The Aspects of the Policing Budget - Coursework Example

Policing Introduction It has been often witnessed that with the formation of a new government, significant cuts to public spending are also initiated. One of the sectors that get affected is policing, and the government often looks at various aspects of the policing budget wherein substantial cut could be made. However, there are certain segments within the police department which are very essential for maintaining national security, community welfare and safeguarding the nation from terrorist threats. Give below are some of the policing areas which are especially challenging for the police and the government should not consider cutting budgets for these areas. New forms of policing One of the key developments in policing during the last decade has been the addition of new forms of policing, such as neighbourhood wardens and police community support officers (PCSOs). In order to increase security on the street, handle low-intensity crime, tackle anti-social elements and to free highly trained police officers to look after major crime, the concept of PCSOs were implemented through the Police Reform Act 2002 in the UK. The PCSOs were implemented in September 2002 and was gradually extended to other parts of the UK including Wales and England. PSCOs hold police powers and just like street and neighbourhood wardens are civilians who may detain people for at least 30 minutes prior to the arrival of the police officer and even have power to give Fixed Penalty Notices. Throughout the UK, 8,000 PCSOs are deployed who are part of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Such an initiative has a great impact on policy behaviour and a good instance of social innovation (Siegel 2008). During the late 1990s, in the UK policing was majorly concerned to address issues related to crime and social evils. The focus was more on policing volume-based crimes like street crimes and burglary. This meant that the issues of local areas were given lesser priority and thus, anti-social behaviour became the norm of the day. Thus, there was need gap to address various community-based issues, which could not be solved using normal policing techniques and required community policing, which resulted in the formation of PCSOs (Siegel 2008). However, the concept is not a new one as the communities all over the UK had already started with employing local staff for the security of the neighbourhoods from the late 1970s. For instance, park keepers, caretakers, social workers, community workers and youth often played the part of being informers to the police. Later on, some of them acquired the status of neighbourhood wardens and power to prevent anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood (Wakefield 2007). Further, in the recent wake of terrorist attacks in London, the local neighbourhoods are in the need for heightened security and surveillance, which could be fulfilled through neighbourhood wardens and PCSOs in an effective manner. Also, the presence of a uniformed officer provides reassurance to the people (Siegel 2008). Prior to 2002, most of the policing were done by special constables, police officers and traffic wardens, which raised the need to include privately-funded security guards. This was a cause of concern, as people felt setting up of such private security agencies would mean creation of mixed economy in policing. Thus, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ian Blair proposed to include uniformed auxiliaries to be a part of the extended policy force (Blair 2002). Thus, it can be stated that PCSOs were introduced by the Police to curb competition as well. The government also initiated the process of including PCSOs in the police force through the 2001 Home Office White Paper, which stressed on the need to create a more visible and effective policing for establishing security and order in the society, improving the police performance and maintaining the confidence of the public. Further, the government was also concerned about the behaviour of anti-social elements which was damaging the communities as well. Thus, the PCSOs could undertake patrol functions and were given considerable powers for dealing with various anti-social elements. With the introduction of PCSOs, police presence became visible in the communities, supported with foot patrols (Wakefield 2007). However, due to the rapid introduction of PCSOs, many felt that the scheme was not properly implemented. As per a 2002 study of the first operational PCSOs in London, there were various organisational issues that were found due to the speedy implementation of the scheme. It was felt that the management failed to collect and collate information in a systematic manner. Training was not provided in an adequate manner to the PCSOs as well (Crawford & Lister 2004). Further, many believed that the introduction of PSCOs would create confusion among the general public about the roles of the police officers and PCSOs. Also, their semi-skilled status created issues for their capabilities as well. Despite the caveats, there had been substantial increase in the number of PCSOs throughout the UK along with the steady increase of police officers. However, government has always indicated that the increase in the number of PSCOs was not done at the cost of frontline police resources. The central government initiated the scheme as a part of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams however local decisions were being made through local accountability. Further, it was also found that PSCOs were most effective in the scenarios wherein they worked together with the police officers to address the local issues (Crawford & Lister 2004). Further, the PSCOs could help in counseling young people to avoid anti-social behaviour and prevent petty crime. They also enabled dialogues with various groups which could not be reached by the police authorities. However, the PSCOs were also seen to have lesser valuable roles then most uniformed police officers. Further, many also become full officers, which also reduced the number of PSCOs. This became a concern area as the original role of the PSCOs could not be fulfilled which was to create closer relationship between the authorities and the local communities (Crawford & Lister 2004). Although, the PSCOs have some concern areas, it cannot be denied that with adequate training and guidance, these would continue to provide value-added services to the society. They form an integral part of the security system and neighbourhood watch to check anti-social behaviour and minor crimes, which are often being missed by the police authorities due to their focus on criminal cases. Thus, it is advised that the government should continue to finance the PSCO scheme and promote it to lessen the burden on the police authority. Police cybercrime With the evolution of the Internet, opportunities have also increased to commit various cybercrime and other such undesirable behaviours and therefore, require the law enforcement agencies to react in similar manner as they do for curbing traditional crime such as burglary, theft, murder etc. Cybercrime investigation requires much more expertise other than conducting some examination based on low-level technology or recovery of digital evidence. It needs varied range of technical as well as non-technical expertise and investigative skills to identify and prevent cybercrime (Sommer 2004). In order to tackle the issue of cybercrime in Wales, England and Northern Ireland, the government created the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) and various local level Hi-Tech Crime Units in the year 2001. Later in 2006, the NHTCU got integrated in the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). This created added issues, as there was a huge need gap to look after cyber crime through an autonomous body. Further, due to this integration, the mainstream cybercrimes were not paid much attention, there was absence of co-ordination between various cybercrime prevention resources and it also reduced the ability of the unit to various large scale cybercrime which did not fall under the SOCA. Thus, due to the growing number of cybercrime, under Janet Williams, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the ACPO e-Crime Portfolio was created in April 2008 (Hunton 2010). Further, the announcement to establish a Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU) was done by the Home Office under the ambit of MPS in September 2008 with the funding of around £3.5 million. Further, MPS also integrated its Computer Crime Unit with the PCeU with an extra funding of £3.9 million for more than three years. The PCeU is considered to work alongside the National Fraud Reporting Centre (NFRC) that is being created by the City of London Police that is supposed to fulfill the role of the national reporting center for cybercrimes. Later, the National e-Crime Programme was initiated in January 2009 for coordinating the increase in cybercrime initiatives as well as indentify and implement them under the ambit of the ACPO e-Crime Portfolio (Hunton 2010). The industry analysts and various law-enforcement officers believe that at the strategic level, cybercrime is a vast problem and is increasing in the UK. Thus, it requires various barriers which need to be addressed to assess the issue of cybercrime being committed in the UK in an accurate manner. One of the most serious issues related to cybercrime is under-reporting as most victims of cybercrimes are often not forthcoming enough to report any such incident to the police. There are several reasons for such behaviour, which includes embarrassment at being a victim of fraud and fear of damaging their reputation. In some instance however, the victims might not be aware of the offence at all. Further, some of the victims also believe that the police might not be able to resolve the issues arising due to computer-related crime (Wall 2007). Although, most police force do make a record of various cybercrime, they nonetheless follow their own structure and therefore, at the national level it becomes difficult to assess and analyse the country-wide data to find out a pattern or trend in the fraudulent behaviour. The country still does not have a central reporting point wherein the forces may report about the cybercrime in a particular format. Experts have proposed that the National Fraud Reporting Centre (NFRC) should undertake this responsibility of creating a repository of data related to cybercrimes. Further, it is also required to make sure that cybercrime should be given a separate category, so that the general public gains confidence in the police to tackle such issues (Wall 2007). Further, it is also difficult to investigate and prosecute criminals who indulge in cyber crime for the law enforcement officers. Due to the basic nature of the Internet, the criminals are able to target the possible victims from anywhere globally and could victimise people on a mass basis in an easier manner by sending e-mails with attached malware that could in turn be sent to other recipients of the mailbox as well. The Internet also helps in disguising the identity of the people and provides anonymity, thus creating problems for identifying the criminals and prosecuting them. Further, it is still not clear what cyber issues could be dealt by introducing stricter regulation and issues that could be resolved through law enforcement (Wall 2007). Even the technicality of cybercrime causes various problems for the law agencies and creates hindrances in the criminal justice process. It requires authorities to capture the right detail about the crime, understanding the complexity of the regulatory processes for getting the data through the Internet, procuring possibly volatile evidences which would help in conducting legal compliances. Further, in case of any criminal procedure, the jury is also being faced with the issue of understanding various complex technical evidences and terminologies that are being associated with the case to determine the fate of the defendant (Sommer 2004). Together with lack of stringent regulations and laws, the technology has also developed at a greater pace and therefore, is providing newer opportunities and modes of attack which proves to be challenging for the law agencies and police offices to understand and keep a constant supervision. In order to implement cybercrime laws and regulations in a better manner, it is essential to integrate various law enforcement agencies, police service and courts together to create a vigilant crime fighting group (Sommer 2004). Thus, it can be viewed that cybercrime is a very big challenge for the UK law enforcement agencies and police officials, which needs to be tackled at various technological, social and legal levels. Therefore, the government should not look at cutting expenses on fighting cybercrime and instead should come out with stringent laws and regulations to bring the culprits to the court of law. Transnational policing The growing world of globalisation offers free trade, mass mobility, fluidity in financial transfers and increased use of information technology, but it also has to face weaknesses that specifically arise from new risks involving trans-national organised crimes, amongst which, trafficking in drugs, illegal immigration, money laundering and terrorism are widely mentioned concerns. As a consequence, the situation has made closer coordination between national law enforcement agencies from different countries both inevitable and necessary (Deflem 2004). The transnational policing, considered being one of the recent developments in the field of policing and security, has created various changes in the organised criminal law enforcements in the various parts of the world, and especially in developed nations such as the UK and the US. Such a policing requires international cooperation along with mobalising internal police and other authority resources including the customs, coastguard, police officers, security, military and other government officials. Further, it requires building a unique database of offenders and criminals recording their cross-border criminal activities and facilitating communication between various nations on the basis of the information (Sheptycki 1995). With regards to the UK, in 1991, the Secretary of State had recommended in the Parliament that the country needed to create a National Criminal Intelligence Service that would also have various operational arms from various regions and would incorporate the local and national intelligence agencies as well. The Secretary of State also advised that the Interpol should also be incorporated with the National Criminal Intelligence Unit, which later became the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS). Further, he made the recommendation that the European Liaison Officers should also be a part of the Interpol Liaison Officers (Secretary of State for the Home Department 1991). Further, in today’s contemporary world, the countries are also facing the issue of terrorism, which could be tackled well through the implementation of transnational policing. As terrorist organisations have networks all through the world and operate across boundaries, their modus operandi includes trafficking drugs, people, illegal substances, nuclear materials etc. across the borders. In order to curb such illegal transactions, it is essential to encourage transnational policing and joining force with the Interpol and the European Union police network called Europol (Deflem, 2003). The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the response of the US government to launch a ‘war on terror’ through international cooperation is a great example of transnational policing. The US through such an initiative not only strengthened its internal security but also extended is surveillance across the borders by sharing information and resources with prominent countries worldwide. The entire operation required enhanced coordination between various intelligence agencies in the US and Europe, deployment of army across Afghanistan and Iraq, consisting of various peace-keeping forces, contracted security guards, police officers and soldiers from throughout the world (den Boer and Monar 2002; Lyon 2003). This important development indicate that the difference between the internal and external security, crime and war, soldiering and policing are getting blurred and through international cooperation, countries are pulling in all their resources to fight for a common cause (Bigo 2000). Further, states no longer can act alone to protect their borders, the enemy can come from any geography or can be some internal fanatic. Thus, the security of a country requires a much more expansive security role, which needs to include international cooperation as well. In order to fight a common cause, it is therefore essential to conjoin various multi-level security governances and create cooperation between transnational organisations, between governmental bodies, security agencies and other organisations to monitor the social movements of various suspects and pre-empt any security threat or terrorist attacks. Such a transnational policing would greatly ensure that issues regarding terrorist attacks, organised crime and political violence are tackled in an efficient manner (Sheptycki 1995). The growing concern regarding the threat to national security and the recent bombing and terrorist attacks in London, are evidences that the UK needs to have a strong transnational policing system, wherein it can coordinate with the various organisations throughout the world to understand the movements of the terrorists and other suspects and pre-empt any terror attack. Thus, such a policing needs to be encouraged and enhanced and the government should not make any budgetary cut with regards to transnational policing. References: Bigo, D. 2000, ‘When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitisations in Europe’ in M Kelstrup and M Williams (eds) International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security and Community, London: Routledge. Boer, den M and Monar, J 2002, ‘11 September and the Challenge of Global Terrorism to the EU as a Security Actor’, Journal of Common Market Studies. Crawford, A. and Lister, S. 2004, 'The patchwork shape of reassurance policing in England and Wales: Integrated local security quilts or frayed, fragmented and fragile tangled webs?,' Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 27 Issue 3, 413 – 430. Deflem, M. 2004, Policing World Society; Historical Foundations of International Police Cooperation, Oxford: Calrendon. Hunton, P. 2010, ‘Cyber Crime and Security: A New Model of Law Enforcement Investigation,’ Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 4, Issue 4. Lyon, D 2003, Surveillance After September 11, Cambridge: Polity. Sheptycki, J. 1995, 'Transnational Policing and the Makings of a Postmodern State', British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 35 No. 4 Autumn, 613-635. Siegel, L.J. 2008, Essentials of Criminal Justice, CA: Cengage Learning, 182-192. Sommer, P. 2004, 'The future for the policing of cybercrime', Computer Fraud & Security, 8-12. Wakefield, A. 2007, 'Continuing the Discussion on Community Policing, Issue 2 Carry on Constable? Revaluing Foot Patrol', Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 1, Issue 3, 342-355. Wall, D.S. 2007, 'Policing Cybercrime: Situating the public police in networks of security in cyberspace', Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 2. Read More