srothstein wrote:Well, most of the points here are valid and to be considered, but i wanted to take the other side for a little bit. There is a theory among a group of police who believe their job IS to prevent crime. This is based on two assumptions. The first is that arresting criminals for small crimes will prevent them committing larger crimes (as Excaliber pointed out). The second is a different point of view from Excaliber's on the presense of the officer.
I contend that i did not merely displace the crime, but I actually prevented it (I will grant I displaced some but I also prevented some). Of the crimes that I did displace, I enabled further prevention efforts by making it easier to catch the criminals (being moved from their target area makes them less likely to be successful). Obviously, there is no way to prove whether I merely displaced the criminal or actually prevented him. When I last worked on this (1990 time frame) we saturated an area with officers and the crime rate went down. Some surrounding areas had increases, but not the same increase as the decrease. This led me to believe in this theory as actually preventing some crime.
So, I subscribe to two theories in law enforcement. The first is the high visibility patrol theory and the second is the broken window theory.
The high visibility theory says that if I make the officers on patrol stand out more, crime will decrease. As pointed out, you are less likely to even speed when you know there is an officer nearby, so the more I can make it seem like there is one close, the less crime I should see. I like red patrol cars with reflective stripes and overhead bars. The more you see the police, the more you think they are there (actually even thinking there ar emore of them than there really are). Unmarked cars and "slick tops" (traffic cars witht he lights in the grill instead of overhead) do encourage crime to occur so they can catch the criminal. I prefer to discourage it to begin with.
The broken window theory says that the police should be making extreme efforts to arrest for all crimes, even minor ones like someone breaking a window. It goes further to enlist the community in getting rid of the empty houses/buildings to discourage crime, but the effort to arrest and convict for simple crimes is alleged to help prevent the bigger ones. I believe in this theory and support it.
You can help determine which theories the police in your neighborhood belong to. Get active and meet with the Chief and the city manager and councilmen. Express your opinion on how your police should work. They are your employees and you get to have a say int he matter (or you should).
As a side, there are valid reasons for a cop to commit a crime to ctch a criminal. Stings can be the only way to catch some criminals. This is not really inducing the other person to commit the crime but making it possible for someone who wanted to already. Inducing a person to commit a crime is entrapment and is illegal. Permitting someone to do what they wanted to is not. There is a moral question as to whether or not we should have those actions as crimes (such as drugs or selling alcohol to minors) but that is not a police question. That is a legislator question and solution.
I generally agree with Steve on most points here, and do not see them as conflicting what I posted earlier. His thoughts provide a more nuanced and philosophical / strategic approach from the law enforcement side, while I directed my post toward the practical implications of law enforcement realities for the citizen.
High visibility patrol and "broken window theory" enforcement efforts (both of which I used extensively when those were my decisions to make) are highly effective in reducing the crime levels where they are employed
if they have strong support from the community. Without that support, the community can impose its own will by using youngsters as paid lookouts for drug transactions, allowing use of apartments for illegal activities on a random basis, refusing to act as witnesses, and other similar steps. The amount of manpower it would take to overcome these actions is simply not available.
I also agree that some crime is actually prevented (although I prefer the word "deterred.") In my experience, this effect occurs primarily with "optional" crimes (ones without a lot of emotional drivers) behind them. Petty vandalism, graffiti, public intoxication, etc. can be cleaned up pretty readily with the appropriate level of effort and community support. Drug crimes, burglary, car theft, robbery, homicide, etc. are a lot tougher. I had no illusions that my patrol and enforcement policies led to people abandoning their drug habits by the score. In my experience, these crimes and other similar ones are the types that are displaced from one area which becomes too risky to another generally nearby area that isn't as hostile to these activities.
My overall view is that, given an adequately staffed, well trained, well equipped, and highly motivated police force, each community will have the level of crime it will tolerate. Its inhabitants will work with the police to deter and investigate anything above that, and crimes in this category become excessively high risk for the perps. In some communities, that means someone will call in complaints for littering, and other neighborhoods set the bar a bit higher at homicides or somewhere in between.
As a short term practical matter for the citizen, however, the abbreviated synopsis I provided in my earlier post provides the most practical frame of reference. Police provide generalized protective services to a community, not to individuals, and this has been established firmly in the courts as a matter of law. Police who are not actually present at your location do not provide effective protection to you if a criminal decides to target you at that moment in time. Anyone who thinks they will is bound to be disappointed if that belief is ever put to the test.
If anyone doubts that, call up a senior police commander in your jurisdiction and ask him if he will guarantee to keep you as an individual free from harm. You could save time by looking at the crime stats for your municipality and asking yourself how all those crimes could have happened if the police protect individuals. You could gain a more personalized touch by watching America's Most Wanted and listening to the 911 calls from folks who were actually being murdered as they begged for help on the phone.
The simple fact is: police are not an occupying army and are spread thin. They aren't staffed or configured to protect specific individuals (outside of government protection details) unless they either detect an unfolding incident by targeted patrol, investigative efforts, or luck, or they are notified in time to respond and intervene before harm to innocents occurs.
As a practical matter, anyone who is faced with a here and now criminal attack is on his or her own until the police can be notified, transit the distance between where they started from and where the incident is occurring, and take effective action. For better or worse, citizens are on their own during this interval, and should make their preparations accordingly.