to skills, competences such as the ability to have deeper understanding and think in more abstract terms become more central. At the meso level, the connection between the police and other organizations must be improved. Specifically the link between the police and those organizations that play a role in tackling current social issues, and that are located both inside and outside the security field strictu sensu, must be ameliorated. Finally, at the macro level, smart investments must be made in both the security domain and in related policy domains such as health and poverty reduction.
This shift is in line with the shifts proposed away from a New Public Management and even New Public Governance way of thinking, and towards a Neo-Weberian perspective. This means that the police retain legitimacy as a central distributor of tasks, but at the same time orient themselves more externally and focus on the various needs of citizens, even though these needs may differ from each other. In this new paradigm, the government is once again more central to tackling social problems, without returning to a bureaucratic and strictly hierarchical way of thinking.