Community Policing: Who is to Be Blamed for Poor Results?
It seems that (Wilson & Kelling 1982) prove that
even though people feel safer with the foot patrol system, the results in
practice, in terms of crime rate, are the same.
A fundamental quote from their text is “citizens
complain to the police chief, but he explains that his department is low on
personnel and that the courts do not punish petty or first-time offenders. To
the residents, the police who arrive in squad cars are either ineffective or
uncaring: to the police, the residents are animals who deserve each other. The
citizens may soon stop calling the police, because "they can't do
anything.”
That points at
community policing being even worse, since the community then depends on the police, the police will be notified when
something happens, and, according to the above extract, they don’t care. That is the feeling that I myself have
since 2001: both in Brazil and in Australia the police does not care about what
they should and does very little in practice to stop or deter crime. In
special, no cop of these countries seems to see violation of human rights as an urgent and serious
matter, rather the opposite: that is the last thing they will classify as
urgent and serious.
The strongest laws, in
terms of human rights agreement compliance, would have to be those from Brazil:
citizen’s arrest allowed.
Notwithstanding, Brazilians go, give ‘voice of arrest’ to the citizen attacking another in a barbarian way, say
slavery through satellite mobile chip/CIA bug (brain slavery, when your
entire being will be reduced to your brain and others will use your being
through it against your will and the law), and the police does not comply: they
refuse to arrest the individual.
In Australia, they use
gaps in the law, meaning of words, and things like that as an excuse.
It seems that our sources agree that
community policing is a better strategy to address crime but what they mean is
community policing together with foot patrol, effective authority actions, and
so on, not only community policing. What is happening is that, at least in
Australia, here considering group discussions with some of the professors/cops from the Macquarie University (2017), they think that either they have absolute power over the entire thing
or they do nothing. Plenty are still corrupt and immoral, and therefore would
accept bribery and other things in place of doing their duty, be it moral or
official/legal.
Lawrence and McCarthy
(2013) seem to say that it is a problem of time of the measurement: if we wait
for the right amount of time and measure crime rate, then we will see that
community policing brings meaningful results.
As another point, they
seem to be neglecting the usual increasing rate of crime when measuring
effectiveness. It is possible that, without the foot patrol or community
policing systems in place, we would have a higher rate of crime, and the effect
of those systems therefore would be expression of only part of the potential for
crime, regardless of time of measurement. If this is the case, the systems are
always good and effective but the old system of measurement is inadequate and
needs to be replaced.
References
Kelling, G. & Wilson, J. 1982, 'Broken Windows,' The Atlantic Online, vol. March, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/>
Lawrence, S. & McCarthy, B. 2013, What Works in Community Policing?, November,
Government Printed, Berkeley, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/What_Works_in_Community_Policing.pdf>
Comments
Post a Comment