The Developments of the Security Situation in the UK - Literature review Example

 This paper will discuss how the UK can implement new landscape for policing. Out of a necessity to put in place measures that guarantee accountability in the police force, appointing authority and other stakeholder in a new model that may decentralize powers to the communities. The paper will discuss how the UK can put in place new measures for future governance and delivery of community safety. In order to understand how the proposed models in this paper will work, it will be vital to carry out an assessment. Such an assessment will be on selected states that have different models of security provision. The paper will analyze such models in the selected countries and their success factor. Most importantly, the paper will also discuss the developments of the security situation in the UK and analyze it against the overall global security. It will also analyze the trends taken by other countries to respond to security issues in the face of new global terror and internal threat to terror. As such, the paper will also explore the possibility if training the security forces to be in a position to respond to the new face of security issues. The paper will also analyze the role of the political class in security issues. There have been trends in which new governments come into power and readdress security issues afresh. One may perceive this to be political thus raising necessity to analyze stable the police structure is. However, one should note that the decision to shift from an already establish model to a new one may draw in varied opinions and resistance. By nature, men are resistant to change, but this does not imply that the society should not exploit the need for change. Background of Crime and Crime Prevention: Community Involvement Crime and crime prevention programs that incorporate communities have at the back of their minds normally cost issues and trust. Such programs normally encourage the concerned communities to take part in crime prevention and crime detection (Mapple and Mitchel, 2000, p. 154). As such, the program succeeds in involving the community on aspects of governance through security provisions. Such program work in close relationship with educational institutions, families and labor markets. Sometimes the programs may also incorporate youth groups and organizations within the neighborhoods. Whichever program a state or region adopts is one in which it believes will be in the best interest of it overall national goals. This is because by its very nature, security issues require pulling from a different side to achieve a common objective (Mapple and Mitchel, 2000, p. 156). An understanding of how such a program may work better for the UK security case shall require an analysis of already existing systems. They should be systems that have successfully managed to apply such programs. Therefore, this paper will consider an analysis of the US system, the French system and the Netherlands system. The analysis will evaluate whether the UK can successfully implement new landscape policing. An Analysis of the Benefits of the US Security System The US states security system is one that the states manage locally without the interference of the Federal Government. Each state has been empowered to make security provisions as it deems relevant within the provisions the federal constitution. One of the advantages of such a system is that it makes sure that the police remain accountable to the public. It also makes sure that the police force responds to the public’s concerns on pertinent issues. In terms of security forces structure, in the US, there are three principal categories of the police force. Those categories are as per the geographical administrative structure of the government. They include federal, state and local policing (Loveday and Reid, 2003, p 34). One would find six different forces at the federal level in the US, which include the FBI, the CIA, and US Marshall amongst others. These forces respond to matters that pertain to interstates affairs of those issues that pose security concerns to the US as a federal government. The next level is the state level where the policing program involves the highway patrol police and state police in different states. A state has either of the two categories of policing force. Local police in the US receive grants from the federal government, but a majority of their funds comes from the state. In terms of the local policing policy, there are local police and municipal police. Sheriff and a Deputy Sheriff head the counties. It is a common practice that by law, the county police departments normally elect the sheriff. However, if it happens that the local area is quite large, and then its security administrator shall be a police chief. The devolved structure is such that the local politician who appoints a police chief in a major county. One may wonder how the US addresses issues of accountability under such a system. It may appear that giving the local politician such massive powers over the affairs of the local policing issues may necessitate a watchdog body. That may be true, but the system has a strong system of legal provision that cushions the common person from exploitation (Loveday and Reid, 2003, p 34). Such exploitation may be abuse of office by failing following unethical rules of procedures. One may also wonder whom the police bosses report to and on what matters. It is fascinating to note that the system has taken away from the appointing authority the power to be the person to whom the security bosses report. This is one fundamental provision in the structure of the US community policing system that encourages accountability. By dividing the roles and the limits of each stakeholder in the policing system, the US has managed to achieve a system that one may say is considerably transparent. To give shade more light in to the issue of accountability, the police have an obligation to report to a specific authority in all the states (Mapple and Mitchel, 2000, p. 145). Such authorities vary from state to state. As a result, one would expect a police boss to report to the mayor and the city administrator, city manager, or a three board member. By making such provisions, the security bosses get to be assessed by personalities who are within the jurisdiction of where they are operating. This has enabled quick response to issues that affect the local community with quick response. It has also helped the security administrative structure to remain relevant and specific to the needs of the local community. Every police structure prioritizes local security issues and collectively sum up those roles into overall state security and national security in a division. The advantage is that since the management that has the responsibility of assessing the state of security affairs is within the environment itself. Another aspect that makes the devolved system so efficient and transparent is that it has democratized the security offices. The mere fact that the security bosses have to be elected is a motivating factor for performance. Any person holding such an office must bear in his/her mind that his/her re-election to the office for another term will heavily depend his/her achievement. Such achievements are whether his/her term rendered positive results as far as security issues are concerned. By empowering the mayors to employ or fire the police chief, the US system promotes accountability and performance. The police chief has in mind that his/her laxity could easily mean he/she is going any time. He/she thus makes sure that he/she can account for every security issue in the area under shoes jurisdiction he/she has a mandate. In addition, the system also gives the locals politicians’ power to decide on what shall be the priority in the budgets. They also make the budgets. Nevertheless, one should note that other aspects of local policing are planning responsibilities of the local police department. It is such plans that usually bring in success as far as landscape policing is concerned. For instance, reports indicate that the county Arlington in Virginia happen to be one of the most successful policing county. The strategy that the county has employed is community centered. This implies that the department first has the local community in mind with all the security plans that it undertakes. In order that the department succeeds in building a robust rapport with the police, it posts its officers for up to seven years in a district. It has observed that this help to make the police officers develop god interpersonal relations with the locals where they are operating. Such corporation come in handy when situations arise that requires the police to work closely with the locals. That is the elaborate case of how the US system works. It has been discussed quite elaborately that the rest that shall follow because it forms a strong basis for reference for the system that the UK intends to adopt (Loveday and Reid, 2003, p 39). Other countries such as France and the Netherlands have policing systems that have attempted to respond to devolved system (Loveday and Reid, 2003, p. 6). The French system has not succeeded in making progress and transition to the devolved community policing. This has been a failure despite constant effort by the central government to mayors. Mayors have been encouraged to effect changes in bylaws that may allow the municipals to start a community based policing program. This was supposed to be a response to the escalating levels of crimes in France. The case of the Netherlands is quite of a different scenario as far as policing system is concerned. On may observe that while the national policy that created the system must have left some loopholes in the system it has also not responded to the failing system. It must have been a brilliant idea trying to create a devolved system that devolved power to the grassroots. That was brilliant. Nonetheless, I think it would be misuse of terms to describe the Netherlands policing system as a success. It is easy for a keen eye to observe the policing programme remained vulnerable to politicians that had a central to play in the whole structure. Again, it would beat logic to suggest that putting the politician into the structure was the biggest problem. It is apparent that the biggest problem in the above case was failing to put in place transparency system, and separation of powers is the genesis of all problems in the Netherlands case. The real picture as it is was that the policing structure that the Netherlands implemented put the country security forces into regional forces. Security chiefs headed such regional forces. Each chief had a mandate to oversee the overall security issues in the specific region where he/she was in charge. The structure is such that the security chiefs report to local officials that were centrally appointed. As one may observe, the structure operates well on the lower level up to the centrally appointed local officials. The system has, therefore, experienced interference from the political class since then. This has been in the form of the political class compromising the work of the regional chief. It would have been better if the office of the regional police chiefs were shielded from political interference through policy change. The country also needs to address the issue of accountability. Currently accountability is an issue covered by centrally appointed local officials. The relevance of having to study these selected states is to give the picture of the success factors and challenges that opting to consider future devolved policing system may means for UK. These case studies provide vital information on what to consider in future governance and delivery of community safety in a new era of accountability. The studies also enable an assessment and evaluation whether UK can successfully implement new landscape for policing. The factors that have worked for or against in other countries are thus powerful lessons and precedence from which UK may borrow a leaf and move on in the most successful manner. Implementing New Landscape for Policing In UK Many changes in policing strategies are usually done with the sole aim of reducing or preventing crime. This is especially so when there is a strong belief that such a change will bring some positive changes and achievement of certain goals deemed to be crucial. Sometimes authorities may adopt a new way of policing just to devolve power to the grass roots. The most fundamental reason that should override others is probably devolving policing structure to the locals to prevent crime. Understanding the variety of crimes and possible prevention measure would provide an analysis on whether the UK is ready for landscape policing. Such landscape policing in the UK are intended to reduce crime or make UK crime free. Understanding the nature of crime and crime prevention measures would offer a reliable guide to which type of policing it may adopt and work with successfully. There are many ways of crime prevention. Such ways include preventing crime through social development, situational crime prevention, community crime prevention, and prevention through social integration of offenders. Under prevention through social development, a country may make sure that it develops social services such as schools and culture that reflects its goals in crime prevention. The UK has these systems in place already. The school systems have syllabus that emphasize on the importance of proper citizenship. The system of education, lower, intermediate and higher education, has laid a firm foundation in character development that provides a compelling recipe for crime prevention. The goals of education also emphasize on the development of an individual that is socially responsible. The culture of the society is also one that is largely ethical. Save for scattered cases of unethical practices, many families in the UK as a predominantly Christian society teaches on the positive values of decent living and exemplary interpersonal relations. One can, therefore, say that the UK has measures in place that already address the issue of crime prevention through the development of social development. Situational crime prevention entails various approaches for prevention of crime. The UK has put in place a system of police patrols in most of its districts. The presence of police is a deterrent factor to crimes. Having police on sight is also a reminder that one ought to obey the law. It is possible to observe that the UK has also achieved a milestone in this area. The ever presence of the police serves as situational crime prevention. Perhaps the most powerful method of crime prevention is one that is a community based. This is a localized system in which the community acts as their brother’s or sister’s keeper. The community works in close partnership with the police on issues to do with crime prevention. It works best where the values of the society are in harmony with the responsibility of the police. Another term for this method of crime prevention is community policing. It is the most effective. What the UK Can Do To Implement a New Landscape for Policing It is appears that the critical question may not actually be whether UK can implement a new landscape policing but rather what measure to put in place to facilitate such an implementation. The factors that may work in favour of the implementation are ripe within the system of society. The hassle and tussle the UK may experience could be policy framework that shall define the extent to which the new landscape policing shall be operating. The UK may have to borrow a leaf from the success factors of the United States and take the Netherlands and France cases as historic events from which to learn. Some scholars have suggested an adoption of a new policing system that shall work serve the interests of the local community in line with provisions of the law. For instance, the UK should implement the new policing by putting accountability and transparency as the core foundation in the system. There is a suggestion that the police should be accountable to the mayors in the new system that the UK is to adopt. By separating them from the political class, there is hope that there will not be cases of abuse of office by heavy weight politicians. Making the police accountable to the mayors will ensure efficiency and transparency. This is because the mayors are able to observe the activities of the police and take appropriate actions. The mayors are also easily reachable by the locals. The locals can thus report any cases of unwarranted actions by police. Another proposal is that mayors and council leaders should assess and approve issues to do with budgeting, policing committees and approvals for matters pertaining to the policing. This proposal only adds to the regulation that transparency and accountability issues are taken seriously. Besides, it has others have felt that under such a viable system for the UK, it should be the sole role of the mayors and council leaders to be charged with the responsibility of administering selection process of the office of the Chief Constable. The office term for Chief Constable should be short so that there is room for review on his/her performance. The mayors and the council leaders shall have the power to terminate the term of office for a Chief Constable that the panel deemed as handling the security docket with laxity. Like the US system, there are proposals that the police force should be financed locally, not from the central government. It appears that in the interest of quality service provision, the UK shall have to assess whether it is ready to adopt the proposal that the local authorities finance police force. Probably the government may have to respond with financial assistance to areas whose security issues may be wanting. Another vital provision that the UK government may make is putting provisions that would ensure that there is accountability and that corruption cases are minimized. The government should put in place a system of checks and balances that makes sure that every office has a regulating body that checks for its excesses and misuse of public funds (Loveday and Reid, 2003, p 34). For the security of office, there are proposal that the UK should define by statute the process, procedure and conditions under which office holder may be removed. This should be so to give office bearers confidence that personal differences and undue reasons may be used against them in the devolved system. It shall also make sure that office bearers do not, out of fear or otherwise, serve the interests of those they perceive as able to terminate their service. Despite all these proposals for a devolved system, there shall also be a need for UK to establish national institutions that shall take care of the overall national security interests. Such institutions and bodies should coordinate matters to do with forensic and DNA analysis for local policing and for national interests. As UK prepares to implement these proposals since it has the capability to do so, there shall be a need to establish a task and time scale framework. Such a framework shall be expected to address issues to do with actual structuring of the system. Since the major aims of the program shall be crime reduction, transparency, accountability and community involvement in the fight against crime, an evaluation mechanism becomes necessary. The government should put in place such mechanisms for evaluation. Getting an opinion from the community how the new landscape policing works shall offer opportunities for improvement. Any improvement in the policing framework shall reduce the cost of crime prevention and operating expense that the police shall incur in the line of duty. Such evaluation could be goal based where local authority assesses set goals. A decision-oriented approach may also be adopted. In this evaluation, the local authority forecasts on how they adapt the policing system to the changing trends. Alternatively, the local authority may also do a system analysis using selected features taken to be key indicators. The progress and achievement of the system is measures against those indicators and an appropriate action taken (Mapple and Mitchel, 2000, p. 150). To summarize, one may observe that the UK has institutions in place that may see it succeed in implanting a new landscape for policing. It only requires good will from the politicians to reason together and to set the UK on a transformational course. The success factor of the US has served to analyze how the system works. It is apparent that all it takes is to devolve power to the grassroots and set up relevant monitoring institutions or agencies. Bibliography Loveday, B., and Reid, A., 2003. Going local: Who should run Britain’s police? London: Policy Exchange. Mapple, J., and Mitchel, C., 2000. The Crime Fighter: How You Can Make Your Community Crime. London: Free. Broadway. Read More