Compensating for Sexual Identity: How LGB and Heterosexual Australian Police Officers Perceive Policing of LGBTIQ+ People

• Author: Jodi Death,Toby Miles-Johnson
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986219894431
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219894431

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2020, Vol. 36(2) 251 –273

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986219894431

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Compensating for Sexual

Identity: How LGB and

Heterosexual Australian

Police Officers Perceive

Policing of LGBTIQ+ People

Toby Miles-Johnson1 and Jodi Death1

Abstract

Police officers are highly criticized for their differential policing of people categorized

by identity. One such group who has experienced differential policing is the lesbian,

gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ+) community. Contributing

new knowledge to the extant policing literature regarding intersectional identities of

Australian police officers and perceptions of policing, this research applies Social Identity

Theory to understand differences between lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and

heterosexual self-identified general-duties police officers (N = 349) and policing of

LGBTIQ+ people. Using an online survey, results suggest the sexual identity of a

general-duties police officer does shape perceptions of policing of LGBTIQ+ people.

Furthermore, there are distinct differences in the way heterosexual and lesbian, gay,

and bisexual (LGB) self-identified officers perceive police engagement with LGBTIQ+

people, with LGB and heterosexual self-identified officers equally compensating for

their sexual identity in terms of policing LGBTIQ+ people and distancing themselves

from the LGBTIQ+ community.

Keywords

police, policing, sexuality, LGBTIQ+, identity

Introduction

In Western societies, social structures uphold the idea that dominant groups such as the

police have the potential to enforce value systems and ideologies upon minor groups

1Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Toby Miles-Johnson, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia.

Email: toby.milesjohnson@qut.edu.au

894431CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219894431Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeMiles-Johnson and Death

research-article2019

252 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 36(2)

such as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer

(LGBTIQ+) community (Miles-Johnson, 2016; Pratto et al., 2013). As such police

have discretionary power to utilize policing practices influenced by officers’ value

systems and ideologies (Dai et al., 2011). The interaction between LGBTIQ+ people

and law enforcement officers has often been dictated by the reinforcement of values

and ideologies based on heteronormative perceptions of behavior (Owen et al., 2018).

Many incidents of policing between officers and LGBTIQ+ people in Australia, the

United States, and the United Kingdom, have resulted in negative outcomes for

LGBTIQ+ people with numerous pieces of literature demonstrating problematic rela-

tionships between Australian police as one dominant social group and LGBTIQ+ peo-

ple as another less powerful social group1 (Dwyer et al., 2017; Mennicke et al., 2018;

Owen et al., 2018).

Under Social Identity theory (SIT), when a person identifies with a social group,

the idea is that this categorization provides a definition of who that individual is in

terms of the defining attributes or characteristics of the group’s collective identity. In

this way, the categorization becomes the individual’s self-definition of their identity

and shapes a person’s identity individually and as a group member (ingroup member-

ship) (Tajfel, 2010). Social identity based on self-categorization within a group

becomes a vital part of an individual’s self-concept, and to maintain positive self-

esteem of the group and the individuals within it, people within groups strive to dif-

ferentiate themselves and their group from others (Miles-Johnson, 2016; Robinson,

1996). Unlike other exclusionary and inclusionary practices such as “othering” (which

explains power dynamics within relationships), social identity is established through

comparative analysis of one group against another regardless of whether there is basis

for comparison or an actual, imaginary, or vicarious relationship between groups.

For example, if an individual from one group perceives a threat to their identity by

an individual or others from another group (either actual or perceived threat) the

individual will act upon the threat thereby differentiating behaviorally or communi-

catively from the individual or group who may threaten their identity (Miles-Johnson,

2016; Robinson, 1996). The strength of SIT therefore is that it can capture the com-

plex dynamics of intergroup perceptions at both an individual and group level. The

complex dynamics between police and members of LGBTIQ+ communities have

been researched in many studies examining policing of minority group members (see

Dario et al., 2019; Israel et al., 2016).

There is however, little research which examines how Australian LGBTIQ+ police

officers who work as general-duties police officers (and not as community liaison

officers) police members of the LGBTIQ+ community in comparison to heterosexual

general-duties officers. Canales (2000) and Miles-Johnson (2016) state that grouping

LGBTIQ+ people into a homogeneous group may contribute to the “othering” of

sexual identity associated with the LGBTIQ+ community by agencies such as the

police. Yet grouped sexual identity based on heteronormative assumptions of sexual

identity and consequently nonnormative sexual identities such as those expressed by

members of the LGBTIQ+ community is one of the salient identity markers many

cultures use to categorize and judge others.