Law Enforcement Identity Checks on Cannabis Consumers Deemed “Ineffective”

A study has revealed a significant portion of law enforcement officers in France doubt the effectiveness of identity checks, particularly in combating cannabis, despite nearly 47 million checks conducted annually. The study highlights the inadequacy of ongoing training for law enforcement officers and the need for improved training in areas such as de-escalation of violence and citizens’ rights.

In law enforcement, identity checks have long been seen as a cornerstone of public safety. A recent study commissioned by the Defender of Rights, Claire Hédon, sheds light on a significant shift in perception within the ranks of law enforcement. Published on February 27, the study reveals surprising insights into the perceived effectiveness of identity checks, particularly regarding the fight against cannabis and its users.

For more news like this, along with all the latest in legalization, research, and lifestyle, download our free cannabis news app.

Questioning the Efficacy of Identity Checks By Law Enforcement

According to the study, a considerable proportion of gendarmes and police officers doubt the effectiveness of identity checks. With nearly 47 million identity checks carried out annually in France, skepticism runs deep. The study, conducted by researchers from the Center for Sociological Research on Law and Penal Institutions (CESDIP), reveals that 39.2% of law enforcement officers consider identity checks “ineffective or inefficient” in ensuring the security of the territory.

Skepticism reaches its peak when it comes to targeted checks on cannabis consumers. Indeed, 69.5% of police officers consider this method ineffective in combating cannabis consumption.

The study also examines attitudes toward the use of force in law enforcement. While the majority (over 90%) condemn the use of force to obtain confessions, opinions differ on the extent to which force should be tolerated. Approximately 59.8% of those surveyed believe that, in certain circumstances, it is acceptable to use greater force than provided for by law.

One of the most glaring issues highlighted by the study concerns the ongoing training of law enforcement personnel. A significant proportion of officers express concern about the inadequacy of training, particularly in essential areas such as de-escalation of violence and citizens’ rights. Only a small minority (12% of gendarmes and 5.5% of police officers) report receiving training in violence de-escalation in the past year.

The Call for Improvement

In light of these revelations, the Defender of Rights calls on public authorities to prioritize the implementation of recommended measures. Strengthening both initial and ongoing training for police officers and gendarmes tops these recommendations. The establishment of a robust system for evaluating the practice of identity checks is deemed imperative, with a focus on assessing their effectiveness and impact on community relations.

—

(Featured image by Julia anseele via Unsplash)

DISCLAIMER: This article was written by a third-party contributor and does not reflect the opinion of Hemp.im, its management, staff, or its associates. Please review our disclaimer for more information.

This article may include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believe,” “project,” “estimate,” “become,” “plan,” “will,” and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks as well as uncertainties, including those discussed in the following cautionary statements and elsewhere in this article and on this site. Although the company may believe that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, the actual results that the company may achieve may differ materially from any forward-looking statements, which reflect the opinions of the management of the company only as of the date hereof. Additionally, please make sure to read these important disclosures.

First published in Newsweed, a third-party contributor translated and adapted the article from the original. In case of discrepancy, the original will prevail.

Although we made reasonable efforts to provide accurate translations, some parts may be incorrect. Hemp.im assumes no responsibility for errors, omissions or ambiguities in the translations provided on this website. Any person or entity relying on translated content does so at their own risk. Hemp.im is not responsible for losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy or reliability of translated information. If you wish to report an error or inaccuracy in the translation, we encourage you to contact us.