Community- and Problem-Oriented Policing vs. Zero Tolerance Policing Advantages and Disadvantages
In any case, these factors do indicate how police also behave context is affective to behavior and demeanor (Skogan Frydl, 2004). Basically, what the police force wants is to be effective, especially when it comes to crime control. This is especially important as crime rates have been fluctuating from increases to stabilized states, but basically, crime reduction is the main target. The police force has been subject to such pressures because of political interests and intense media attention (Punch, 2007, 1). Furthermore, Punch also mentioned that the police force had to address the changing developments in the entire political, economic and social-scape. For instance, government institutions would start to adapt a sense of punitiveness in the criminal justice system through tough sentencing, in addition to the institutional changes that had taken place as caused by specialization (i.e., crime scene investigators, etc.), among others. These forces would apparently also contribute to the internal dynamics of the police force as Punch explained (2007, 7)
Police chiefs have had to learn to take account of these multiple, macro-developments alongside the daily tasks of running their organisations and balancing the books... Unfortunately reducing crime has been a difficult task. A pivotal problem for the police is that they simply cannot seem to deliver on the one competency that is continually demanded of them --- combating crime. Moreover, an over-emphasis on crime control distorts the broader police mandate and alienates citizens whose information, cooperation and trust is essential to the healthy and and effective functioning of the police in a democratic society.
Reforms have become among the many steps that the police have had to endure many times, but as Punch (2007) noted, the police force has been found to be more resistant to change. This presents a form of paradox because as crime rates increase and as more types of crimes and strategies have been in place, the police force needs to be constantly responsive. However, it should be noted that the resistance can be also attributed to the fact that in order to be effective, these law enforcers have to be strategic. This also explains why after the many studies on policing, it remains to be unsettled as to which approach can best address crime reduction.
This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of community- and problem-oriented policing, and zero tolerance. Evidently, some favor the other more because of the perceived impact of the principles underlying these approaches. However
On Community- and Problem-Oriented Policing
Background
Community- and problem-oriented policing can be regarded as more lenient approach to because it takes the common enforcement out of the practice. Community- and problem-solving policing is more community-focused this is to say that the kind of law enforcement implemented is based on the needs and the concerns of the community. Many communities have gone as far as participating in the initiative such as Community Watch while at the same time, police programs are also implemented as a means to ensure the presence of law enforcement in a certain area (Kenney Watson, 1999). This model basically functions according to a cooperative partnership between community and police, thus problem identification and solution formulation can be easily executed because of this partnership (Kenney Watson, 1999)
Many have noted that this approach to policing is more effective mainly because it focuses on community-specific needs and at the same time, policing functions heavily at the community-level. Moreover, because of the participation of community members, many citizens feel more at ease with the security program implemented in their neighborhood.
This model, albeit seemingly simple, is in fact deceptively complex. Kenney and Watson (1999) identified the following stages involved in an effective community- and problem-oriented policing approach.
Problem solving starts with identifying the problem through a scanning. At this stage of the process data and information gathering is crucial. In order to work, the research has to be done among community members and police officers assigned to the community. From there, the problems and concerns are identified, and these would serve as basis for the design of a program specific to these needs.
Once the information have been gathered, the police starts to analyze the community and puts together a profile. The previously gathered data can be further enhanced by added research such as interviews and surveys. The previous scanning that was executed mainly provides the potential problems, but the additional analyses would also help identify how to best approach these community concerns. Kenney and Watson (224) enumerated the following steps included in the analysis stage 1) analyze the forces impinging the problem, 2) brainstorm alternative strategies, 3) evaluate alternative strategies, and 4) specify the responsibilities of group members for each.
Based on these processes, it can be observed that community- and problem-oriented policing emphasizes intelligence at a community-level, and from there, knowledge and information serve as the foundation of the policing strategies.
Advantages
Based on the previously discussed description of community- and problem-oriented policing, its major advantage can be seen in the cooperation between community and police. This cooperations becomes the fundamental element in establishing a workable program according to the needs of the community. It should be noted that not all communities have the same needs, however, even in communities that seem like the safest, they still need an effective police support.
The advantages, according to Palmiotto (2000) can be attributed to the main factors of what community- and problem-oriented policing does, and that is how these processes and philosophy is seen as an effective means to prevent crime. As this model makes use of intelligence and cooperation as its main weapons, crime prevention becomes more effective because this leads to effective planning, and effective planning integrates the utilization of the right skills and knowledge in effectively responding to crime.
Disadvantages
Community- and problem-oriented policing requires police officers to get into activities that are not typically associated with law enforcement, and interestingly, even though this seems to be the easiest way to conduct law enforcement, studies have shown that police officers do not take this approach seriously. This is highlighted by the problem Wilson (2006) found in this model, and basically the disadvantage is in the organizational aspect. According to the author, because of the required cooperation between police and the community, the institution becomes an open organization. There has been also a problem in the formalization of these relationships, which is to say some communities may require mere coordination whereas some may opt for full cooperation. This can be problematic because the work and function of law enforcement should be ideally confined among the law enforcers themselves, and the community aspect has been cited as a possible source of conflict especially when it comes to police discretion (Fielding, 1995).
On Zero Tolerance Policing
Cuneen (2004, 151) described zero tolerance policing as an approach that runs on the principle that a strong law enforcement approach to minor crime (in particular public order offences) will prevent more serious crime from occurring and will ultimately lead to falling crime rates. The zero tolerance approach is highly responsive, and as some may describe, reactive. One of the common notions on zero tolerance policing is that this kind of approach is usually applied in high-risk areas.
The main point of high tolerance policing, in addition to Cuneens description of its principle is that it is through these harsher and reactive approaches that crime can be reduced. By creating a certain environment of strict law enforcement, it is perceived that zero tolerance can reduce crime because it incites fear among the prospective criminals. Communities may find comfort in the fact that the police are using what they deemed as appropriate measures in responding to crime. In New York, for example, zero tolerance policing is part of the implemented order maintenance along with quality of life.
Advantages
The advantages of zero tolerance policing is that it does maintain a tough face when addressing crime. Its advantage can be also attributed to how some people find this approach most effective because of the prevailing belief that crime control should be about addressing those who are corrupt and that corrective measures are not going to be enough therefore, crime control is seen to be more associated with an iron hand such as zero tolerance (Williamson, 2003). In addition, this further highlights a certain police culture of toughness which works very well in high-risk areas. This is why despite what seems like a classic example of bad copgood cop dynamics, the advantage of zero tolerance policing is that it emphasizes a greater amount of police presence accompanied by strict and absolute punishment, and a clear message that crime is not tolerated (International Debate Education Association, 2004).
Disadvantages
Evidently, the effectiveness of zero tolerance policing can be challenged by the social realities in the world of crime. A major disadvantage is that those who commit crime are those who are not aware of these punishments the lack of knowledge and education about such police practice makes these criminal fearless of zero tolerance. In addition, zero tolerance emphasizes on punishment instead of rehabilitation, and studies have shown that repeat offenses are usually caused by this type of judicial and penal set-up. Last but not the least, zero tolerance policing has caused many cities a great amount of money, thus funding allocations for social services and even more serious crimes are redirected for this type of policing (International Debate Education Association, 2004)
Conclusion
As can be seen in the advantages and disadvantages of community- and problem-oriented policing, and zero tolerance, policing is evidently steeped with social and political issues which eventually translated to the effectiveness of the police institution. The reason the debate remains why one is better than the other is because of the underlying philosophies and principles according to these approaches. However, it should be noted that in unravelling these, it is all about the law, but inevitably, policing is a defined dynamics how the police functions with respect to the community (Lyons, 2002).
In this case, between the two, the most effective approach is a community- and problem-oriented approach to policing, and one of these orientations should be zero tolerance. This shows that there are the similarities between the two, and that in fact, zero tolerance can be used as a solution in the first model. What makes this effective is that, as previously discussed, intelligence and knowledge serve as effective resources of planning, and for the purposes of crime prevention and maintenance of security, each community does have its own needs. Hence, for high-risk communities zero tolerance might be applicable but this should not be applied at a greater level. In fact, the community can be also involved in this form of policing, but the police can formalize this cooperation by setting down boundaries for the purpose of protecting police discretion and the confidential matters that cannot be spilled over to the community.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment