User:JSostakas/New sandbox

This new sandbox is meant to be used for Josh S, Tiffany K and Jo S for the evaluation/critique of the Community Policing page for our CRM 620 group project.

Common criticism's associated with Community Policing (CP) are:


 * 1) How CP is defined within the law enforcement community
 * 2) The definition of the term "Community" and what it means for the area that one may be in
 * 3) How Law Enforcement Agencies should implement community policing policies

Community Policing as a theory within the criminology field has had a hard time in becoming an accepted theory. One of the main reasons for this is the term "community", this terms meaning has shifted over time. The term community within CP relies heavily on two core components: community partnerships and problem-solving. Community policing for most law enforcement officers does not generally produce the results that they desire, which includes arrest rates and "crime fighting" which causes departments to push away from adopting the C.P. program. Many individuals who theorize on community policing do not understand the terminology and ideology. It is with this problem that causes an ineffectiveness of the CP projects within law enforcement agencies who desire to improve the lives of all people involved.

The next area of concern that occurs within community policing is the tendency of departments to offer specialized units to deal with with community policing, rather than implementing community policing at the department level.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Criminologists have raised several concerns vis-a-vis community policing and its implementation. On the broadest conceptual level, many legal scholars have highlighted that the term "community," at the heart of "community policing," is in itself ambiguous. Without a universal definition of the word, it is difficult to define what "community policing" should look like.

Others have remained skeptical of the political ambition behind community policing initiatives. For example, in 1984 Peter "Tank" Waddington cautioned that the "largely uncritical acceptance with which [the notion of community policing] has been welcomed is itself a danger. Any proposal, however attractive, should be subjected to careful and skeptical scrutiny." In particular, Waddington voiced concerned that community policing was merely a restoration of the "bobby on the beat" concept, which had nostalgic appeal because it was less impersonal than the officer "flashing past" in a police car. He said that the former was a "romantic delusion", because "there was never a time when the police officer was everyone's friend, and there will never be such a time in the future." He also believed that order could only be maintained by the community itself, and not by the police alone. Similarly, C. B. Klockars and David Bayley both argue that community policing is unlikely to bring fundamental change to how police officers work, with Klockars calling it "mainly a rhetorical device". Steven Herbert has also argued that the progressive and democratic ethos of shared governance inherent in community policing runs counter to central elements in police culture and more widespread understandings of crime and punishment. Conversely, Charles P. McDowell argued in 1993 that community policing was a radical departure from existing ideology, and therefore implementing it would take time.

Yet another set of criticisms revolves around the potential efficacy of community policing. David Bayley has argued that enacting community policing policies may lead to a reduction in crime control effectiveness, maintenance of order in the face of violence, increase in bureaucratic and governmental power over community affairs, increases in unequal treatment, and an erosion of constitutional rights. According to Stenson, there is a major dilemma within community policing: when practicing community policing, police officers have the tendency of getting too involved with trying to institute "particularistic community normative standards". This in turn could be problematic, in that it could entice corruption or vigilantism.

---

JUST FOR REFERENCE

Criticism of community policing.


 * 1) Ambiguity of community********
 * 2) Department implementation***********
 * 3) Inaccuracy of what CP is*******
 * 4) Doesn’t produce arrests and ticketing
 * 5) Department specialization versus whole wide

Community policing has a difficult time becoming an accepted theory and implemented idea due to an inability to hold the definition of community to a standard meaning, throughout time the idea of a community has shifted from being those directly around oneself to those on the internet, inter-community and so on, it’s an always changing entity. Correia 2000. Community policing does not generally produce what most law enforcement officers generally desire which includes arrest rates and “crime fighting” which pushes departments away from a desire to adopt the program. Corsianos 2011. Many individuals whom speak and theorize on community policing get the terminology and ideology incorrect, this projects ineffectiveness in departments who desire to implement due to lacking knowledge of the subject, it isn’t just about officers walking a beat versus being car bound but rather is about getting citizens involved and working alongside law enforcement to better the lives of everyone involved. Another issue that occurs with community policing is the tendency to offer specialized “community policing” units rather than implementing community policing on a departmental level.

CRITICISM OF COMMUNITY POLICING

In questioning community policing, Weatheritt (1983) thought that it might not be realistic to set objectives for the police and then to expect the police to establish schemes to meet those objectives. Waddington (1984:84) stated that "The largely uncritical acceptance with which this notion has been welcomed is itself a danger. Any proposal, however attractive, should be subjected to careful and skeptical scrutiny." He further noted that since order could only be maintained by a community itself, the police alone cannot do it. Although the police officers need the consent of citizens to be effective, in many instances that consent is not given. He thought that if the police then change back to law enforcement to get the job done, then the community will feel that community policing was abandoned. Waddington (1984:91) felt that community policing was nothing more than a restoration of the "bobby on the beat" concept of policing, because it was less impersonal than the officer "flashing past" in a police car. Waddington (1984) concluded that community policing was a "romantic delusion" because it was not based on "the world we have lost" as some supporters are claiming. According to him, there was never a time when the police officer was everyone's friend, and there will never be such a time in the future.

Short (1983:80) was afraid that, if the police get involved in community development, it would pose "serious questions of political accountability." She went further to explain that to pretend that police neutrality will uncover simple remedies or solutions for "disadvantage and inequality" is either a "naive delusion" or "implies an expansion of the political powers of the police which carries dangerous implications" (Short, 1983:80). McDonald (1993:153) warned that "Without better internal guidance the initiative is like a dangerous weapon launched in a general direction but capable of going astray." He concluded (1993:165) that "community policing is an ill-defined and internally contradictory vision that would sacrifice legality, liberty, and efficiency for democracy and order." It seems that McDonald (1993) did not support democracy as the preferred form of government and did not care for law and order in communities, as the majority of law abiding citizens hopefully do. One also wonders which version of community policing McDonald (1993:165) referred to when he wrote "Community policing does not enhance the rule of law and, in some versions, may well subvert it." Mastrofski (1988:61) claimed that "Justifying police and what they do has always been problematic in democracies". If there was a democracy where no crimes are committed then we would not need any police. However, as long as crime is on the increase it seems that law abiding citizens will have enough reasons to justify the need for police in their country and communities.

Klockars (1988) argued that the police forces do not really want to make any changes to their behavior and are using community policing to gain legitimacy. Eck (1993:73) felt that community policing will not reduce the tension between the police and the public, but "At best they will make police actions more acceptable to the public, even if due process is violated." To overcome some of this, Mastrofski and Greene (1993:99) suggested that "the impetus for community participation must be sustained more by the community's continuing commitment to achieve it than by police willingness to try it." They also stated that if community policing was something more than just rhetoric, then the police would not implement it. Weatheritt (1988:174) wrote that community policing fails to address the problems of practical and constitutional limits to police actions and that the concept is seductive to the public only because it is vague.

Bayley (1988:225) stated: "It is probably fair to say that community policing in 1988 is more rhetoric than reality." Buerger (1993:121) contended: "Reinventing the police is all but impossible; the police rank-and-file energetically defend their prerogatives. Reinventing the community is almost as difficult; the most that can be done is to redefine it in symbolic terms." Alexander (1995:93) claimed that community policing programs give very little real power to the community. He also argued that "the programs have seldom served as a handle for real reform of brutal police departments and are in most cases cosmetic at best." Manning (1988:40) claimed: "Community policing is no different from other police strategies aimed at shaping and manipulating public opinion." Since the police control all information about crime and disorder, he believed that they use rhetoric in "political dramas" to manage impressions of their power and efficacy. Wycoff (1988:116) presented the possibility that once the police and the members of the public work together too closely, there could be an increase in police corruption.

Critics also point to the failure of some patrol experiments to reduce the crime rate and use the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al, 1991) and the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment (Pate, 1986) as their prime examples. However, it should be noted that these experiments were limited to patrol activities alone and cannot honestly be described as failed community policing projects. Greene and Taylor (1988) claimed that the numerous design and analytical shortcomings of these studies indicated the poor theory on which they were based. Klockars (1988:247) added to that by saying that Skolnick and Bayley (1991) did not have any critical reservations as to the capacities and limits of community policing. "Police can no more create communities or solve the problems of urban anomie than they can be legalized into agents of the courts or depoliticized into pure professionals" (Klockars, 1988:257).

Another Possible Article that can be used is

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292966064_Community_Policing