Aspects of Policing - Term Paper Example

Aspects of Policing Introduction Policing is a highly visible used by s for formal social control (Greene, 2007). Thus aspects of policing have generally been understood as “citizen control” (Greene, 2007, p. 167). In more recent times, policing has been expanded to transform policing into a form of social/community service and “problem solving” agents (problem-oriented policing) (Greene, 2007, p. 167). Social control or more particularly, crime control is a common and well known aspect of policing (Brown, 2004). This essay examines the more recent and less common aspects of policing: social/community service and problem-oriented aspects of policing. Social/Community Aspects of Policing Community policing represents a departure from traditional aspects of policing designed to prevent and control crime. Community policing is different because it delivers a social service. The most widely accepted model of community policing bears this out. According to Waldeck (2007) the most common model of community policing envisages “permanent beat officers” who are often present and “easily accessible in local neighborhoods” (p. 1254). Moreover, members of the community are able to participate in the methods of police social services that they receive. Participation by community members is typically in prioritizing problems for redress (Waldeck, 2007). In community policing models, police are not always reactive, but are also proactive. In other words, police engaged in community policing do not merely respond to crimes once they have been detected or committed. Instead, the police also engage in preventative measures which include education community members on who they may avoid victimization and they are also encouraged to notify police of anything that appears suspicious to them (Waldeck, 2007). Community policing is gaining currency globally. In the US, Europe, Asia and Australia, community policing is founded on the concept that: …together, police and public are more effective and more humane coproducers of safety and public order than are the police alone (Skolnick & Bayley, 1988, p. 1). Community policing programmes involve prevention of crime on a community basis; patrols that are not merely responsive to emergencies; police are made more accountable to the public, command is decentralized; and police are subject to “civilianization” (Skolnick & Bayley, 1988, p. 1). Conventional policing differs from community policing because the former does not involve the delivery of a social service in the way that aspects of community policing does. Conventional policing models positions police officers so that they “rely entirely on the coercive power of criminal law to gain control” (Greene, 2000, p. 310). Police control is generally secured by virtue of the power of arrest and the public’s corresponding fear of arrest. As Greene (2000) explained, under conventional policing models, “police are crimefighters and they shun any form of social work activity” (p. 310). Green (2000) explained farther: Under the traditional model, police work is synonymous with catching crooks and is largely reactive, i.e. the police respond to calls for assistance from the public. Applying the law and deterring crime are the central focuses of all police activities under the traditional model (p. 310). Traditional policing thus functions to alienate the public from the police and vice versa. Community policing thus offers an innovative aspect of policing that breaks down barriers by presenting policing as a social service and in turn positively transforms the public’s perceptions of police and policing (Rosenbaum & Lurigio, 1994). Schafer et al (2003) reported that more recent studies of public perceptions of police have found that in general perceptions of police and policing are influenced by neighborhood experiences and cultures. It is therefore hardly surprising that community policing have channeled positive perceptions of police. The delivery of a social service that shares policing powers and initiatives with neighbourhoods would undoubtedly foster more positive experiences with police. Community policing has represented the “first serious attempt at police reform over half a century” (Williams, 2003, p. 119). Despite its ability to transform police and public relations and to therefore positively control crime, there is evidence that community policing is diminishing. For instance, a 1995 survey conducted in the US among national police departments revealed that 48% of the respondents either implemented or were beginning to implement community policing. Another survey in 1995 revealed that 82% of the US’s municipal police departments and 65% of county police departments with population sizes of over 50,000 had implemented community policing strategies. However, 3 years later, a 1998 survey found that only 50% of police nationally had implemented community policing “extensively” (Williams, 2003, p. 119). Skolnick and Bayley (1988) identified the obstacles to the successful implementation of community policing on a large scale. These obstacles include “norms grounded in traditional notions of the police role”; the demands on police for responding to emergency situations; limited resources; “traditional assumptions about patrol strategies”; difficulties assessing problems; the public’s “expectations of the police role”; and “bureaucratic isolation of community programs within the police department” (p. 1). More recently, the high cost of fuel, the high demand for police resources with increases in crime corresponding with the global financial crisis of 2008, police departments are finding it more and more difficult to allocate resources to non-emergency situations (Kappeler & Gaines, 2009). Even so, academics continue to advocate for increased community policing. For example, Clarke and Newman (2007) argued that heightened community policing can be a valuable tool in the prevention of terrorism. Community policing provides a valuable method by which police can secure the public’s cooperation in the detection and prevention of terrorists threats (Clarke & Newman, 2007). Skolnick and Bayley (1988) argued that community policing facilitates an innovative and effective aspect of policing. Community policing is advantageous to the public because it improves the opportunities for preventing crimes. The fact is, community policing makes police officers highly visible in communities and thus functions as a deterrent and therefore a preventative aspect of policing. Community policing also makes police more accountable and thus not only benefits the public in terms of trust in police, but also benefits police in terms of legitimization (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988). Thus community policing is an aspect of policing that forms a partnership between the police and the public and transforms policing from social control to delivery of a social service. Problem-Oriented Policing as an Aspect of Policing According to Scott (2000) problem oriented policing directs “attention to the broad range of problems the community expects the police to handle” (p. v). These problems are the “problems that constitute the business of the police” and “how the police can be more effective in dealing with them” (Scott, 2000, p. v). In other word, problem-oriented policing takes the position that: Police are expected to deal with an incredible broad range of diverse community problems – not simply crime. It recognizes that the ultimate goal of the police is not simply to enforce the law, but to deal with problems effectively- ideally, by preventing them from occurring in the first place. It therefore plunges the police into an in-depth study of the specific problems they confront (Scott, 2000, p. v). Problem-oriented policing was first introduced in 1979 by Herman Goldstein, a law professor who had been an advisor to Chicago’s Police Department. Goldstein, in coining the phrase problem-oriented policing identified 11 aspects of problem-oriented policing. Goldstein’s 11 aspects of problem-oriented policing are: earmarking “incidents as problems”; “focusing on substantive problems as the heart of policing; targeting outcomes; focusing on inquiries; compartmentalizing and identifying problems; monitoring and assessing existing responses; “an uninhibited search for a tailor-made response”; being proactive; “strengthening the decision-making process and increasing accountability”; and “evaluation results of newly implemented responses” (Bullock & Tilley, 2003, pp. 1-2). Goldsteing’s 11 aspects of problem-oriented policing thus directs policing so as to deliver and account for a results-based and analytical method of policing. As Bullock and Tilley (2003) explained: In it substantive police-relevant problems are aggregated and interrogated intelligently, the context for responses is looked at systematically, existing practice is examined critically, alternative responses rooted in the analysis are pursued and the effectiveness of new, proactive measures is evaluated rigorously (p. 2). Goldstein’s problem-oriented policing model was introduced as a method of reforming the professional model of policing. The professional model of policing was streamlined the police as an organization, focused on improving the staff and using advanced technology with the goal of professionalizing the police and making them appear more “business-like” (Bullock & Tilley, 2003, p. 2). The result was a more tightly controlled centralized police with standardized operations, rapid response systems and the increased use of vehicles, computers and information technologies. Moreover, police officers were directed to remain impartial and to perform their duties lawfully (Bullock & Tilley, 2003). Goldstein (Cited in Bullock & Tilley, 2003) identified a number of problems with this system of policing. Although Goldstein did not advocate against professionalizing the police, he did however note that the system focused far too much attention on management issues. Moreover, far too much attention was focused on incidents and processing them as opposed to focusing attention and resources on solving “substantive problems” and “responding to them effectively” (Bullock & Tilley, 2003, p. 2). Far too little attention and resources were being directed toward tackling community problems and police talents were not being used effectively. There was a need to reform policing so as to produce an “informed and analytic approach to defining problems and working out what to do about them” (Bullock & Tilley, 2003, p. 3). Palmiotto (2011) informed that community policing has an ideology that is grounded on problem-oriented policing. Like community policing, problem-oriented policing fosters “police accountability to the community and a focus on addressing community concerns” (Palmiotto, 2011, p. 179). Community policing differs in that it calls for community involvement in policing. Problem-oriented policing dictates that all members of the police force take a proactive approach to solving problems (Palmiotto, 2011). Police are encouraged to move away from the impulse to focus on incident reports. As it is, responses to a number of incidents can be dealt with over the telephone. Moreover, a number of incidents that police respond to take up a lot of time and resources and have little or no results. Police could better utilize their time and resources attempting to identify, analyze and solving problems (Palmiotto, 2011). In other words, problem-oriented policing calls for police to take a holistic approach to policing. Police are called upon to utilize their resources more effectively. By identifying, analyzing and solving problems, police can eradicate the root causes of crimes and thus prevent crime by adopting an alternative to traditional policing. For the purpose of problem-oriented policing problems are characterized as patterns that the community “expect police to address” (Skogan & Frydl, 2004, p. 243). Problems in this regard, have two essential elements. First they are behavior-based and environmentally influenced. Behavioral aspects relate to the interaction between parties (offenders and victims) and motivations. Environmental elements refers to the location or types of locations of the problems. In this regard, “problems are highly specific” (Skogan & Frydl, 2004, p. 243). Police are looked upon as a significant actor in reducing problems. One example of problems is persistent thefts of vehicles in a specific parking lot (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). Problem-oriented policing would thus expect police to attempt to reduce the incidents of vehicle thefts in addition to responding to specific theft complaints. One method that police would use to reduce the incidents of vehicle theft is to inform community members of ways that they can prevent theft of their vehicles and providing increased security to the location. Conclusion Aspects of policing involve the various tactics and standards that police use to detect, prevent and deter crime. Conventional policing however is generally associated with reactive approaches which are incompatible with detecting, prevention and deterrence. Conventional policing relies on blind faith and confidence in police and a general fear of coercive policing. Community policing and problem-oriented policing seeks to reform traditional aspects of policing by reforming organizational approaches to crime control and fostering cooperative rather relationships between the police and the public. References Brown, A. P. (May 2004). “Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime Control and Social Control.” The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 43(2): 203-211. Bullock, K. and Tilley, N. (2003). Crime Reduction and Problem-Oriented Policing. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Clarke, R. V. and Newman, G. R. (2007). “Police and the Prevention of Terrorism”. Policing, Vol. 1(1): 9-20. Greene, J. R. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group. Greene, J. R. (2000). “Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of the Police.” Criminal Justice, Vol. 3: 299-370. Kappeler, V. E. and Gaines, L. K. (2009). Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Palmiotto, M. (2011). Community Policing: A Police-Citizen Partnership. New York, NY: Routledge. Rosenbaum, D. P. and Lurigio, A. J. (July 1994). “An Inside Look at Community Policing Reform: Definitions, Organizational Changes, and Evaluation Findings.” Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 40(3): 299-314. Schafer, J. A.; Huebner, B. M. and Bynum, T. S. (December 2003). “Citizen Perceptions of Police Services: Race, Neighborhood Context, and Community Policing.” Police Quarterly, Vol. 6(4): 440-468. Scott, M. S. “Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.” Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1-214. Skogan, W. G. and Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Skolnick, J. H. and Bayley, D. H. (1988). “Theme and Variation in Community Policing.” Crime and Justice, Vol. 10: 1-37. Waldeck, S. E. (1999-2000). “Cops, Community Policing, and the Social Control Norms Approach to Crime Control: Should One Make us More Comfortable with Others?” Georgia Law Review, Vol. 34: 1253-1310. Williams, E. J. (2003). “Structuring in Community Policing: Institutionalizing Innovative Change.” Police Practice and Research, Vol. 4(2): 119-129. Read More