Policing Policies: Zero Tolerance Policing as Opposed to Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving - Essay Example

Running Head: POLICING POLICIES Policing Policies: Zero Tolerance Policing as Opposed to Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving. Name: Institution: Abstract. The two most popular and debated methods of policing in contemporary society are Zero Tolerance Policing and Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). Zero Tolerance Policing is based on the thesis that strict action against sub-criminal behavior will serve as a deterrent to major crime and nip offenses in the bud. COPPS emphasizes a partnership between the police and the members of the community in tackling crime and advocates an approach that focuses on identifying the problems faced by a community and using methods tailored to that specific locality to solve the problem. A study of the two approaches suggests that an alternative approach which combines the best features of Zero Tolerance Policing and COPPS would be most effective in crime prevention and control. Policing Policies: Zero Tolerance Policing as Opposed to Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving. Over the centuries, methods of policing have been subject to a constant process of evolution and refinement in order to meet the needs of a changing society and the corresponding changes in the character of crime. Police forces embody the ideology of the society they protect and it is society which dictates the methods which the police adopt. In Democratic societies, policing policies have largely moved from the rigidity of traditional policing towards policies more attuned to the eclectic societies of today. Of these, the two policies which are popularly being adopted and subjected to debate are Zero Tolerance Policing and Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). Each of these has its’ inherent advantages and disadvantages. While these two policies vary markedly in their approaches, they also share a significant number of method and goals. When Zero Tolerance Policing and COPPS are assessed, it is evident that the ideal approach to policing would be an approach which incorporates the best features of the two policies. Zero Tolerance Policing. Zero Tolerance Policing originated from the article ‘Broken Window,’ published in the Atlantic Monthly magazine in 1982 by the U.S. criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The broken window of their title symbolized visible tolerance of petty misdemeanors, which they theorized, would incite the commission of more serious crimes. A broken window is interpreted as showing that “no one is in control,” and conveys the message that wrongdoers are free from retribution. Thus, petty crimes, when left unchecked, lead to major offences. William and Kelling differentiated between the physical and behavioral manifestation of petty crime. The former included graffiti, litter and general disrepair (broken windows), while public drunkenness and urination, ticket less travel on public transport, prostitution, begging, drug taking and uncivil behavior by street gangs came under the ambit of the latter. The Broken Window theory postulated that remedying physical disrepair and cracking down on petty crimes would create an ambience which discouraged major crimes (Grabosky, 1998). It argued that unchecked sub-criminal behavior caused a breakdown of the order which is enforced by community sanction. “A stable neighborhood of families who care for their homes, mind each others’ children and confidently frown on unwanted intruders can change in … even a few months, to an inhospitable and frightening jungle” (Reform Web site, 2004). Zero Tolerance Policing grew from this theory and is based on three principles: preventing the development of anti-social elements by ‘nipping things in the bud’ and creating a well maintained environment that exhibits social control; creating intercourse between police and petty offenders to deter them from progressing to serious offences; creating an environment that is evidently intolerant of crime in any form. Zero Tolerance Policing in New York City. The most dramatic and publicized application of Zero Tolerance Policing was in New York City in 1994 – 1996, under Mayor Rudolph Guiliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton. The measures taken to deal with rampant crime in the City included the hiring of about 7000 additional police officers and upgrading their training and weapons by incorporating technology. In a planned decentralization of authority, the precinct commander was held responsible and accountable for the reduction of serious crime and the visible improvement in the ‘quality of life’ parameters in the environment. Individual strategies were adopted to deal with drugs, guns, youth crime, auto theft, corruption, traffic, domestic violence and quality of life crimes. Community policing by the beat cop was made more open to control by the precinct commanders, with years of experience and familiarity with crimes, who were given more authority. Comprehensive Computer Statistics were used to measure success in reaching crime control goals and biweekly ‘Compstat’ meetings were held to review progress and fix accountability. These meetings focused on accurate, timely information, rapid deployment of forces, effective tactics and thorough follow-up. Drug arrests were encouraged, internal investigations were made more open and detectives given access to computers. The application of Zero Tolerance Policing, coupled with police accountability and prison reform, yielded dramatic results: total crime rates decreased by over 67% from 1993 – 2004. While other factors, such as an overall reduction in the national crime rate, economic growth and rising employment, may be relevant, it is an undisputed fact that New York remains an example of the outstanding success of Zero Tolerance Policing (Bratton, 1997). Zero Tolerance Policing: Advantages and Disadvantages. The advantages of Zero Tolerance Policing are that it serves as an effective deterrent to criminals, both in terms of the more visible, increased presence of police officers on the ground and in terms of stricter law enforcement. It targets drug users and dealers, reducing drug access. It sends juvenile offenders to rehabilitation centers, removing them from potentially corrupting environments, and monitors them on their release. It reduces corruption and racism in police officers by giving them clear-cut rules of behavior. Urban environments are protected from graffiti and vandalism and reclaimed for public use. Detractors of Zero Tolerance Policing argue that the deterrent effect of the approach has not been proved by empirical evidence. Indiscriminate arrests for minor misdemeanors stigmatize the offender, reduce his chances of employment and lead to an antagonistic attitude towards the law. Police can easily abuse their power and indulge in unjustified aggression and harassment. The financial costs of Zero Tolerance Policing are substantially higher than for other approaches due to increased police recruitment, more arrests and a larger number of settlement claims against perceived police brutality (Isaac, 2001). While the number of drug arrests shows an increase, it is the petty dealers and users who are targeted and not the drug syndicates which are the root of the problem. Again, the arrests mainly involve cases of soft drugs like cannabis and not the hard drugs like heroin. Dealer soon resort to less visible methods such as home deliveries and use white distributors, who are less obvious and escape surveillance more easily than ethnic minorities (DrugScope Web site, 2000). Critics also point out that the policy of Zero Tolerance Policing is based on aggressive responses, confrontational stances and a single-minded pursuit of short term goals. There is little or no emphasis on working with the community. Community Oriented Policing. Robert C. Trojanowicz, one of the foremost advocates of Community Oriented Policing, defines it as “a philosophy of full service personalized policing, where the same officer patrols and works in the same area on a permanent basis, from a decentralized place, working in a proactive partnership with citizens to solve problems” (SafeState Web site, n.d.). The officers are based in satellite offices located within the community they serve. The focus of this approach is not just the simple response to crime, but the prevention of crime and the resolution of community problems. The police and the community form a partnership to deal with crime. The aim is to include social organizations and community groups in police efforts to promote a crime free environment. The three major philosophical principles which distinguish Community Oriented Policing from traditional policing are: (a) Shared Responsibility: the police and community members share responsibility for crime prevention. This entails good communication, development of mutual trust and the organization of the community into Neighborhood Watch Groups to monitor and report crimes. Officers are assigned permanent beats so that they can become familiar members of the community and interact with its’ members through community meetings and foot or bike patrols. Police officers often resort to ‘knock and talks,’ where they make door to door calls and introduce themselves to the local residents. (b) Prevention: Rather than merely responding to a crime, the emphasis in Community Oriented Policing is on preventing crimes by working with community members and public and private non-governmental organizations to identify and eliminate the underlying factors which cause crimes. Community development projects, such as neighborhood clean-ups and demolitions of crack houses, and problem solving are given priority. (c) Increased Officer Discretion: Police officers are not confined to rigid procedural responses, but are encouraged to use their creativity and initiative to deal with problems on a case-by-case basis, employing responses suited to the prevailing local conditions. Authority is decentralized and the basis of the approach is that policing is tailored to meet the specific needs of a particular community (Rohe, n.d.). Problem Oriented Policing. Problem Oriented Policing is complementary to Community Oriented Policing and is incorporated into it. The earliest proponent of this approach was Herman Goldstein, who advocated that individual crimes and disorders must be clearly identified, subjected to a microscopic examination by crime analysts and field officers, and a new, effective strategy to deal with that particular crime be developed. Problem Oriented Policing emphasizes preventive responses which are independent of the criminal justice system and involve the community and other public and private organizations. As problems are solved using new strategies, their implementation, evaluation of effectiveness and reporting of results will build up a growing body of knowledge which the police can increasingly draw upon. Problem Oriented Policing is based on findings that community problems may not be strictly criminal in nature and police discretion and locality-specific responses are more effective than mere arrest and prosecution. This policy adopts a long term approach which seeks to remove the very conditions that cause the problem and assigns a proactive role to police officers. The commonly used method in Problem Oriented Policing is the SARA model which involves (a) Scanning: identifying a recurring problem, its’ frequency and consequences. (b) Analysis: Identifying the conditions which precipitate the problem, collecting and analyzing the relevant data, evaluating the current response and locating resources which will help in comprehending the issues involved. (c) Response: Evaluating several innovative, alternative interventions, choosing the most appropriate response, with clearly defined objectives, and executing the response. (d). Assessment: Evaluating the level of success in reaching the defined goals and adding any modifications for improvement if necessary. Another commonly used technique in Problem Oriented Policing is the Problem Analysis Triangle, or the Crime Triangle, which postulates that a crime occurs when likely offenders and suitable victims or targets come together in a place at a time when there are no protective guardians (police) to prevent the offence. Crimes tend to occur in clusters which involve common behavior, places and times and involve common persons. Identifying these clusters helps in executing Problem Oriented Policing, which focuses on preventing crime by reducing the opportunities available to likely offenders (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Web site, 2006). Criticism of COPPS. Community Oriented Policing and Problem Oriented Policing are usually used in tandem in an approach called Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). Criticism of this approach mainly comes from groups which associate COPPS with infringements on rights to individuality and the interference of external enforcement norms on privacy. The Neighborhood Watch Programs used in this approach are reviled as spy groups which report on neighbors. Certain aspects of COPPS, such as surveillance, and working for the ‘common good,’ are equated with methods used in totalitarian states. The use of police as facilitators, who collaborate with community groups for social change, is cited as a case of social engineering. Instead of emphasizing the development of internal social control, in the form of a personal conscience, which is the bedrock of law enforcement in democracies, COPPS stresses external control through community policing (Worts, 2001). A more pragmatic criticism of COPPS is that it requires the police officer on the beat to be trained in skills such as problem solving, networking, mediation, facilitation, conflict resolution and cultural literacy (SafeState Web site) – a rather tall order for a raw, police recruit, whose discretion and judgment may fall far short of the requirements for successful COPPS. While Zero Tolerance Policing and COPPS are based on different ideologies, the two approaches share some common perspectives. Both emphasize the role of the beat cop, the improvement of the physical environment, a preventive approach to crime and the decentralization of the command structure. The need of the hour is a policing policy which incorporates the stringent accountability and ‘compstat’ methods of Zero Tolerance Policing with the humanness, problem solving and community involvement of COPPS. This will usher in a crime free society which is the ultimate aim of all law enforcement. References. Bratton, W.J. (1997). Crime is Down is New York City: Blame the Police. Zero Tolerance: Policing a Free Society. Retrieved 8 March 2007, from http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw35pdf Center for Problem-Oriented Policing Web site. (2006). What is Problem- Oriented Policing? Retrieved 8 March 2007, from http://www.popcenter.org/about-whatisPOP.htm DrugScope Web site. (2000). Drug News. Zero Tolerance Policing Fails to Live up to its’ Promises. Retrieved 8 March 2007, from http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?a=1&intID=98 Grabosky, P.N. (1998). Zero Tolerance Policing. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 102, January 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology Web site. Retrieved 8 March 2007, from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi102.html Isaac, S. (2001). Zero Tolerance. International debate education association. Debatabase. Retrieved 8 March 2007, from http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=113 Reform Web site. (2004). Crime. Zero Tolerance Policing. Retrieved 8 March 2007 http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/abetterway/otp.aspx Rohe, W.M. (n.d.). Community Policing and Planning. Retrieved 8 March 2007 http://www.planning.org/casey/pdf/rohe.pdf SafeState Web site. (n.d.). Community Oriented Policing. California Attorney General’s Crime and Violence Prevention Center. Retrieved 8 March 2007 http://safestate.org/index.cfm?navID=7 Worts, P. (2001). Community Policing. Retrieved 8 March 2007, from http://newswithviews.com/community_policing/community_policing.htm Read More