The article even quotes an inofficial 10th principle, “No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law.”
It’s a good set of principles but I fail to see what’s consensual about it.
It’s policing by democracy. That’s fine, and I know no better way, but it’s not consent. It’s just majority rule.
I think “Policing by majority approval” would be a better term. That’s also Peel’s main point I think: to not police in name of some sole ruler or small elite but in name of, and in service of, everybody.
I wonder whether in the 19th century “consent” meant something different.
[1] I went back and forth on what to call this. Basically by "democratic police force" I mean one that doesn't adopt strategies that we tend to associate with a "police state" such as keeping the peace by crushing dissent, draconian punishments for any challenge to authority, pervasive surveillance, etc.
[2] I recently heard someone frame it as "you should only call the police when violence would help the situation".
If none do, then that's a problem. But if every option is bad, then maybe the fault lies within the one common factor, ie. you?
Governments aren't created democratically, they are created by the people with the biggest weapons and least hesitation to use them.