Pro-Active Policing
1
Pro-Active Policing
Dedicated to
2
Pro-Active Policing
About Kiran S (IPS)
3
Pro-Active Policing
PREFACE
4
Pro-Active Policing
Proactive Policing
Proactive policing is the practice of deterring criminal activity by showing police presence and
engaging the public to learn their concerns, thereby preventing crime from taking place in the first
place. In contrast, responding to a complaint after a crime has been committed is reactive
policing.
Proactive policing focuses on stopping crime before it happens, with the goal of reducing crime
and the fear of it, improving the lives of citizens in the community, and Improving the relationship
between the police department and the community it serves. To that end, police departments may
employ a variety of tactics. For example, law enforcement may increase foot patrols in a
community so that police officers readily and frequently interact with residents to form positive
relationships, building communication and trust. To reduce organized crime and drug dealing,
police officers may rely on informants, undercover investigations and secret surveillance. To steer
juveniles away from a life of crime, police departments may establish athletic leagues and work
with schools to combat truancy, drug crimes and other offenses common among youth.
Proactive policing can be contrasted with reactive police work, or police work in which police
officers are simply responding to citizens' calls for service. Police responses to 911 calls or calls
about loose animals in the neighborhood are a few examples of reactive police work. Simply put,
proactive policing is police action that occurs before a crime is committed; reactive policing is
activity that occurs after a crime has occurred.
Broken Windows: One of the Proactive Policing Strategies
The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of
urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that
maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public
drinking, and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby
preventing more serious crimes from happening.
The broken windows model of policing was first described in 1982 in a seminal article by Wilson
and Kelling. Briefly, the model focuses on the importance of disorder (e.g., broken windows) in
5
Pro-Active Policing
generating and sustaining more serious crime. Disorder is not directly linked to serious crime;
instead, disorder leads to increased fear and withdrawal from residents, which then allows more
serious crime to move in because of decreased levels of informal social control.
Black Law Theory:
In 1976 Donald Black introduced a scientific social theory on The Behavior of Law. Black defines
law as ―governmental social control.‖ In 1997, Wong restated Black‘s concept of law as ―more or
less governmental social control.‖ Law as more or less governmental social control exists when
the government endorses private social control activities or otherwise delegates social control
powers to private parties. This research used Wong‘s restatement of Black‘s concept of law to
investigate the law enforcement role and functions of the Strike Committee during the Canton-
Hong Kong strike (1925-1926).
The theory‘s subject matter is present wherever there are moral disputes, wherever one person
has a grievance against another, wherever one person defines another‘s behavior as deviant.
Conflict may occur wherever there is social life, then, and it may lead to arrests, restraining
orders, suicides, thefts, boycotts, protests, revolutions, and numerous other responses. But the
nature of the disputes themselves does not explain how they are handled. Some insults may lead
to homicides, for example, and some homicides may lead to executions.
Assumptions:
1. Maintaining a visible and proactive police presence in neighborhoods will deter crime and
criminal behavior, as well as reduce the public's fear of crime. Both goals are equally important
and contribute to enhancing trust between citizens and police.
2. Police officers must actively enforce laws even for low-level crimes and violations, before there
is a call for service. This will prevent more serious crimes in the future.
3. Law enforcement must shift away from using only reactive policing tactics (i.e., simply
responding to calls after a crime has occurred). This is important if police are going to
meaningfully contribute to reducing crime and the public's fear of crime.
6
Pro-Active Policing
4. To reduce crime and fear of crime, officers and agencies need to communicate effectively with
the communities they serve and increase levels of trust between citizens and officers in these
areas.
5. By developing effective strategies, law enforcement can help communities project the idea that
crime will not be tolerated.
Criticisms:
Some people argue that policing should rightfully be restricted to reactive policing with a corollary
that proactive policing is improper, if not illegal. Such arguments posit that investigating a crime
before it happens is outside the purview of policing altogether and introduces the realms of
parenting, education, employment, social integration, social welfare and social capital, among
other concepts, none of which is within the purview of the police. In the context of Broken
Windows metaphor, is it the job of the police to repair every broken window in town? Is it the job
of police to erase all graffiti or improve street and park lighting?
Certainly not. Therefore, the Broken Windows metaphor shines a spotlight on just how
inappropriate it is to consider the police force a solution to preventing crime. To the police force,
every problem implies need for punishment or the threat of punishment to coerce compliance.
Thus, because the police do not repair broken windows, they issue a citation to the resident or
building owner, which becomes simultaneously a criminal violation and extortion of money.
Should that citation not be paid, the "crime" now escalates. Similarly, as was determined in
Ferguson, MO, the city uses traffic, building, noise and other minor violations to extort money from
residents with a threat of further criminal prosecution and jail should they fail to pay or show up to
court. In this context, proactive policing is arguably immoral in a free society. A great example of
proactive policing going horribly awry is the now well-known metaphor of the school to prison
pipeline.
Civil Liberties
7
Pro-Active Policing
The state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with
regard to freedom of action and speech.
Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that
the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process.
Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom
from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of
press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security
and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the
law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include
the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the
distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive
liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.
The issue of civil liberties is a vital one to all Americans, if only because the Constitution is often
vague on what those rights actually mean. Even more confusing, there's a significant difference
between civil rights and civil liberties, a distinction that is small but crucial to understanding why
civil liberties are important and protected at all.
Examples of Civil Liberties:
The essential civil liberties guaranteed in the World are, in no particular order:
Right to privacy
Right to a jury trial
Right to freedom of religion
Right to travel freely
Right to freedom of speech
Right to be free from self-incrimination
Right to bear arms
Right to marry
Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of your property
Right to freedom of the press
Right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments
Right to legal counsel
8
Pro-Active Policing
Right to assemble peacefully
Right to vote
Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties:
It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area
known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal
treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such
as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are
guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted
through the years by courts and lawmakers.
According to some scholars, civil rights are legal actions that the government takes to create
equal conditions for all people. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution guarantees citizenship rights and equal protection under law. Therefore, all U.S.
citizens who qualify to vote have the right to do so and that right is enforceable by government
intervention. Other examples of civil rights include the right to be free from employment
discrimination based on race, gender, age, or disability, or equal access to health care and
social services.
Civil liberties, on the other hand, refer to protections against government actions. For example,
the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of religion. By
law, the government is prohibited from interfering in our individual choice of religion and
worship. We have "liberty" from government action or restraint.
Libertarianism:
Libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies that uphold liberty. Libertarians seek to
maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing the value of political freedom, voluntary
association, and the importance of individual judgment.
9
Pro-Active Policing
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that places the political and social value of personal liberty
over all other political values, even those like equality. Liberty is a political concept that means to
be free from undue or oppressive restraints on a person's actions, thoughts or beliefs imposed by
the State. A person with liberty possesses certain social, political and economic rights protected
from improper private and public interference.
In the most general sense, libertarianism is a political philosophy that affirms the rights of
individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection
of individual rights the primary role for the state.
The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them
can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something
resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century.
Individualism
Individual Rights
Spontaneous Order
The Rule of Law
Limited Government
Free Markets
The Virtue of Production
Natural Harmony of Interests
Peace
Community Policing
Community policing, or community-oriented policing, is a strategy of policing that focuses on
police building ties and working closely with members of the communities.
In the United States, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 established
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) within the Justice Department to
promote community policing.
Community policing is a policy that requires police to inherit a proactive approach to address
public safety concerns. Community-oriented policing was a cornerstone of the Clinton
10
Pro-Active Policing
Administration and gained its funding from the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act. The overall assessment of community oriented policing is positive, as both officers and
community members attest to its effectiveness in reducing crime and raising the sense of security
in a community.
Community policing is defined as involving three key components: developing community
partnerships, engaging in problem solving, and implementing community policing organizational
features. Explore the tabs below for more information on these central components of community
policing.
The United States Department of Justice defines community policing as a philosophy that
promotes organizational strategies in the community to combat potential situations that might
create public safety issues. For instance, crime, social unrest and fear of crime are all public
safety issues that community policing seeks to address.
Community alienation:
It is well known in law enforcement circles that the individual line officer wields an enormous
amount of discretion in enforcing the law (especially, non-dispatched runs like traffic enforcement
or street crime). What is surprising is the public belief that police are usually eager and motivated
to do their job. Thus, when a particular crime problem becomes apparent, it is often approached
by monetary related arguments, such as the need for more police, equipment, training etc.; rather
than by non-monetary related approaches, such as recognizing how a high perception
of alienation among police officers from the citizens of the community where they patrol reduces
morale and spawns police indifference and inactivity.
The experience of community alienation among police officers is closely tied to the experience
of mastery, the state of mind in which an individual feels autonomous and experiences confidence
in his or her ability, skill, and knowledge to control or influence external events. Community
policing requires departments to flatten their organizational pyramid and place even more
decision-making and discretion in the hands of line officers.
Examples of Community Policing:
11
Pro-Active Policing
A revitalized Neighborhood Watch program consisting on community coordinators watch
coordinators and block captains all working toward a common goal.
Citizen's Patrol groups throughout the City acting as eyes and ears to observe suspicious activity
and eliminate problems.
Safe Streets NOW! Working to get rid of nuisance properties through civil remedies.
The Drug Abatement Response Team (DART) involves the City Attorney, Housing Inspection and
the police in identifying properties that have a long history of ongoing narcotic activities. In a six-
month period, over 70 drug houses were targeted for abatement action.
Officers are able to spend more time working with citizens to solve crime and disorder problems.
With better police-citizen communication, officers can more effectively use and share crime
information with the public.
Officers who know both a community's problems and its residents can link people with other
public and private agencies that can help solve community concerns.
No single agency can solve complex social problems alone. A combined community-police effort
restores the safety of our neighborhoods and business districts.
Major Facts of Community Policing:
The focus of Community Oriented Policing is problem solving. POLICE WILL STILL RESPOND
TO EMERGENCIES. However, many calls to the police are not police related and are more
effectively handled by other agencies. As the number of non-emergency calls decrease, benefits
to citizens increase.
The impact of alienation is especially relevant as the contemporary community policing movement
emphasizes proactive law enforcement strategies. Effective community policing requires that
police officers work closely with local citizens in designing and implementing a variety of proactive
crime prevention and control measures. To accomplish these initiatives, it is crucial that officers
feel closely integrated with the majority of citizens in the community they serve. Typically, this
means that officers perceive themselves as sharing important community values and beliefs and
being confident of community support in the decisions they make.
Much rhetoric about getting tough on criminals or about establishing community policing lack the
understanding of why crime takes place and therefore are short-sighted in terms of possible
impact by the proposed policies. Typically, these policies are ideologically driven and if they have
12
Pro-Active Policing
any merit, there is a gap between what these programs propose and how they are being
implemented. Community policing is one such example. Recently touted by public officials as a
step in the right direction - some even suggest it as a panacea for solving crime - community
policing has been either misunderstood or not well, or fully, implemented.
Deadly Force
Deadly force, Force that is likely to cause, or that a person knows or should know would create a
substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm or injury
In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity
as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
Firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles are among those weapons the use of which
is considered deadly force. The use of non-traditional weapons in an offensive manner, such as a
baseball bat, sharp pencil, tire iron or other, may also be considered deadly force.
Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or
serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all
lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the
law. Private Citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense.
In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the
officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death
to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to
prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant
threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public.
A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the
following circumstances exist are:
Self-Defense:
13
Pro-Active Policing
When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who
reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
Serious offenses against persons:
When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious
offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious
bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).
Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices:
When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or
unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.
Special nuclear material:
When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or
unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment
where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
Apprehension:
When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a
person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in
paragraphs (a) (1) through (a) (4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or
explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious
bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.
Deadly Force Statutes:
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has a statute for deadly force that defines when all law
enforcement agents across the United States cannot use deadly force. Law enforcement agents
CANNOT use deadly force based on the offenders' nationality, race, gender, religion, or any other
14
Pro-Active Policing
discriminatory factor. According to the FBI statute, law enforcement agents can use deadly force
in the following situations:
Self-defense if there is immediate danger to the officer or bystanders
To stop an offender from using explosives that put others‘ lives in danger
Subduing an offender who has nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices
To prevent theft, sabotage, or control over a site that contains nuclear material
During apprehension if the suspect is posing a threat to the officer or bystanders
The FBI statute also requires that the law enforcement agent use a verbal command to tell the
suspect to stop before the use of deadly force.
Law enforcement agents have to make split second decisions. There are statutes that make it
legal for law enforcement agents to use deadly force, such as when they feel they are in danger.
The statutes also define situations in which deadly force is not lawful. Additionally, each individual
state has their own laws that govern and specify different circumstances in which deadly force can
be used.
Every year police in the United States kill hundreds of people 461 in 2013, according to
incomplete FBI statistics based on self-reporting from local law enforcement agencies and more
than 1,000 in 2014 according to killedbypolice.net, which combs through media reports.
Deadly force laws define the circumstances in which the use of deadly force is legal. Deadly force
can be defined as any physical force that is capable of causing death or serious bodily harm to
another person. When determining whether physical force was deadly or not, the court will usually
have to review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event.
The use of deadly force by the police remains a national issue. The deadly force issue has found
its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Court decisions have altered related laws across the
nation. Ironically, criminal law itself could not resolve the emerging issues and problems revolving
around the ―fleeing felon statutes‖ in various state jurisdictions. Eventually, citizens sought civil
damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and other landmark decisions that restructured criminal statutes,
the police use of deadly force, and law enforcement protocols.
15
Pro-Active Policing
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is
used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be
justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm
to yourself or other innocents.
Preventive police
Preventive police is that aspect of law enforcement intended to act as a deterrent to the
commission of crime. Preventive policing is considered a defining characteristic of the modern
police, typically associated with Robert Peel's London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829.
Preventive police refers to that aspect of law enforcement proposed to act as a deterrent to the
commission of crime. It includes all actions carried out by police with the intention of identifying
and preventing a specific crime or a type of crime. It may also include special investigation
techniques of secret surveillance.
An essential role of local government is to ensure community safety. Elected and appointed local
government officials who are held accountable for public safety need to understand how local
government can effectively control and prevent common public safety problems. In addition to
securing public safety for its own sake, a community‘s reputation for public safety heavily
influences its appeal as a place to raise a family or open a business.
Critical views:
More recent histories have considered the preventive principle in a more critical light, attempting
to reconcile its introduction with the broader social changes that were underway in late eighteenth
century Britain. An obvious problem with the celebratory tone such as the quote above is that
Patrick Colquhoun, although he claimed policing was a "new science" and embraced a utilitarian
approach to social problems, was not making an original contribution to English order, as he saw
it, based purely on scientific insights and British values of liberty.
Instead, he looked to France, where, in his view, they had achieved ―the greatest degree of
perfection‖ with their police. Others have noted that preventive police were sprouting up
16
Pro-Active Policing
in Glasgow, where he lived before moving to London, calling into question the significance of his
river police as a unique policing innovation.
The significance of preventive policing in eighteenth century metropolitan London is that
Colquhoun and the other utilitarian‘s were looking not just at the problem of crime, but to the
larger problem posed by the poverty of the working class and in securing private property. What
Colquhoun was looking to prevent was poor workers falling into the criminal sub-class.
His river police were targeting not just the handful of river pirates and "mudlarks," but workers on
the docks who treated payment "in kind" as part of their over-all wage that sustained them and
their families. Colquhoun estimated that one-third of dock workers were stealing, which is what he
sought to prevent.
By preventing these workers from stealing, they would become fully dependent on money wages,
and be disciplined by the wage system; one of the jobs performed by Colquhoun's police was to
set wage-rates of dock workers. Preventive policing, from this perspective, is therefore significant
for its role in developing the class system in industrializing England, as part of the broader
movement that included the enclosures and poor law to England.
Imagine that a rash of home burglaries is taking place in your neighborhood. The majority of
residents, including you, are very uneasy about the increase in crime and fear for the safety of
their families. There is tremendous pressure on the local police department to take action. At the
neighborhood watch meeting, the chief of police mentions instituting preventive policing.
Preventive policing is a term used in law enforcement for police patrols that are intended to deter
crime by being proactive in nature. It is an attempt by law enforcement to eliminate opportunities
for the commission of crimes.
Objectives of Preventive Policing:
There are five primary objectives for preventive policing are:
1. Deter the commission of crimes
2. Apprehend criminal offenders
3. Satisfy the public's demands for police presence
17
Pro-Active Policing
4. Establish a positive relationship between police and citizens
5. Locate and recover stolen property
Preventive patrols increase the visibility of a police presence. It is theorized that this presence
would deter people from committing crimes while easing the fears of citizens who live in the
targeted area. Going back to our earlier example, preventive patrols would be assumed to deter
those who are burglarizing homes and therefore decrease the number of home burglaries while
simultaneously allowing neighborhood residents to feel more secure.
Effectiveness of Preventive Policing:
The effectiveness of preventive patrol measures continues to be the topic of debate amongst
community law enforcement agencies. While some argue they are effective, others cite a
preventive patrol experiment conducted in Kansas City as evidence that they don't have the
effectiveness some perceive.
The more police we have, the less crime there will be. While citizens and public officials often
espouse that view, social scientists often claim the opposite extreme: that police make only
minimal contributions to crime prevention in the context of far more powerful social institutions,
like the family and labor markets. The truth appears to lie in between. Whether additional police
prevent crime may depend on how well they are focused on specific objectives, tasks, places,
times and people. Most of all, it may depend upon putting police where serious crime is
concentrated, at the times it is most likely to occur: policing focused on risk factors.
Eight Major Hypotheses about Policing and Crime:
1. Numbers of Police
2. Rapid Response to 911
3. Random Patrols
4. Directed Patrols
5. Reactive Arrests
6. Proactive Arrests
7. Community Policing
8. Problem-Oriented Policing
18
Pro-Active Policing
Reassurance Policing
Reassurance policing is a model of policing that centers on signal crimes. Developed in
the United Kingdom, reassurance policing aims to identify "signals", and involve the community in
solving community-related problems (similar to the community policing model).
The central theme of this article is that current police performance measures are largely
inadequate for capturing many dimensions of community policing practice. Focusing upon a
recent innovation in policing strategy in the United Kingdom, that of reassurance policing, an
argument is developed for alternative ways of thinking about police performance and how it can
be gauged. Drawing upon ideas and insights from social research methodology, it is proposed
that a more qualitative approach to police performance offers the potential for the development of
more meaningful forms of evaluation.
While crime rates in England and Wales have been falling, the perception has remained, for many
that crime is raising. It has also been assumed that fear of crime is high, although measures of
fear have been declining since the mid-1990s. Of greater concern is a concurrent decline in
confidence in the police. This ‗gap‘ underpins the need for reassurance as a means of gaining
legitimacy for policing decisions. We consider the background to reassurance policing and
examine interpretation at ground level through interviews with officers involved in a strategy trial
based upon a ‗signal crimes‘ perspective.
Reassurance policing was trialed in England from 2002 to 2005, emphasizing police visibility and
public consultation on locally identified priorities. In this article, I ask ‗whatever happened to
reassurance policing?‘ This may seem a strange question to ask. With the expansion of
neighborhoods and citizen-focused policing, the policing pledge, and a single public confidence
performance target, reassurance policing seems to be alive and well. However, by focusing on
four early intentions for a reassurance approach, I question this assumption. Reassurance is
found to be a part of British policing, but it could be much more. Contemporary examples where
policing could (and perhaps should) be more reassuring are provided.
19
Pro-Active Policing
A reassurance function for policing was first considered by American psychologist Charles Bahn
(1974: 338) as ―feelings of safety that a citizen experiences when he knows that a police officer or
patrol car is nearby.‖ This idea was taken forward in Britain by Martin Innes and colleagues in the
early 2000s through the development of a signal crimes perspective. At this time, British policing
implemented a National Reassurance Policing Program (NRPP) where local policing priorities
were decided through consultation with local communities. The impact of reassurance policing
has since spread and the approach has also been considered in Australia, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Sweden.
Reassurance policing‘ was developed in Surrey initially, to address the gap between the public
perception of rising crime and the falling crime rate. The idea grew from a paper written on behalf
of the Association of Chief Police Officers – Civility First – which first identified a ‗reassurance
gap‘ between the delivery of crime reduction and the perception of crime increasing on the part of
the majority of the public. The policing approach then developed through collaborative work
between Surrey Police and the University of Surrey, drawing on the ‗signal crimes‘ perspective
developed by Martin Innes. This perspective held that some crimes and disorders were more
important to individual members of the public than others and would act as signals which the
police needed to target if they were to reduce feelings of risk and increase perceptions of safety.
The NRPP grew out of trials of An evaluation of the impact of the National Reassurance Policing
Program x ‗reassurance policing‘ in Surrey Police and the Metropolitan Police Service, led by the
Chief Constable of Surrey, Denis O‘Connor and Assistant Commissioner Tim Godwin.
Crime and Anti-Social Behavior:
Across the sites, there was a positive program effect on self-reported victimization,
according to the survey. The decrease in victimization was five percentage points greater
for respondents in the trial sites compared to the control sites.
Two of the six sites had significantly greater reductions in total recorded crime than their
control sites, while three sites saw reductions in individual crime types.
Across the pair matched sites, there was a positive program effect on perceptions of five
of the eight types of anti-social behavior measured in the survey. Three of the six
individual sites showed reductions compared to controls.
20
Pro-Active Policing
Analysis of anti-social behavior incidents was only possible for one site, and there were
no data available for the control site. The total number of incidents fell significantly, as did
the number of criminal damage incidents.
There was a positive program effect on public perception of change in the crime rate over
the previous twelve months, in terms of an increase in the percentage of respondents who
thought crime had reduced. The percentage of people who thought crime had increased
over the previous twelve months did not change.
―Reassurance policing‖ is an approach to policing that emphasizes the importance of the police
communicating a positive image to the public, that the public is reassured that the police are doing
a good job. It is closely allied to ―community policing,‖ ―community-oriented policing services‖
(COPS), and ―neighborhood policing.‖
Saturation Patrol
A saturation patrol is a police or military patrol tactic wherein a large number of officers are
concentrated into a small geographic area. Saturation patrols are used for hot-spot crime
reduction, DUI checkpoints, and other location-specific patrols. The methodology employs
overwhelming force presence, via large concentration of patrol officers, to create a real or
perceived omnipresence, in the hopes that it deters crime inside and outside the actual patrol
location. Authorities also use them because of riots and riot officers together with horses or dogs
can assist.
Saturation patrols involve law enforcement deploying additional police officers to targeted
roadways during select time periods to detect and apprehend impaired drivers.
The primary focus for officers during these patrols is to find impaired drivers by observing
changes in driving behaviors, while also looking out for any traffic violations by motorists. The
behaviors most often assessed are: lane deviation, following too closely, reckless or aggressive
driving and/or speeding (Greene, 2003). The intention of this heavier police presence is to
increase motorists‘ perception that they will be arrested if they drive impaired. Saturation patrols
take place in all 50 states, and do not present many legal issues beyond those associated with
routine traffic stops.
21
Pro-Active Policing
Saturation patrols put large numbers of police officers in a small area to maximize the number of
DUI arrests.
Law enforcement has been stepping up its efforts to catch DUI drivers. Across California, police
departments view DUI enforcement as a tool to increase revenue from fines and create an image
of looking out for public safety. Many departments even receive special federal grants to fund
extra DUI enforcement. One of the most common ways they do this is through saturation patrols.
A saturation patrol (also called a blanket patrol, ―wolf pack,‖ or dedicated DWI patrol) consists of a
large number of law enforcement officers patrolling a specific area for a set time to increase
visibility of enforcement. (UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011, p. 1-20)
Saturation patrols look for impaired-driving behaviors, such as reckless or aggressive driving,
speeding, and following too closely. ―Like sobriety checkpoints, the primary purpose of saturation
patrols is to deter driving after drinking by increasing the perceived risk of arrest. To do this,
saturation patrols should be publicized extensively and conducted regularly‖ (UNC Highway
Safety Research Center, 2011, p. 1-20). Saturation patrols can have advantages over sobriety
checkpoints, including increased effectiveness, reduced staffing, and comparative ease of
operation (Greene, 2003).
The effects of a carefully monitored and increased police patrol on the report of crime were
examined in four patrol zones. Overall patrol movement was increased to four time‘s normal
levels and slow patrol movement (under 20 mph) to around 30 time‘s normal levels for 10 days.
The patrol was active in two zones between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and in the other two zones
between 7:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. A multiple-baseline design and time-series statistical analyses
showed statistically reliable changes in reported levels of Part I crime (such as robbery, burglary,
and aggravated assault) during both night patrols, but not in the day patrols. In both night-patrol
zones, there were also reliable increases from saturation patrol to post saturation patrol in report
of Part I crime after the night patrol was terminated.
As a community, we all support law enforcement efforts to protect us from theft, burglary and
assault. Yet, many otherwise law-biding citizens continue to view impaired driving merely as a
traffic offense. Don‘t be fooled. Impaired driving is no accident nor is it a victimless crime. As a
serious crime that kills more than 16,000 people and injure nearly 305,000 others every year.
22
Pro-Active Policing
Every 32 minutes, someone in America dies in an impaired driving crash. Every two minutes,
someone UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEM it‘ injured.
Saturation patrols involve assigning large numbers of extra squad cars to a specific area. They
can be conducted for a single night only, or every night for a period of weeks. Unlike a DUI
checkpoint, saturation patrols don‘t use roadblocks and they don‘t stop every car passing through.
Instead, individual squad cars look for any illegal driving, and can often catch dozens of people in
just a few hours.
Other differences include:
Saturation patrols are harder to avoid and do not have to be announced ahead of time
Whereas checkpoints mainly result in charges for DUI, driving without a license, and drug
possession, saturation patrols catch large numbers of people for speeding and other violations
as well
Saturation patrols tend to catch more drunk drivers total, and are easier for law enforcement to
organize
It is legal for police to conduct saturation patrols. In most cases being pulled over by a saturation
patrol is the same as being pulled over by any other police car. However, saturation patrols have
been criticized for targeting areas where minorities live.
A less-intensive strategy is the ―roving patrol‖ in which individual patrol officers concentrate on
detecting and arresting impaired drivers in an area where impaired driving is common or where
alcohol-involved crashes have occurred (Stuster, 2000). A ―how-to‖ guide for planning and
publicizing saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints is available from NHTSA (NHTSA, 2002).
(UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011, p. 1-20)
Effectiveness:
A demonstration program in Michigan revealed that saturation patrols can be effective in reducing
alcohol-related fatal crashes when accompanied by intensive publicity ([Fell, Langston, et al.,
2008]). Michigan is prohibited by State law from conducting sobriety checkpoints. In addition,
saturation patrols can be very effective in arresting impaired drivers. For example, in 2006
Minnesota‘s 290 saturation patrols stopped 33,923 vehicles and arrested 2,796 impaired drivers
([National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project, 1998]). (UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011,
23
Pro-Active Policing
p. 1-20) Saturation patrols have also been found to promote other safe driving behavior, such as
seat belt usage (Hedlund, Gilbert, et al., 2008).
Predictive Policing:
Predictive policing refers to the usage of mathematical, predictive and analytical techniques in law
enforcement to identify potential criminal activity. Predictive policing methods fall into four general
categories: methods for predicting crimes, methods for predicting offenders, methods for
predicting perpetrators' identities, and methods for predicting victims of crime.
Riding high in their squad car, officers Jamie Pascucci and Joe Kania are cruising the
neighborhood of Homewood, scanning the streets for trouble. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has one
of the highest murder rates among large U.S. cities, and violent crime is particularly severe in
Homewood, a 98% black pocket of aging, pock-marked Victorians on the east side. Young, white
officers from outside the neighborhood, Pascucci and Kania patrol using a mixture of police radio,
calls to their department's communications center, and instinct. They get occasional help from
Shot Spotter, a network of sensors that detects gunshots and relays the information to a laptop
mounted between the front seats.
In an age of anxiety, the words sound so reassuring: predictive policing. The first half promises an
awareness of events that have not yet occurred. The second half clarifies that the future in
question will be one of safety and security. Together, they perfectly match the current obsession
with big data and the mathematical prediction of human actions. They also address the current
obsession with crime in the Western world – especially in the United States, where this year‘s
presidential campaign has whipsawed between calls for law and order and cries that black lives
matter. A system that effectively anticipated future crime could allow an elusive reconciliation,
protecting the innocents while making sure that only the truly guilty are targeted.
Predictive policing, with roots in business analytics, relies on using advanced technological tools
and data analysis to take proactive measures to ―pre-empt‖ crime.
Predictive policing has been closely identified with the Los Angeles Police Department, who‘s
Chief of Detectives Charlie Beck defines it in these terms:
24
Pro-Active Policing
With new technology, new business processes, and new algorithms, predictive policing is based
on directed, information-based patrol; rapid response supported by fact-based prepositioning of
assets; and proactive, intelligence-based tactics, strategy, and policy. The predictive-policing era
promises measurable results, including crime reduction; more efficient police agencies; and
modern, innovative policing.
The term ―predictive policing‖ refers to computer systems that use data to forecast where
crime will happen or who will be involved. Some tools produce maps of anticipated crime
―hot spots,‖ while others score and flag people deemed most likely to be involved in crime
or violence.
Effectiveness:
The effectiveness of predictive policing was recently tested by the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD), which found its accuracy to be twice that of its current practices. In Santa
Cruz, California, the implementation of predictive policing over a 6-month period resulted in a 19
percent drop in the number of burglaries. In Kent, 8.5 percent of all street crime occurred in
locations predicted by Pred Pol, beating the 5 percent from police analysts.
In Chicago, a ―heat list‖ supposedly identifies the citizens most likely to be involved in a
shooting. In Los Angeles, Atlanta, Seattle, and a number of other cities, private company Pred
Pol is supposedly helping police to identify where property crimes and robberies might occur. As
those cities‘ predictive programs have gotten more and more attention, police chiefs have done
their best to get in on the action.
More police departments are trying to predict crime through computer analysis of data, part of the
growing trend of using algorithms to analyze human behavior. Advocates say this approach
focuses on those most likely to commit crimes, allowing for better relationships between police
and residents. But critics say the computer models perpetuate racial profiling and infringe on civil
liberties with little accountability, especially when the forecasting models are built by companies
that keep their methods secret.
25
Pro-Active Policing
A preliminary report from the FBI indicates that during the first half of 2013, violent crime dropped
5.4% in the United States relative to the same period in 2012. The drop was consistent for cities
both small and large — from under 10,000 inhabitants to more than 1 million — and across the
four U.S. geographic regions. The reduction was smaller than those for 2008-2009 (-6.1%), 2009-
2010 (-6.2%) and 2010-2011 (-6.4%), but it is a substantial improvement over the 1.9% increase
in violent crimes from 2011 to 2012.
Predictive policing systems typically rely, at a minimum, on historical data held by the
police — records of crimes reported by the community, and of those identified by police on
patrol, for example. Some systems seek to enhance their predictions by considering other
factors, like the weather or a location‘s proximity to liquor stores.
It should come as no surprise that the man who introduced computer-driven performance
management — known originally as Comp Stat — to policing, is generally credited with
envisioning how predictive policing could help fight crime. New York City‘s once and current
Police Chief William Bratton saw predictive analytics as a way to anticipate gang violence,
burglaries and thefts when he was chief of police in Los Angeles back in 2008. In 2011, the L.A.
police used predictive analysis to cut property crime by 12 percent in one neighborhood. Bratton
suggested that predictive policing could have a real impact when used in conjunction with existing
policing techniques, such as community policing.
Crime prevention has always been to some extent about prediction. Law enforcement officers
know by experience and by their street sense they can expect certain types of crimes in certain
areas of their jurisdictions at certain times. For example, it doesn't take the world's greatest crime
analyst to predict that auto burglaries will soar in shopping malls during the Christmas season or
that muggings will increase in working class neighborhoods around payday.
Predicting the success of a movie based on its online ratings
Many universities, sometimes in partnership with other firms use predictive analytics to
provide course recommendations to students, track student performance, personalize
curriculum to individual students and foster networking between students.
Predictive Analysis of Corporate Bond Indices Returns
26
Pro-Active Policing
The notion of predictive policing is attracting increasing attention from law enforcement agencies
around the United States as departments struggle to fight crime at a time when budgets are being
slashed, according to the New York Times. ―We‘re facing a situation where we have 30 percent
more calls for service but 20 percent less staff—and that is going to continue to be our
reality,‖ Zach Friend, crime analyst for the Santa Cruz Police Department, told the New York
Times. ―So we have to deploy our resources in a more effective way, and we thought this
model would help.‖
Problem-Oriented Policing:
Problem-oriented policing (POP), coined by University of Wisconsin–Madison professor Herman
Goldstein, is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of
specific crime and disorder problems, in order to develop effective response strategies. For years,
police focused on the ―means‖ of policing rather than its ―ends‖, according to Goldstein. Goldstein
(1979) called to replace what he termed the reactive, incident-driven ―standard model of
policing‖. This approach requires police to be proactive in identifying underlying problems which
can be targeted to reduce crime and disorder at their roots. Goldstein‘s view emphasized
a paradigm shift in criminal law, but also in civil statutes and the use of municipal and community
resources. Goldstein‘s 1979 model was expanded in 1987 by John E. Eck and William Spelman
into the SARA model for problem solving.
This strategy places more emphasis on research and analysis as well as crime prevention and the
engagement of public and private organizations in the reduction of community problems.
Problem-oriented policing is an approach to policing in which discrete pieces of police business
(each consisting of a cluster of similar incidents, whether crime or acts of disorder, that the police
are expected to handle) are subject to microscopic examination (drawing on the especially honed
skills of crime analysts and the accumulated experience of operating field personnel) in hopes that
what is freshly learned about each problem will lead to discovering a new and more effective
strategy for dealing with it.
Problem-oriented policing (POP) is an analytic method used by police to develop strategies that
prevent and reduce crime. Under the POP model, police agencies are expected to systematically
27
Pro-Active Policing
analyze the problems of a community, search for effective solutions to the problems, and evaluate
the impact of their efforts (National Research Council 2004).
In 1979 Herman Goldstein critiqued police practices of the time by noting that they were more
focused on the ―means‖ of policing than its ―ends.‖ He advocated for a paradigm shift in policing
that would replace the primarily reactive, incident driven ―standard model of policing‖ (Weisburd &
Eck, 2004) with a model that required the police to be proactive in identifying underlying problems
that could be targeted to alleviate crime at its roots.
Problem Oriented Policing is the primary strategy of Community Oriented Policing. The
community and police work together analyzing community problems and developing customized
responses to them.
Key elements of Problem-Oriented Policing:
Focus on problems of concern to the public.
Zero in on effectiveness as the primary concern.
Be proactive.
Be committed to systematic inquiry as a first step in solving substantive problems.
Encourage the use of rigorous methods in making inquiries,
Make full use of the data in police files and the experience of police personnel.
Group like incidents together so that they can be addressed as a common problem.
Avoid using overly broad labels in grouping incidents so separate problems can be
identified.
Encourage a broad and uninhibited search for solutions.
Acknowledge the limits of the criminal justice system as a response to problems.
Identify multiple interests in any one problem and weigh them when analyzing the value of
different responses.
Be committed to taking some risks in responding to problems.
A problem is the basic unit of police work rather than a crime, a case, calls, or incidents.
A problem is something that concerns or causes harm to citizens, not just the police.
Things that concern only police officers are important, but they are not problems in this
sense of the term.
28
Pro-Active Policing
Addressing problems means more than quick fixes: it means dealing with conditions that
create problems.
Police officers must routinely and systematically analyze problems before trying to solve
them, just as they routinely and systematically investigate crimes before making an arrest.
Individual officers and the department as a whole must develop routines and systems for
analyzing problems.
The analysis of problems must be thorough even though it may not need to be
complicated. This principle is as true for problem analysis as it is for criminal investigation.
Problems must be described precisely and accurately and broken down into specific
aspects of the problem. Problems often aren't what they first appear to be.
Problems must be understood in terms of the various interests at stake. Individuals and
groups of people are affected in different ways by a problem and have different ideas
about what should be done about the problem.
The way the problem is currently being handled must be understood and the limits of
effectiveness must be openly acknowledged in order to come up with a better response.
Initially, any and all possible responses to a problem should be considered so as not to cut
short potentially effective responses. Suggested responses should follow from what is
learned during the analysis. They should not be limited to, nor rule out, the use of arrest.
The police must pro-actively try to solve problems rather than just react to the harmful
consequences of problems.
The police department must increase police officers' freedom to make or participate in
important decisions. At the same time, officers must be accountable for their decision-
making.
The effectiveness of new responses must be evaluated so these results can be shared
with other police officers and so the department can systematically learn what does and
does not work. (Michael Scott and Herman Goldstein 1988.)
The police, community and City Council worked to attack drug and gang problems in the
Skyline and Meadowbrook community. Those efforts led to an organized community
association and a reduction in criminal activity.
A trolley station was the location of gang fights, violent crimes, and narcotic activity. A
squad of officers collected information to show the local transit board that the design of the
station contributed to crime. Based on the careful work of the officers, the board agreed to
provide funds to redesign the station.
29
Pro-Active Policing
Calls of narcotic activity at an 80-unit apartment complex alerted officers to try a problem
solving approach. Working with residents, the on-site manager, the management
company, the Housing Commission, and other police units, the officers were able to evict
problem residents and stop the drug dealing.
Evidence-based policing:
Evidence-Based Policing (EBP) is an approach to policy making and tactical decision-making for
police departments. It is an extension of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based policy.
Advocates of evidence-based policing emphasize the value of statistical analysis, empirical
research and ideally randomized controlled trials. EBP does not dismiss more traditional drivers of
police decision-making, but seeks to raise awareness and increase the application of scientific
testing, targeting and tracking of police resources, especially during times of budget cuts and
greater public scrutiny.
The new paradigm of ―evidence-based medicine‖ holds important implications for policing. It
suggests that just doing research is not enough and that proactive efforts are required to push
accumulated research evidence into practice through national and community guidelines. These
guidelines can then focus in-house evaluations of what works best across agencies, units, victims,
and officers. Statistical adjustments for the risk factors shaping crime can provide fair
comparisons across police units, including national rankings of police agencies by their crime
prevention effectiveness.
Works of Center for Crime Reduction Toolkit:
Intervention:
Alcohol ignition interlock Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
Alcohol tax and price policies for Domestic Violence
Alternative education programs Correctional boot camps
CCTV Criminal sanctions to prevent
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy domestic violence
Drunk driving (DWI) courts
30
Pro-Active Policing
Drug courts Neighborhood watch
Educational interventions to prevent Policies on hours and days of alcohol
relationship violence in young people sales
Electronic monitoring Restorative Justice (RJ) conferencing
Environmental design to prevent "Scared Straight" programs
robbery School-based programs to reduce
Increased police patrols to reduce drink driving
drink driving Second responder programs to
Juvenile curfew laws prevent domestic abuse
Mass media campaigns to reduce Sobriety checkpoints
drink driving Street lighting
Mental health courts Temporary release from prison
Minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) Therapeutic foster care
laws Transferring youths to the adult
Moral Resonation Therapy criminal justice system
Multisystem therapy Victim Offender Mediation
Music making interventions Wilderness challenge programs
Evidence-based policing in USA:
EBP is acknowledged by some senior police leaders as a valuable approach to improve
policing. The FBI Academy offers a course on EBP.
EBP has become the subject of debate in research journals, deliberating the extent to which
policing should be guided by experimental criminology. But there is consensus that more needs to
be done to bridge the 'translation gap' between frontline police officers and academics.
Evidence-based policing in Australia:
The Australia & New Zealand Society of Evidence Based Policing (ANZSEBP) was formed in April
2013 in Brisbane, Australia. The ANZSEBP is a police practitioner-led Society. The mission of the
ANZSEBP is to develop, disseminate and advocate for police to use scientific research (―the
evidence‖) to guide best practice in all aspects of policing.
The Society comprises both full members (current, serving police officers in Australia and New
Zealand) and honorary members including police staff members (non-sworn), research
31
Pro-Active Policing
professionals and others who aim to make evidence based approaches part of everyday policing
in Australia and New Zealand.
Evidence-based policing in Canada:
The Canadian Society of Evidence Based Policing (CAN-SEBP) was launched in April 2015 in
Manchester, UK, as an affiliate of the UK-based Society of Evidence Based Policing, as well as
ASEBP and ANZ-SEBP. CAN-SEBP is a collaborative effort between police practitioners and
academic researchers aimed at generating actionable research to inform policy, practice,
education and training in the field of public safety. Partners in the Society - who maintain
executive-level steering and oversight functions - include representatives from several Canadian
police forces and universities. Other agencies and researchers serve as active collaborators.
CAN-SEBP's membership consists of active and retired police officers, civilian police members,
applied policing researchers, graduate researchers and representatives from provincial, federal
and municipal community safety groups.
High Policing:
High policing is a form of intelligence-led policing that serves to protect the national government or
a conglomerate of national governments from internal threats; that is, any policing operations
integrated into domestic intelligence gathering, national security, or international
security operations for the purpose of protecting government.
The term "high policing" was introduced into English language police studies by Canadian
criminologist Jean-Paul Brodeur in a 1983 article entitled "High Policing and Low Policing:
Remarks about the Policing of Political Activities" and derives from the French haute police, the
political police force established in France under Louis XIV.
High Policing the term does not refer to the euphoria police may feel after an adrenalin generating
challenge is met, nor does it refer to policing while high, although both might accompany the
activities falling within the concept's broad meaning. In its original meaning it referred to the use of
political intelligence to preserve the power of the ruler, in particular as this involved stealth,
spying, espionage and intrigue. Yet, like barnacles that become attached to a ship, over time the
32
Pro-Active Policing
concept has evolved and layers of meaning have been added. The original ship is long gone, but
parts of it endure in new forms and settings throughout society.
The distinction between high and low policing is increasingly relevant in the wake of the terrorist
attacks of 11 September 2001. The paper reviews the content of the high policing paradigm and
addresses recent criticism. Its first part provides an update of the defining features of high
policing: absorbent policing, power conflation, protection of the state and use of covert informants.
It is, thereafter, argued that the high and low distinction is considered to run deeper than
anticipated by the various bodies reporting on the policing and intelligence failure to prevent 9/11.
In part three, the place of private security agencies in high policing is assessed. Private high
policing must be taken into account, but it only shares in some of the defining features of high
policing and is lacking in others. Finally, the contrast between high and low policing is examined in
relation to symbolic significance.
The article considers the nature and practice of high policing in the security control society. It
looks at the effects of the new information technologies on the organization of policing-intelligence
and argues that a number of ‗organizational pathologies‘ have arisen that make the functioning of
security-intelligence processes in high policing deeply problematic. The article also looks at the
changing context of policing and argues that the circuits of the security-intelligence apparatus are
woven into, and help to compose, the panic scenes of the security control society. Seen this way,
the habits of high policing are not the governance of crisis, but rather governance through crisis.
An alternative paradigm is suggested, viz.: the human security paradigm and the paper concludes
that, unless senior ranking policing officers—the ‗police intelligentsia‘—adopts new ways of
thinking; the already existing organizational pathologies of the security-intelligence system are
likely to continue undermining efforts at fostering security.
I want to direct you to a term High Policing – new way to look at modern policing methods and
emerging organizational changes in law enforcement. High policing of all sorts is still viewed by
scholars, judges, and politicians as ―corruption,‖ ―deviance,‖ and or ―scandal‖ and dealt with by
illusion and impression management. If we look at harassment endured by targeted individuals as
enhanced mobbing overseen by authority of the law (local, state, federal) it points to pre-existing
conflict at some level (most likely personal derived from monetary or influence issues) where
public resources are used to eliminate one party for the benefit of the other. No template exists as
to how and why harassment was initiated or by who as there is no viable ways to counter or
33
Pro-Active Policing
expose the abuse. If it were thoroughly exposed it would certainly generate as scandal. Common
man thinks about law enforcement as street policing – helping citizens, responding and solving
crimes. There is another hidden side of policing. It examines the phenomena in various contexts
without fear eliciting or sensational language like tyranny, police state, new world order,
dictatorship, etc. – it‘s not something new – it‘s been around for ages. It‘s another way to define
organized stalking – as one of the examples of high policing.
Policing political activities is usually regarded as deviant police action. The deviance approach
focuses on police abuse, which is deemed to be secretive and to confuse legitimate dissent with
political delinquency, such as terrorism. I take issue with the deviance approach and attempt to
replace it by distinguishing between high policing and low policing models of police action.
Political policing is then seen as a core feature of high policing instead of merely being a
suspicious peripheral aspect of the police apparatus. I also argue that mainly through
technological change, western police forces are increasingly operating under the high policing
model.
The term ―high policing‖ was introduced into English language police studies by Canadian
criminologist Jean-Paul Brodeur in a 1983. The term ―high policing‖ refers to the fact that such
policing benefits the ―higher‖ interests of the government rather than individual citizens or the
mass population. It also refers to the fact that high-policing organizations are endowed with
authority and legal powers superior to that of other types of police organizations. There is no
conventional designation for this category of policing in liberal democracies, however, and it
should not be conflated with secret police, although secret police organizations do use high
policing methods. Calling it ―secret‖ or ―political‖ policing is too vague since all police work is
somewhat secret. High policing has an extremely high potential for abuse. There is a tendency,
even in democratic countries, for high policing organizations to abuse their powers or even to
operate outside the law because many organizations involved in high policing are granted
extensive legal powers, including immunity from prosecution for acts that are criminal under
normal circumstances.
Peelian Principles:
34
Pro-Active Policing
The Peelian principles summarize the ideas that Sir Robert Peel developed to define
an ethical police force. The approach expressed in these principles is commonly known
as policing by consent in the United Kingdom and other countries such as Canada, Australia and
New Zealand.
In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their
powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by
consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general
consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in
exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.
The underpinning principles for policing in England and Wales, taken from HMIC‘s Annual
Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/14
Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary in 1822 and in 1829 established the first full-time,
professional and centrally-organized police force in England and Wales, for the Greater London
area.
The reforms introduced by Sir Robert Peel and the first Police Commissioners were based on a
philosophy that the power of the police comes from the common consent of the public, as
opposed to the power of the state.
The nine principles that underpin this philosophy were set out in the ‗General Instructions‘ issued
to every new police officer from 1829 onwards. The principles are still valid today and have
shaped the approach that HMIC takes when assessing how well police forces are working for the
public.
Police Commissioner William J. Bratton lists the following guidelines on his blog. There is some
doubt among scholars that Sir Robert Peel actually enunciated any of his nine principles himself
— some researchers say they were formulated in 1829 by the two first commissioners of
London‘s Metropolitan Police Department.
These nine basic principles are often referred to as ―The Peelian Principles.‖ Upon close
examination of each of the Peelian principles, not only are direct connections to policing in today's
35
Pro-Active Policing
world apparent, but often the nine principles are cited as the basic foundation for current law
enforcement organizations and community policing throughout the world.
Many law enforcement agencies currently quote the Peelian Principles on their community
websites as their own principles.
Robert Peel, known as the father of modern community policing, graduated first in his class at
Oxford in 1808 with degrees in mathematics, physics, and classic literature. Peel delivered a
widely acclaimed speech in January 1810 and began a career of social, economic, and legal
reform that lasted 40 years. He served as Britain‘s chief home secretary from 1812 to 1818 and
built a reputation for having a firm but compassionate personality. Peel helped establish a native
Irish police force to calm conflicts that arose in Ireland after its 1801 unification with England.
British evangelicals long had protested Britain‘s legal and penal system; its law enforcement
strategy involved tactics that some citizens found intimidating. Law-abiding individuals who
wanted to prevent crime formed disorganized groups with members serving as watchmen. Much
to their liking, Peel was sympathetic to these evangelicals.
Peel achieved sweeping penal reform and went on to establish the Metropolitan Police Act (MPA)
of 1829, which was instrumental in creating Britain‘s Metropolitan Police Force. In addition to the
MPA, Peel wrote what became known as the Nine Peelian Principles of Law Enforcement. These
principles essentially held that the police are the people, the people are the police, and crime
prevention is possible without heavy intrusion into citizens‘ lives.
Specific concepts, such as issuing badge numbers to ensure officer accountability and referring to
qualitative encounters with citizens, instead of counting the number of arrests, were concepts that
came out of Peel‘s community policing model. British officers instructed in the nine principles were
deployed into urban areas and were referred to by the locals as Peelers or Bobbies, a name still
used today.
These principles are:
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder
36
Pro-Active Policing
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police
actions
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law
to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to
the necessity of the use of physical force
5. Police seek and preserve public favor not by pandering to public opinion but by constantly
demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to
restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be
insufficient
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the
historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police
being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which
are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to
usurp the powers of the judiciary
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder not the visible evidence
of police action in dealing with it
Intelligence-led Policing:
Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is a policing model built around the assessment and management of
risk. Intelligence officers serve as guides to operations, rather than operations guiding
intelligence.
Calls for intelligence-led policing originated in the 1990s, both in Britain and in the United States.
In the U.S., Mark Riebling's 1994 book Wedge - The Secret War between the FBI and
CIA spotlighted the conflict between law enforcement and intelligence, and urged cops to become
"more like spies." Intelligence-led policing gained considerable momentum globally following
the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. It is now advocated by the leading police
associations in North America and the UK.
37
Pro-Active Policing
Although intelligence-led policing builds on earlier paradigms, such as community
policing, problem-oriented policing, and the partnership model of policing, it originated as a
rejection of the "reactive" focus on crime of community policing, with calls for police to spend more
time employing informants and surveillance to combat recidivist offenders.
Recently, intelligence-led policing has undergone a 'revisionist' expansion to allow incorporation of
reassurance and neighbourhood policing.
Since the 1990s, ―intelligence-led policing‖ (also known as intelligence-driven policing‖) has
entered the lexicon of modern policing, especially in the UK and more recently Australia. Yet even
with the ability of new ideas and innovation to spread throughout the policing world at the click of
a mouse, there is still a lack of clarity among many in law enforcement as to what intelligence-led
policing is, what it aims to achieve, and how it is supposed to operate. This can be seen in recent
inspection reports of Her Majesty‘s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in the UK (HMIC 2001,
2002), and in the lack of clarity regarding intelligence-led policing in the United States. A recent
summit in March 2002 of over 120 criminal intelligence experts from across the US, funded by the
US government and organized by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, may become a
turning point in policing within the US. The participants called for a National Intelligence Plan, with
one of the core recommendations being to ―promote intelligence-led policing through a common
understanding of criminal intelligence and its usefulness‖.
Intelligence-led policing is a business model and managerial philosophy where data analysis and
crime intelligence are pivotal to an objective, decision-making framework that facilitates crime and
problem reduction, disruption and prevention through both strategic management and effective
enforcement strategies that target prolific and serious offenders.‖
Police departments routinely improve their effectiveness and efficiency. They develop new
strategies and tactics for reducing crime and protecting the public. When implemented at street
level, even with proper planning, some strategies pose problems. Departments use simplistic
explanations, such as lack of resources, to explain strategic or tactical failures. Often, a more
complex explanation exists. Based on past examinations of policing strategies, implementation
problems occur when rank-and-file officers are not included in the planning process. Mid-level
38
Pro-Active Policing
police managers and street-level officers receive instructions from administrators to execute the
strategy.
The San Antonio Police Department has adopted a management philosophy and policing model
identified as Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP). ILP relies on a process of information gathering and
data analysis that results in the development of actionable criminal intelligence. In addition, the
traditional hierarchal structure of the department has been replaced with a flattened, cooperative
structure that can increase the collection of information and more rapidly deliver criminal
intelligence to field units. A key element of the ILP process is a commitment to engaging the
community as a partner in crime reduction efforts. The San Antonio Police Department actively
engages in collaborative partnerships with the community to increase information gathering and
improve intelligence, building on the philosophy of other models such as Community Oriented
Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing. Furthermore, the San Antonio Police Department is
committed to ensuring community‘s trust by adopting legal safeguards to protect the public's
privacy and civil liberties. ILP promotes increased information gathering, data analysis, and
collaboration to better respond to contemporary crime problems and more accurately predict
future crime trends.
Crime prevention implications:
ILP is often viewed as a management tool instead of a crime reduction strategy. Jerry Ratcliffe
claims ten benefits of the use of intelligence led policing:
1. Supportive and informed command structure
2. Intelligence-led policing is the heart of an organization‐wide approach
3. Integrated crime and criminal analysis
4. Focus on prolific and serious offenders
5. Analytical and executive training available
6. Both strategic and tactical tasking meetings take place
7. Much routine investigation is screened out
8. Data are sufficiently complete, reliable and available to support quality products that
influence decision‐making
9. Management structures exist to action intelligence products
10. Appropriate use of prevention, disruption and enforcement
39
Pro-Active Policing
ILP in Different Countries:
Intelligence-led policing gained its momentum in the 1970s, when the National Advisory
Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals announced that every law enforcement
agency should immediately create system for gathering and analyzing data. However,
agencies were not governed by polices and violated many civil liberties, resulting in many
agencies shutting down their intelligence functions by court order or voluntarily.
Intelligence-led policing in the UK has been applied as a specialized police practice involving the
identification and targeting of high-rate, chronic offenders, and devising strategic interventions
based on that intelligence. ILP originated as a problem-oriented strategy in the Kent and North
Umbria Constabularies in combating motor vehicle theft and other property crime.
In the Canadian context, the lineage of intelligence-led policing can be traced to the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police‘s failure to prevent the 1985 bombing of Air India flight 182. Post-event
analysis concluded that if the RCMP had had a better relationship with the Sikh community
in Vancouver, they might have acquired actionable intelligence alerting them to the plot by
extremists looking to establish an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region of India.
New Zealand has been experimenting with intelligence-led policing since the 1990s and has
implemented it throughout the New Zealand Police, which is the national police organization in the
country of New Zealand. Intelligence-led policing is encouraged throughout the districts of the
New Zealand Police, and is implemented throughout the country and is an implementation of
intelligence-led policing throughout an entire country.
Covert Policing or Undercover Policing
Covert policing in the United Kingdom are the practices of the British police that are hidden to the
public, usually employed in order that an officer can gather intelligence and approach an offender
without prompting escape.
Most British police forces have formed a unit solely for covert policing operations. One of the
forces that make extensive use of surveillance-led policing is Greater London's Metropolitan
40
Pro-Active Policing
Police. The Metropolitan Police unit was formerly a Specialist Operations designation devoted to
covert policing, which was SO10. Since then, most of the Specialist Operations units have been
disbanded or merged, giving way to SO10 being merged into the Specialist Crime Directorate to
be designated SCD10. Now designated as SC&O 10, it falls under the purview of Specialist Crime
& Operations.
The concept of covert policing evolved from that of community policing, but as criminality
advanced, covert policing was seen to be needed to combat this.
CID detectives usually do not wear a uniform, which stemmed from the foundation of the CID.
Because detectives are often concerned with the evidence gathering stage of an investigation,
they are assumed by many to be the officers required to survey suspects as they go around their
daily routines, however, this is not the case. Specialist Surveillance Teams exist which deploy a
number of covert tactics in order to gather intelligence and evidence of subjects.
The public expect law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to use all available powers and tactics to
prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety. There are a number of covert
tactics available to law enforcement ‒ undercover policing is one of them. Applied correctly, and
supported by appropriate training, it is a proportionate, lawful and ethical tactic which provides an
effective means of obtaining evidence and intelligence.
To go "undercover" is to avoid detection by the entity one is observing, and especially
to disguise one's own identity or use an assumed identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of
an individual or organization to learn or confirm confidential information or to gain the trust of
targeted individuals in order to gather information or evidence. Traditionally, it is a technique
employed by law enforcement agencies or private investigators, and a person who works in such
a role is commonly referred to as an undercover agent.
SCO35 Covert Intelligence:
SCO 35 is the Met‘s dedicated covert policing command. As a Detective here, you‘ll get an
incredible opportunity to serve and support every business group in the investigation of diverse
and complex criminality. Working in SCO 35, you‘ll be joining a team that already has a strong
reputation for delivering exceptional services, often in the most challenging of circumstances.
41
Pro-Active Policing
SCO35‘s work combats the most sophisticated and determined criminals and because of this, the
command has gained a national and international reputation for excellence.
SCO 35 supports several hundred operations at any one time and plays a significant role in
contributing to the arrest and conviction of the most wanted and dangerous criminals. All of their
work involves covert operations. If you find this an exciting way to expand your career, you‘ll be
learning from highly motivated and experienced professionals. Operations are varied and can
include:
Recovery of property involved in crime such as firearms, drugs or money
Sensitive handling of information received from communities regarding criminal activities
Deployment of undercover officers to gather information
Use of hostage crisis negotiators
Human and technical surveillance techniques to find, watch, listen to and follow people.
Undercover operatives (UCOs) hold an office, rank or position in an LEA. The role of UCO is
voluntary. They are selected, vetted, trained and accredited to gather evidence and intelligence.
UCOs are deployed under direction in an authorized investigation or operation in which their true
identity is concealed from third parties.
UCOs are bound by the code of ethics for policing and are subject to the regulations and
discipline code governing conduct in their respective LEA. Additionally, the national code of
conduct for UCOs sets out the professional and personal standards which all UCOs must adhere
to. A chief officer is responsible for overseeing adherence to both of these codes.
De-Policing:
De-policing is an Americanism for a police industrial action strategy of a work place slowdown. A
slowdown is an industrial action in which employees perform their duties but seek to reduce
productivity or efficiency in their performance of these duties. A slowdown may be used as either
a prelude or an alternative to a strike, as it is seen as less disruptive as well as less risky and
costly for workers and their union.
42
Pro-Active Policing
De-policing represents a de facto police strike, in which the police withdraw an aspect of their
crime prevention services. It is a practical police protest at perceived political interference in their
day-to-day task of policing.
Author Heather MacDonald has offered yet another interpretation for the term "de-policing." In her
book, The War on Cops, she uses the term as the antithesis for pro-active policing in general. In
the light of the Eric Garner case in Staten Island, NY and criticism of Broken Windows policing,
MacDonald has used this term to describe the NYPD's policy of backing away from actively
pursuing Stop and Frisk procedures as a primary method of crime prevention. Recent court
decisions like Ligon and Floyd have also contributed to the atmosphere of de-policing in many
areas of the country, but particularly New York City. Cities like Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD
have been similarly affected due to what is perceived as unfair and aggressive policing in minority
communities.
Critics have long claimed that when the law regulates police behavior it inadvertently reduces
officer aggressiveness, thereby increasing crime. This hypothesis has taken on new significance
in recent years as prominent politicians and law enforcement leaders have argued that increased
oversight of police officers in the wake of the events in Ferguson, Missouri has led to an increase
in national crime rates. Using a panel of American law enforcement agencies and difference-in-
difference regression analyses, this Article tests whether the introduction of public scrutiny or
external regulation is associated with changes in crime rates. To do this, this Article relies on an
original dataset of all police departments that have been subject to federally mandated reform
under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 — the most invasive form of modern American police regulation. This
Article finds that the introduction of § 14141 regulation was associated with a statistically
significant uptick in crime rates in affected jurisdictions. This uptick in crime was concentrated in
the years‘ immediately after federal intervention and diminished over time. This finding suggests
that police departments may experience growing pains when faced with external regulation.
The year 2015 has been a tumultuous one for police. Officers seem to have to respond to a rapid
mass murder incident about once every few weeks. The media‘s over-inflated coverage of such
events, coupled with the conflation of terms like ―active shooter,‖ ―active killer,‖ ―mass murder,‖
and ―mass shooting‖ make it all but impossible to put a definitive number on how many incidents
took place this year, but indisputably the issue has been on the front burner for LEOs in the past
12 months.
43
Pro-Active Policing
After viewing far too much news from the ‗unbiased‘ electric media and reading what self-
perceived experts on policing are spouting off, I have grown weary of their rhetoric. Every day
there is another shocking video of police officers performing dastardly actions with some
professor acting as an expert, offering play by play of the officer‘s draconian actions. My question
is what real policing experience does this intellectual possess? Oh that‘s right; he or she was a
crossing guard in grade school. Enough already from that side! After too many blog responses,
emails, phone calls and locker room banter, let‘s stop and look at this.
Officers have witnessed anti-cop rhetoric by politicians and protestors ratcheted up to levels we
haven‘t seen since the 1970s. Similarly, unprovoked sudden ambush attacks and assaults on our
officers harken back to the bad old days of the 70s. There is a serious lack of statistical data on
either of those trends, but it‘s easy to observe the uptick simply by watching the number of such
news headlines compared to years past.
In addition, vital life-saving equipment acquired by departments under the 1033 program has been
ordered to be returned to the federal government. At a time when armored vehicles and other
important gear is needed more than ever to protect officers and civilians alike, a presidential
st
pronouncement in October gave agencies until April 1 2016 to send the stuff back or be out of
compliance with federal regulations and at risk of losing federal funding.
Indeed, there have been myriad individual events and trends of consequence for law enforcement
in 2015, but none have the same potential for far-reaching future implications as the inexorably
linked phenomena of officers hesitating to act when action is necessary, and officers disengaging
from the practice of proactive policing. Many in the law enforcement universe have dubbed this
the ‗Ferguson Effect‘ — the consequence of Officer Darren Wilson losing his career (and his life
as he knew it) after justifiably using his sidearm to defend himself against a deadly threat on that
summer Saturday afternoon on Florissant Street in 2014. Let‘s examine each element.
Stop-and-Frisk Policing
44
Pro-Active Policing
The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is a practice of the New
York City Police Department in which police officers stop and question a pedestrian, then frisk
them for weapons and other contraband; this is what is known in other places in the United States
as the Terry stop. The rules for stop, question, and frisk are found in the state's criminal
procedure law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio. About 685,724 people were stopped in 2011. However, the
number of stops has been reduced dramatically since then, to 22,939 in 2015.
The vast majority of those stopped were African-American or Latino. According to a 2007 study,
this disparity persists even after controlling for "precinct variability and race-specific estimates of
crime participation". Over half were aged 14-24. In 2011 police stopped 46,784 women, frisking
nearly 16,000. While women represented only 6.9% of stops in 2011, guns were found in only 59
cases; but there were 3,993 arrests of women. Guns were discovered on 0.12% and 0.13% of
women and men respectively.
During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump again argued that stop-and-frisk was an
effective deterrent in New York, and that the policy hadn't been ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't
effective, and it was ruled unconstitutional.
Three years have passed since a Federal District Court ruled that New York City‘s stop-and-
frisk program violated constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure and
discriminated against minority citizens, who were disproportionately and unjustifiably singled out
for stops. A court-ordered reform process — overseen by an independent monitor — is off to a
promising start. But some of the thorniest and most contentious issues lie ahead.
Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers can legally stop and detain people only when they
have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a
crime. In New York, however, it became common for police officers to stop mainly minority
citizens, with no basis for suspicion, and then make up a reason.
The NYPD‘s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and
privacy rights. The Department‘s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity confirm what many
people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds
of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino.
45
Pro-Active Policing
An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police
stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino
communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10
stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD‘s own
reports.
New York police officer Adrian Schoolcraft made extensive recordings in 2008–2009 which
documented orders from NYPD officials to search and arrest black people in the Bedford-
Stuyvesant neighborhood. Schoolcraft, who brought accusations of misconduct to NYPD
investigators, was transferred to a desk job and then involuntarily committed to a psychiatric
hospital. In 2010, Schoolcraft sent his tapes to the Village Voice, which publicized them in a series
of reports. Schoolcraft alleges that the NYPD has retaliated against him for exposing information
about the stop and frisk policy. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), Latino Justice
PRLDEF, and The Bronx Defenders filed a federal class action against this program.
Monopoly on Violence
The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on
violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is a core concept of modern public law, which
goes back to Jean Bodin's 1576 work Les Six livres de la République and Thomas Hobbes' 1651
book Leviathan. As the defining conception of the state, it was first described in sociology by Max
Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is the "only
human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force.
However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a
particular area is one of the things that define a state." In other words, Weber describes the state
as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize
physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur
via a process of legitimation.
State monopoly on violence, in political science and sociology, the concept that the state alone
has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force. It is widely regarded as a defining
characteristic of the modern state.
46
Pro-Active Policing
The legitimate state monopoly over the means of violence is a condition in which a state‘s security
forces operate lawfully under a legitimate civilian authority, where actors conduct themselves in
accordance with democratic norms and principles of good governance.122 This condition exists
when armed groups from the conflict are disarmed, demobilized, and reintegrated into society and
a military and police force is vetted, retrained, and monitored on human rights principles.
Many states in Latin America, Africa and Asia lack the monopoly of violence, identified by Max
Weber as the foundation of the state, and thus the capacity to govern effectively. In this paper we
develop a new perspective on the establishment of the monopoly of violence and the formation of
the state. We build a model to explain the incentive of central states to eliminate non-state armed
actors (paramilitaries) in a democracy. The model is premised on the idea that paramilitaries may
choose to and can influence elections. Since paramilitaries have preferences over policies, this
reduces the incentives of the politicians they favor to eliminate them. The model also shows that
while in non-paramilitary areas policies are targeted at citizens, in paramilitary controlled areas
they are targeted at paramilitaries.
Every time you hit a pothole in the road, every time you see a policeman writing someone a ticket
on a road with potholes, ask yourself, "Why is no one writing tickets for unsafe potholes? ―The
simple answer to the pothole question is:
We create governments to monopolize violence to coerce compliance with laws, to mitigate the
Law of Nature. Men seeking to control the power of government, seek power to apply violence to
other men, exempt themselves from violence with sovereign immunity.
The police kicked down the crack house door and served a search warrant after detaining the
residents at gunpoint. "That is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is the monopoly on
violence." - President Obama Soldiers are authorized to kill during war. Normally this is the highly
illegal act of murder.
The monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force is a political concept formalized by the
sociologist Max Weber, in his 1918 speech Politik ALS Beruf (Politics as a Vocation).
Weber argued that the state cannot be characterized by its ends, since there are very few goals
which no state would ever seek to achieve, and no particular task which is both exclusive to the
state, and also unique to the state.
47
Pro-Active Policing
He concluded therefore that the state must be characterized by the means which it, and only it,
has at its disposal: "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory".
There are several caveats which apply to this basic principle:
Weber intended his statement as an observation, stating that it has not always been the case
that the connection between the state and the use of violence has been so close. He uses
the example of the Catholic Church, which historically placed limits on the absolute authority
of the state which effectively were removed by later Protestant thought.
The actual application of force is delegated or permitted by the state. Weber's theory is not
taken to mean that only the government uses force, but that the individuals and
organizations which can legitimately use force or adjudicate on its legitimacy are precisely
those authorized to do so by the state. So, for example, the law might permit individuals to
use violence in defense of self or property - in this case the right to use force has been
granted by the state, and only by the state. The state might also delegate certain tasks
requiring the use of force to other bodies, such as law enforcement to the police.
Advantages and Disadvantages of 'Reactive' and 'Proactive' Policing.
Both Reactive and Proactive police investigations are used in Britain today in order to apprehend
and punish criminals for breaking the law, from crimes like burglary and assault, to much more
serious crimes such as drug dealing, fraud and murder. The crime control model states how
important law enforcement is, as, unless criminal conduct is kept under tight control, the view is
that there will be a breakdown in public order and a limit to human freedom. This essay aims to
introduce and describe the two methods of policing and also to discuss their advantages and
disadvantages. In conclusion, both reactive and proactive methods of policing are invaluable and
necessary if practiced alongside one another.
48
Pro-Active Policing
Reactive aims to deal with the consequences of crime and the victims, whereas proactive is a
more crime preventative measure, aiming to stop the crime before it happens. There is much
scope for improvement inside the system and many problems, such as the time consuming
reactive work, which allows the officers little time for anything else. Also the proactive approach
only works if the forces have adequate staff, equipment and training to deal with the demand on
them.
Proactive Investigation
The type of activity investigators engage in and the material gathered varies depending on
whether investigations use the reactive or proactive method. However, they all go through similar
stages, as shown in the process of investigation diagram.
Every investigation is different and may require a different route through the process, e.g., in
some cases the identity of the offender is known from the outset and the investigation quickly
enters the suspect management phase. In others, the identity of the offender may never be known
or is discovered only after further investigation.
Criminal investigations can be either reactive, where the police respond to a crime that has
already occurred, or proactive, where the investigation may go on before and during the
commission of the offense.
The reactive criminal investigation process can be organized into several stages. The first stage is
initial discovery and response. Of course, before the criminal investigation process can begin, the
police must discover that a crime occurred or the victim (or witness) must realize that a crime
occurred and notify the police. In the vast majority of cases it is the victim that first realizes a
crime occurred and notifies the police. Then, most often, a patrol officer is dispatched to the crime
scene or the location of the victim.
The second stage, the initial investigation, consists of the immediate post-crime activities of the
patrol officer who arrives at the crime scene. The tasks of the patrol officer during the initial
49
Pro-Active Policing
investigation are to arrest the culprit (if known and present), locate and interview witnesses, and
collect and preserve other evidence.
Reactive cases present themselves to law enforcement through a variety of avenues that require
different types of law enforcement responses. Law enforcement may encounter a potential
trafficking victim in the course of their law enforcement duties. They may arrest a trafficker on
other crimes and encounter victims. They may conduct an enforcement action where they
encounter potential victims of human trafficking.
Some sex trafficking cases are initiated when a street officer arrests or interacts with a person
engaged in prostitution. Labor trafficking cases may also be reactive if a victim escapes and
interacts directly with law enforcement or if a nongovernmental organization (NGO) or Good
Samaritan contacts law enforcement. A raid or sting operation to seize evidence to develop a
prosecutable case may occur in multi-victim sex and labor trafficking cases, in which it is
appropriate to identify and offer services to victims.
Proactive investigation is conducted in response to information on an ongoing criminal activity
obtained through intelligence-gathering or from reports of witnesses. In these situations, there is
no imminent threat to witnesses, meaning that investigators do not have to respond immediately.
Investigators can therefore plan their activities to collect evidence according to operational plans
and resources. In proactive responses, investigators: Can decide where and when to start
investigative operations, Can control the direction of the investigation, Can remain in control of
investigations until the final outcome Proactive investigation is more effective because the
investigators control the investigation. If the investigation is conducted successfully, traffickers will
not know when, how or where they are being investigated.
Instigation:
A criminal investigation can be instigated using either a reactive or proactive approach.
Reactive investigations can start with:
Reports From The General Public
Referral By Other Agencies
Intelligence Links To Other Crimes (Linked Series)
50
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search