Over the past few weeks, there have been numerous reports of violent incidents, including brawls, at adult-oriented entertainment venues, which in Taiwan are collectively known as “special businesses.” Police departments have responded to the spate of violent incidents by conducting frequent raids on special businesses to deter such incidents.
Of course, there is nothing new about this strategy of intensified raids; it has long been the measure most often employed by Taiwanese police to deal with criminal incidents at special businesses.
However, although this strategy might have an immediate effect of suppressing crime and restoring social order, it is generally only effective in the short term and some commentators have raised doubts over its long-term effectiveness.
Violence and brawls at special businesses need to be handled in a different way from conventional incidents of street violence, because they are characterized by a high degree of spontaneity, emotionality and often break out between people who do not know each other, or do not know each other well. In terms of current criminological theory, violent incidents of this sort are generally a result of poor emotional processing. In such cases, the two conflicting parties might not harbor deep hatred for one another or be involved in disputes over things like heavy debts. The theory is that they occur when the two sides misinterpret the situation and respond badly.
In 1977, US criminologist David Luckenbill published a paper titled Criminal Homicide as a Situated Transaction, in which he analyzed violent crimes from the point of view of emotional processing. Based on his research, Luckenbill took the view that violent crimes result from emotional interactions between the two conflicting parties, as well as third parties, such as onlookers. He found that the modes of behavior of the two conflicting parties are stimulated and influenced by each other’s actions, and are focused on saving face, maintaining their reputations and demonstrating their strength of character. Under such circumstances, they find that resorting to violence is the most effective way to resolve issues of face and character.
In the late 1960s, Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman proposed the concept of a “character contest.” The idea is that when the two sides come into conflict, they both want to maintain face and their reputation, and cannot allow themselves to appear relatively weak in character, so the use of violence becomes a natural choice.
This is especially true at special businesses, whose mostly young customers are surrounded by their peers and members of the opposite sex. In such an environment, there is likely to be a greater potential for conflict.
While criminology suggests that “club violence” should be handled by emotional control, the police establishment’s strategy of frequent raids only has the short-term effect of situational control. Of course, the police cannot control things by standing guard at the doors of special businesses all day every day, so the business operators must bear responsibility for controlling situations. In other words, when operators become aware of signs of illegal activity or conflict, such as when customers are carrying narcotics or suspicious people enter the premises, or when a conflict situation gradually escalates and is going to get out of control, they have a duty to report it to the police.
Running a special business is not wrong in itself, but operators are in the wrong if they do nothing to stop violent incidents from happening on their premises. They are high-consumption, high-profit leisure businesses whose owners often, intentionally or otherwise, overlook their role as situational controllers.
This is why some countries have developed so-called “third-party policing” strategies, which involve compelling operators to play the role of obligatory situational controllers. This strategy has produced quite good results, especially in relation to narcotics crime, violent crime and problems involving teenagers. Given its success overseas, Taiwan’s national and local governments would do well to study third-party policing and put it into practice.
The thinking behind third-party policing is that, in dealing with criminal incidents such as nightclub brawls and motel drug parties, police forces cannot be completely effective solely by exercising their own public power. They therefore need to coordinate with other departments that have public power to make operators take on the role of situational controllers.
For example, Article 31-1, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 4 of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act (毒品危害防制條例) stipulates that if the operators of “specific places of business” discover people suspected of using or possessing narcotics, they must report it to the police.
Paragraph 3 of the same article stipulates: “Where personnel of a specific place of business is aware of persons using or in possession of narcotics, but fail to report to the police, the municipality, county (city) government shall impose a fine above NT$100,000 [US$3,246], but less than NT$1 million on the responsible person of the place... In the event where the violation is considered serious, the government authority in charge of the relevant enterprise may order the place to suspend its business for a period above six months, but less than one year and six months, or may order the place to close down.”
Paragraph 4 of the same article stipulates: “The municipality and county (city) government shall periodically publish the list of the specific places of business discovered to have serious violations as described in the preceding paragraph for the most recent year.”
The “municipality and county (city) government” and “the government authority in charge of the relevant enterprise” can take various administrative actions, including fines, suspension of business, closing businesses down and periodically publishing a list of “specific places of business discovered to have serious violations.” By compelling business operators to assist in crime prevention, these administrative actions are an embryonic form of third-party policing.
Considering the serious impact that motel drug parties and nightclub brawls can have on social order, the authorities should consider adopting third-party policing as a potentially effective response strategy.
Lin Tsang-song is an adjunct assistant professor at Central Police University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS