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

Popular posts from this blog

Update on the Plan to Save Humanity

Gene Hackman: American Idol, Satanic Rhetoric

The Xhosa