Final Flashcards
Criticism of Police
Criticism for not meeting contemporary societal needs - inadequately addressing cyberbullying (Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons), activism by groups like Anonymous, vigilante groups (Creep catchers), and cases involving Indigenous women
Negatives of the top-down approach
Overlapping responsibilities and inefficiencies
Limits personal initiative withing police departments
How is Police Efficiency Measured
- Response Times
- Arrest Rates
Response Times
Influenced negatively by the longer it takes for citizens to call them
Management Strategies:
Demand/differential response
- The way calls are treated by diff departments
- In Calgary, recently, all emergency services were centralized
Arrest Rates
Not an ideal measure - crimes are underreported, arrest that doesn’t happen don’t always result in prosecution
Some officers are over vigilant and try to “meet quotas” while other officers might be more lax
Clearance Rates
An alternative measure to dealing with hot to assess officers
- Taking case to its logical end based on the evidence
Doesn’t really work either
Other Ways of Measuring Efficacy
Identify the # of arrests that followed through to prosecution
Evaluate fear reduction by an officer - How well can a cop make people feel safe
The Police Role
Defined by specific rights, responsibilities and expectations associated with police positions
Complex due to conflicting societal expectations
Police Role Conflict
Conflict in expectation of police to be societal agents while on the other being expected to be crime fighters
What is the Muir’s Classification
Establish whether a police officer had passion or perspective with different officers landing on different sides of the spectrum
Definition of Passion vs Perspective in Muir’s Classification
Passion: Recognition that force can be used to control a situation legitimately and when necessary
Perspective: Ability to empathize with suffering, and be ethical/moral
Muir’s Different Styles of Policing
Professionals: Passion and perspective
Enforcers: Passion lacking perspective
Reciprocators: Perspective lacking passion
Avoiders: Neither passion or perspective
What is Wilson’s Classification
Identified 4 styles of policing
making up a more effective typology - due to withstanding test of time
Wilson’s 4 Style’s of Policing
Social Agent: Societal workers with responsibilities to maintain and evaluate mental health and well-being of individuals and the public
Watchman: Public order. Fairly tolerant of private matters/conflict. Goal of job is to restore peace before interaction takes place. Will intervene when necessary
Law Enforcer: Enforce all laws including minor offenses. Intervening in any violation of the law. Discretion is minimal
Crime Fighter: Ego-full. Believe should mostly deal with serious and violent criminals. Thinks they’re the only ones keeping chaos at bay
The Patrol Function
Considered “backbone” of policing
Introduced historically by Sir Robert Peel in 1829
Purposes of Patrol
- Crime deterrence
- Maintenance of public order and security
- Providing 24-hour community services
Non-crime Related Activities
Much police work involves activities unrelated to crime
~80% of police calls relate to non-criminal issues
Incident-driven (Reactive) Policing
Occurs when police react to citizens’ calls for help
Proactive Policing
When the police crack down on the street drug trade, prostitution or set up fencing stings
Involves acting, often interacting with criminals before crimes occur
Unclear whether patrol
Directed Patrol
When a police officer’s time is spent in certain locations
Effective at reducing automobile thefts and robberies - unclear whether they merely displace criminal activity
“hot spots” are slight increases in crime in certain locations - slight decreases of criminal activity due to directed patrols
Foot Patrol
Dominant before 1930s; resurged in the 1970s
Ex. The Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program reduced crime slightly, and generated greater confidence in the police and reduced the fear of crime - similar results in Newark, Toronto and Edmonton
What was the purpose of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (1972-73)
To see is citizen’s notice an increase police presence
Would actively being on street searching for crime have an effect on crime rates?
Patrolling was split in 3 types to test this
What were the 3 Types of Patrolling in the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment
Reactive: Only responded to service calls - there was nothing proactive (on the street looking for crime)
Proactive: On the street actively looking for crime
Control: The control group. Patrolled as usual. Sometimes responded to calls, sometimes actively on the street
Results of the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment
The different kinds of patrols saw no significant differences in crime rates, fear of crime, or public attitudes toward police
Ineffectiveness Explanations in the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment
- Police coverage spread too thin. Crimes took place between patrols
- Inability to prevent certain types of crimes. Many crimes are concealed
- Displacement effect, where patrols push crime into less monitored areas
Crime Investigation Main Objective
To reconstruct crime events through information gathering
Criminal Investigation Function
Preliminary investigation and follow-up investigations
Approximately 80% of arrests result from patrol officers’ initial response rather than detective work
Issues in Traditional Policing
Police patrols didn’t seriously reduce crime
Detectives didn’t reduce much crime
Arrests didn’t appear to significantly deter crime
Reactive policing didn’t seem to reduce crime
Use of private security forces
Alternative Policing Models
- Broken Windows Model (Kelling & Wilson, 1982)
- Zero-Tolerance Policing
- Problem-Oriented Policing
- Community Policing
Broken Windows Model (Kelling & Wilson, 1982)
Police need the community to work with them to fight crime
Argue that:
Neighborhood disorder creates fear and disorder
Disorder sends out crime-promoting signals
Police should get involved in a tough but impractical way at the 1st signs of deterioration. Community fixes it as well
Directly tied to Zero-Tolerance Policing approach
Zero-Tolerance Policing
Focus on order maintenance
Embraces “crime attack” model/suppression
Communities may not be able to police themselves
Concentrates on specific crimes
Place-specific oriented
Favors existing command structure
Get tough on crime approach - Julianni, Trump’s lawyer supports it
Problem-Oriented Policing
Direct resources at the causes of crime
Tackling underlying causes of crime, not just symptoms
Instead of directly attacking criminals, tries to solve the underlying problems
Community collaboration - New Jersey hot spot policing, Kansas City Gun Project
Community Policing
Strengthening community capacity to self-police
Police will sometimes not be there, but citizens will
Establishing decentralized “mini-stations”
Community-police partnerships focusing on disorder, decay and fear reduction
What we’re pushing for today
Regards higher rates of reported crime as a positive sign for police
Police engage in neighborhood watch, farm watch etc.
Traditional Policing - Comparison
Focus: Enforcement
Culture: Inward, rejecting community involvement
Organization and Command: Centralized
Measurement of Success: Arrests made & crime rates
Community Policing - Comparison
Focus: Community-building
Culture: Outward, building partnerships with the community
Organization & Command: Decentralized, more stations with fewer people spread out
Measurement of Success: Varied - crime calls, fear reduction, community linkages
Problem-Oriented Policing - Comparison
Focus: Law, order, and fear problems, but generally what the community needs it to be
Culture: Mixed, analysis-focused
Organization and Command Decentralized, with local command
Measurement of Success: Varies - problems solved, crime displaced, minimized effect on community
Zero-Tolerance Policing - Comparison
Focus: Problems that disrupt order, focusing on them in order to maintain said order
Culture: Inward, focused on attacking the crime problem
Organization and Command: Centralized or decentralized with internal focus, largely about maintaining traditional police hierarchy
Measurement of Success: Arrests, field stops, activity, location-specific crime reductions
Similar to traditional, but very aggressive
Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP)
Policing the “risk society” during the Information Age. Uses computer-assisted programs for identifying high-crime places and recidivists
Involves:
- predictive policing analytics
- focusing resources on known repeat offenders
- strategic multiagency collaborations
Global multi-agency partnerships
Arrests for Canadian Police
Can’t arrest and charge citizens - can only arrest
Indigenous women are overrepresented in prison system
Carding/Street-Checks
Stopping and questioning individuals not under arrest in Canada
