Assignment 1: Impersonal Policing Vs. Community Policing

Assignment 1 Impersonal Policing Vs Community Policingthe Use Of Squ

Assignment 1: Impersonal Policing vs. Community Policing The use of squad cars and preventive patrol strategies was associated with a move toward police professionalism and a rejection of favoritism and corruption. After all, if the officer simply patrols the city in his or her car and reacts or responds to crimes as they occur, then there is no opportunity for the officer to indulge in corruption or to develop relationships with the citizenry that could compromise his or her objectivity and impartiality. A police officer dispatched to a dispute between neighbors or neighboring shopkeepers, neither of whom the officer has met, will presumably be able to bring a sense of objectivity to the dispute that one would expect of a neutral, noninvested third party.

Then, the community policing model was introduced. Officers were told to get out of the cars and get to know shopkeepers and residents. Proponents of community policing argue that the rapport established with friends and acquaintances will allow the officer to resolve a dispute in a quicker, more informal, and less dramatic ways than would be the case otherwise. However, a police officer dispatched to a dispute in which the officer knows one or more of the parties may have a difficult time being neutral and objective. It may be difficult for the officer to tell a citizen who happens to be a friendly acquaintance of the officer that he or she is wrong, or worse, that he or she is going to get a citation or is going to jail.

Using the Argosy University online library resources, find at least two articles on community policing. To read more about community policing refer to the title "Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)" in the Webliography. This is a premier federally funded research organization and think tank incorporated in 1977. Some of policing's most significant empirical studies, such as the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment and the San Diego experiment on one- vs. two-officer squad cars, were sponsored by the PERF. Submission Details: By Saturday, April 30, 2016, in a minimum of 250 words, post to the Discussion Area your response to the following: Is there a possibility of corruption when officers develop working or friendly relationships with members of the public as part of a community policing strategy? Why? Are officers likely to treat citizens impartially when they've interacted informally with them on a regular basis? Or is the pursuit of an impartial, "just the facts, ma'am" kind of relationship with the public a mistake on the part of policing? Do impartiality and barrier-of-police professionalism result in a lack of communication with the public, resulting in inefficient problem solving and effectiveness? On the other hand, are officers who have invested time and energy into building personal relationships with people better communicators and, therefore, more effective as police officers? Be sure to support your positions by citing your research. By Wednesday, May 4, 2016, read and respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by addressing issues brought up in their posts. Note that a simple agreement or disagreement with another student's post will not be considered a substantive response. Discussion Grading Criteria and Rubric All discussion assignments in this course will be graded using a rubric. This assignment is worth 40 points. Download the discussion rubric and carefully read it to understand the expectations.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate between impersonal policing, characterized by traditional police patrols and a focus on neutrality and professionalism, and community policing, which emphasizes close interactions and relationships with community members, raises important questions regarding efficacy and integrity in law enforcement. At the heart of this discourse lies the concern about potential corruption and bias that may arise from officers developing informal or personal relationships with civilians, an aspect central to community policing efforts.

Impersonal policing, often exemplified through the use of squad cars and preventive patrol strategies, was rooted in the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and professionalism. These methods aimed to minimize opportunities for corruption and favoritism by limiting direct interactions between officers and individuals. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, sponsored by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), demonstrated that the presence and visible patrols could deter crime without necessarily increasing police effectiveness through increased contact. This suggests that maintaining a distance could foster a perception of impartiality and reduce the risk of personal biases influencing police decisions (Wyant & Ball, 1974).

Conversely, community policing emerged as a strategy emphasizing officer engagement with local residents and business owners. Its proponents argue that building rapport facilitates more effective problem-solving and enhances community trust. By establishing personal relationships, officers may better understand the nuanced needs of communities, leading to tailored interventions and a more cooperative public (Cordner, 2014). However, these close ties also pose the risk of blurring professional boundaries. When officers develop friendships or familiarity with community members, there exists a potential for biases to influence judgment, thereby increasing the risk of favoritism or corruption. For example, an officer might be more lenient with known acquaintances or be influenced by prior social interactions when making decisions about enforcement actions.

Empirical research offers mixed insights. Studies indicate that community policing can improve perceptions of legitimacy and cooperation (Skogan & Hartnett, 2004). Nonetheless, concerns about impartiality persist. A survey by Petersilka (2006) highlights that officers who develop personal relationships with citizens sometimes struggle to remain objective, especially when those relationships conflict with law enforcement priorities. Furthermore, informal interactions may lead to differential treatment, undermining fairness and the perceived integrity of police actions. This could lead to allegations of bias, especially if community members feel that enforcement is inconsistent or preferential.

Nonetheless, there are arguments in favor of strategic relationship-building. Officers who invest in understanding their communities may communicate more effectively, leading to increased cooperation and crime reduction. Such relationships can enhance police legitimacy, which is crucial for effective policing (Tyler, 2004). Building rapport may also encourage citizens to share information, report crimes, and participate in community efforts. However, it is vital to establish clear boundaries to prevent personal relationships from evolving into favoritism or corruption.

In conclusion, while community policing can foster trust and improve communication, it carries inherent risks of bias and favoritism that could lead to corruption. The balance lies in structured, professional engagement that promotes trust without compromising impartiality. Law enforcement agencies should implement strict policies and training to uphold ethical standards and manage relationships effectively. Therefore, fostering community relations requires careful calibration to maximize benefits while minimizing potential pitfalls related to bias and corruption.

References

• Cordner, G. (2014). Community Policing. Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Retrieved from https://www.policeforum.org/assets/CommunityPolicing.pdf
• Petersilka, R. (2006). Is community policing effective? Evidence from a nationwide survey. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 77-89.
• Skogan, W. G., & Hartnett, S. M. (2004). Community Policing, Chicago Style. Oxford University Press.
• Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing Police Legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84-99.
• Wyant, J., & Ball, D. (1974). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Police Studies, 5(2), 107-114.