NationStates Jolt Archive

Given that anytime someone talks about giving the police more leaway, more tools or more power people talk about it becoming a police state. the Media will play anything that makes an officer look over and over again, but those that risk their lives to save others are given a 5-10 min spot and then quickly forgotten.

but the one thing I ask is this... what do you think the PRIMARY ROLE of the police officer should be.

Are the police...
Crime Preventors: in which they strive to prevent crimes before they happen.
(Arrest a drunk driver before he gets into an accident, question people acting suspiciously, Patrol areas to look for anything out of the ordinary, remove tresspassers before any violence or theft is done...)

Crime Solvers: where they find and arrest those responsible for a crime, but only AFTER the crime is committed.
(Respond to emergency calls only, look for clues at the crime scene, assist in the capture of wanted criminals. in other words, Ignore anyone/anything out of the ordinary untill the crime is committed.)

this is their primary role. not their only role.

Which do you think the Police should concentrate more on. Solving crimes, or Preventing them?

I think being a protector is a bit too idealistic, especially when were just talking about the police. Police couldn't stop every crime or even the majority of crimes without an immense expansion of power and authority, also other parts of society can do a lot more to prevent crime. Police in the avenger role can prevent crime simply by acting as a deterrent.

Sending out an S.O.S., or perhaps walking on the moon.



Oh, those police... well crime prevention naturally. But you can't therefore dismiss the crime solving part, because the two often go hand in hand.

I think being a protector is a bit too idealistic, especially when were just talking about the police. Police couldn't stop every crime or even the majority of crimes without an immense expansion of power and authority, also other parts of society can do a lot more to prevent crime. Police in the avenger role can prevent crime simply by acting as a deterrent.just so I understand, you believe that the police should let the creepy, suspicious looking guy go unquestioned (because he's not breaking any laws, and thus the police cannot infringe on his right to walk in public and behave in his chosen fasion.) but only look for him after a report of a kidnapping/rape/murder in the area is reported?

Sending out an S.O.S., or perhaps walking on the moon.



Oh, those police... well crime prevention naturally. But you can't therefore dismiss the crime solving part, because the two often go hand in hand.
yep... which is why I said Primary and not ONLY. :p

Nyuk yuk yuk.



Yeah, but unfortunately, there's a third type of cop the OP failed to mention:

Crime Farmers.
you think they should be crime farmers? please explain...

if you are serious, I can ask the mods to add the option in.

The primary purpose of the police is to solve crimes, though they can be useful in preventing them, as well.

just so I understand, you believe that the police should let the creepy, suspicious looking guy go unquestioned (because he's not breaking any laws, and thus the police cannot infringe on his right to walk in public and behave in his chosen fasion.) but only look for him after a report of a kidnapping/rape/murder in the area is reported?

Hell, no. I'm saying that expecting the Police to prevent every crime is a bit idealistic, unless their power, size, and funding was hugely increased, and their limitations greatly decreased.

Sending out an S.O.S., or perhaps walking on the moon.

Nyuk yuk yuk.

Oh, those police... well crime prevention naturally. But you can't therefore dismiss the crime solving part, because the two often go hand in hand.

Yeah, but unfortunately, there's a third type of cop the OP failed to mention:

Crime Farmers.

Hell, no. I'm saying that expecting the Police to prevent every crime is a bit idealistic, unless their power, size, and funding was hugely increased, and their limitations greatly decreased.

I know that it's improbable. which is why I'm asking about their primary responsiblity. would you rather them trying to prevent crime, or wait to the crime is done, then solve it?

It's granted they cannot prevent 100% of crime, but also, they cannot solve 100% of crime.

I think the [police have a much more complex role than just the two roles that you have mentioned, however these are problably the 2 largest areas. Crime prevention would be my choice, though at times it seem to be revenue collection for the government (think speeding tickets for 5 kms over):headbang:

The primary purpose of the police is to beat up hippies.

Both walk hand in hand, though I think solvers would be their primary focus. We're a society built upon innocent until proven guilty, not to mention that the idea of the police targeting certain populations sounds good, until you're the population (Police in parts of Japan have a wonderful habbit of stoppinge very gaijin on a bike they see after dark on the suspision that gaijin steal bikes a lot).

Both walk hand in hand, though I think solvers would be their primary focus. We're a society built upon innocent until proven guilty, not to mention that the idea of the police targeting certain populations sounds good, until you're the population (Police in parts of Japan have a wonderful habbit of stoppinge very gaijin on a bike they see after dark on the suspision that gaijin steal bikes a lot).

:eek:


FINALLY!!! something that my looking japanese will actually be a plus for!!!


untill I have to speak that is... :D

To protect and serve. So, I'd think they would be there to help prevent crime when possible, but also to bring justice if a crime happens and they aren't there to stop it. They also are there to help spread the law. Like for instance going to schools and telling kids to say no to drugs or something like that. They don't just have one role. They have many, and that is why they are special.

Nyuk yuk yuk.



Yeah, but unfortunately, there's a third type of cop the OP failed to mention:

Crime Farmers.

Why do I have Amish Paradise stuck in my head all of a sudden?

you think they should be crime farmers? please explain...

if you are serious, I can ask the mods to add the option in.

A Crime Farmer manages crime, but takes care not to eliminate it to the fullest extent possible, knowing full well that his livelihood and his social indispensibility could be jeopardized by a diminished municipal Police budget.

A Crime Farmer manages crime, but takes care not to eliminate it to the fullest extent possible, knowing full well that his livelihood and his social indispensibility could be jeopardized by a diminished municipal Police budget.

Okay...

I've heard of 'make-work' programs before, but you don't think that one's a little out of left-field? Have you ever actually known any cops? I have a hard time believing that they really want their kids to grow up in cities with the sort of problems they deal with everyday. There's enough problems and crime without having to make some up.

Okay...

I've heard of 'make-work' programs before, but you don't think that one's a little out of left-field? Have you ever actually known any cops? I have a hard time believing that they really want their kids to grow up in cities with the sort of problems they deal with everyday. There's enough problems and crime without having to make some up.
No, he's right. At least in Australia. You may remember an incident that happened here a while ago, namely 'The Cronulla race riots'. In a nutshell, Aussie racists lashed out against lebanese delinquents and hooligans. The media took it on expo and the whole thing got blown way out of proportion. Anyhow, the ongoing bashings, violence and raids ensued for about 1-2 days in full force. Since then, a number of hushed up reports have come out highlighting police red light/green light activity, as well as negligent inaction ("Let 'em go boys"). Why? Because for the duration of the riot lockdown period, the police were getting paid triple time on duty. Through the whole thing the went around busting up anything which got out of hand (damage control), but allow, even encouraging, more trouble to spring up.

The police's job is all about balance. Do enough to justify getting paid, but not so much that you will no longer be required. This is especially true in crisises like the above scenario. Day to day crime is inconquerable anyhow, so the police can give that their all. But you will be hard pressed to find a cop interested in toppling a gang which holds a monopoly on crime in a city.

Okay...

I've heard of 'make-work' programs before, but you don't think that one's a little out of left-field? Have you ever actually known any cops? I have a hard time believing that they really want their kids to grow up in cities with the sort of problems they deal with everyday. There's enough problems and crime without having to make some up.

Most, if not all, of Toronto's cops live in 905-land. Their kids are growing up in Ajax, Pickering and Woodbridge. Or Oakville, Burlington and Guelph. Take your pick.

And having lived and worked in the city (on one side of the Law or the other) for over twenty-five years, lemme tell you Mike - we've got "Crime Farmers" in spades. You should have seen their annual, flawless program of managing Toronto's drug trade back between '89 and '94-'95. Classic. Of course, they were working in tandem with organized crime, but they worked the system like a dedicated farmer with his fields.

It worked like this: Get the ball rolling with a high-profile, massive drug bust - drying up the supply of soft drugs like pot and hash. Remember now, most drugs in the GTA at the time were imported - the days of grow-ops were still several years off. Once a "drought" was established, the police turned blind eyes to dealers of harder drugs - harder drugs which suddenly dropped in price while becoming far more readily available. Cocaine, Crack, Heroin - all suddenly much more of a going concern.

Most of the people I knew who smoked dope switched over to drinking beer during one of these cycles. But a few of them - well, perhaps more than a few - eventually moved on to the harder drugs. Wouldn't you know it, though - after a few months, the Police would mount a highly effective series of raids aimed at eliminating street-level trafficking in hard drugs, removing them from the ready grasp of the freshly-addicted and naturally enough driving prices through the roof.

Crime, in particular drug-related crimes - robberies, break-ins, etc. then would begin to increase dramatically, as the new crop of junkies would try to maintain their habits. And all of it - the high-profile drug bust, the street-level dealer busts, and the spike in junk-related crime - would force the issue of increased Police funding at City Hall. It looked great for the Police, they were given money hand over fist. But the cops also learned that it was definitely in their interests to keep massaging the system to the fullest extent possible, lest they have to make do with less in the upcoming budget.

And if they don't always get their way Mike, that's when they throw wildcat strikes... as farmers go, they're pretty dickish about it.

I don't even know where to begin. That's just plain awful.

:(

I'll tell you what cops aren't for: they aren't for pulling me over because the right brake light is out when I'm just taking the van to pick up my sisters from their self-defense class. :mad:

Seriously, I got ticketed for it. Luckily my parents are paying for it, as they should since it's their vehicle and their brake light.

To answer your question: both. Crime prevention and crime solution are both integral to a functional society. I simply think we need to limit the prevention aspects sensibly so we don't have police going all over the police shooting road rage offenders or jaywalkers or something, but on the same token we don't prevent them from taking out an obviously armed and hostile individual if the situation warrents it. It's a thin line to tread indeed.

I'll tell you what cops aren't for: they aren't for pulling me over because the right brake light is out when I'm just taking the van to pick up my sisters from their self-defense class. :mad:



I know it sucks, but vehicle maintenance is a serious issue. It doesn't matter how far you're driving if the other brake light goes out and you get into an accident because you had to brake hard and the driver behind you had no clue. Hell, it could be a tractor-trailer on your ass.

That being said, were you fined or anything?

crime preventors, although they aren't the proper tool for this while they exist they may as well make themselves useful since no government will implement meaningful social reform to properly prevent crime. and such a duty must be balanced with respect for civil liberties at all times. it is right that the police should be held accountable for every little decision they make in their work, they are playing with people's lives after all. without proper checks and restrictions on the police they can too easily come to abuse their power, and it need not be intentional it can just be through doing things to make their job easier. problem is making the police's job easier necessarily involves eroding civil liberties. increasing police powers is the start of one of those infamous slippery slopes.

I know it sucks, but vehicle maintenance is a serious issue. It doesn't matter how far you're driving if the other brake light goes out and you get into an accident because you had to brake hard and the driver behind you had no clue. Hell, it could be a tractor-trailer on your ass.

That being said, were you fined or anything?

Yes, I was. That's what I meant by ticketed.

And I'm not mad at the cop. I'm mad at my parents for not performing such vehicle maintanence. I drive very rarely, only in cases, such as tonight, where my parents are ill and need me to do something for them. It's not my van. Hell, if it were up to me I wouldn't EVER drive because I hate driving. And yet I got ticketed because they weren't fully paying attention to their brake lights.

But, as I said, my parents are paying the ticket, so I'm not that angry at them. More like irritated because it's the third time I've been pulled over, and the second time because of something they forgot to do that they knew about. I hate getting pulled over. It makes me extremely nervous.

Yes, I was. That's what I meant by ticketed.

And I'm not mad at the cop. I'm mad at my parents for not performing such vehicle maintanence. I drive very rarely, only in cases, such as tonight, where my parents are ill and need me to do something for them. It's not my van. Hell, if it were up to me I wouldn't EVER drive because I hate driving. And yet I got ticketed because they weren't fully paying attention to their brake lights.

But, as I said, my parents are paying the ticket, so I'm not that angry at them. More like irritated because it's the third time I've been pulled over, and the second time because of something they forgot to do that they knew about. I hate getting pulled over. It makes me extremely nervous.

Sorry. Half-asleep and obviously missed the part where you mentioned you were ticketed.

Sucks getting caught by someone else's mistake.

But 3 times now? And you hardly ever drive? Is your vehicle a ticking time bomb or something?

But 3 times now? And you hardly ever drive? Is your vehicle a ticking time bomb or something?
Well the first time was me being a dumbass and driving at over eighty miles per
hour in a fifty-five zone. (I had a rare, stupid urge to see what driving at eighty-eight miles per hour was like and I actually gave into it.)

The second was about three weeks after that one, and it had to do with the brights on the van, which were stuck on because the switch to turn them off malfunctioned. I was simply given a warning for that one.

And the third was a couple hours ago, or about a year and a half after the last one. I simply have a long memory. What's amusing is that all three happened along the same stretch of 285 between Platte Canyon High School and Bailey. :confused:

Well the first time was me being a dumbass and driving at over eighty miles per
hour in a fifty-five zone. (I had a rare, stupid urge to see what driving at eighty-eight miles per hour was like and I actually gave into it.)

The second was about three weeks after that one, and it had to do with the brights on the van, which were stuck on because the switch to turn them off malfunctioned. I was simply given a warning for that one.

And the third was a couple hours ago, or about a year and a half after the last one. I simply have a long memory. What's amusing is that all three happened along the same stretch of 285 between Platte Canyon High School and Bailey. :confused:

School Zone? Well there's your answer...

Too tired. Sleepy cops are comin' for me...

School Zone? Well there's your answer...

Too tired. Sleepy cops are comin' for me...

No, it's a five mile stretch. The school zone of sorts is a 40 MPH zone near the school itself, and all three of my pull-overs occured far beyond it. I'd say the closest was a mile and a half away from the school.

A Crime Farmer manages crime, but takes care not to eliminate it to the fullest extent possible, knowing full well that his livelihood and his social indispensibility could be jeopardized by a diminished municipal Police budget.
so do you believe it's possible (without turning into a police state) to totally eliminate crime?

Somehow, I don't believe that it is possible, even if the police are "cultivating" crime.

My legal and social understanding is that they should be both, of course. But personally I'll be happier if they focus on prevention of crime... but then, a high success rate in solvig crimes and bringing criminals to justice might well work as a deterrant and thus be part of a crime prevention program ;)

just so I understand, you believe that the police should let the creepy, suspicious looking guy go unquestioned (because he's not breaking any laws, and thus the police cannot infringe on his right to walk in public and behave in his chosen fasion.) but only look for him after a report of a kidnapping/rape/murder in the area is reported?

Your question is misleading, and poorly phrased.

They can ask him question. They can always ASK. Whether or not he chooses to answer or not is entirely up to him.

If your question is they should let him go unquestioned, then no, the police have the right to ask, and perhaps they should. If the question is should they let him go if he chooses not to answer their questions, then yes, he has the right not to speak to them or justify his potentially suspicious, yet still legal behavior.

A Crime Farmer manages crime, but takes care not to eliminate it to the fullest extent possible, knowing full well that his livelihood and his social indispensibility could be jeopardized by a diminished municipal Police budget.

That's roughly the equivalent of calling doctors Disease Farmers.
Some things don't need farming, as there will always be plenty. Crime and diseases are among those things.

Both. Your poll is lacking that option...

* The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

* The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

* 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.

* The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

* Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

* 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.

* 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.

* Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

* The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Unfortunately they are usually the revenue arm/inquisition department for the petty tyrants in local government. Usually, but not always, supported by the left.

are thugs and goons
should be abolished

Given that anytime someone talks about giving the police more leaway, more tools or more power people talk about it becoming a police state. the Media will play anything that makes an officer look over and over again, but those that risk their lives to save others are given a 5-10 min spot and then quickly forgotten.

but the one thing I ask is this... what do you think the PRIMARY ROLE of the police officer should be.

Are the police...
Crime Preventors: in which they strive to prevent crimes before they happen.
(Arrest a drunk driver before he gets into an accident, question people acting suspiciously, Patrol areas to look for anything out of the ordinary, remove tresspassers before any violence or theft is done...)

Crime Solvers: where they find and arrest those responsible for a crime, but only AFTER the crime is committed.
(Respond to emergency calls only, look for clues at the crime scene, assist in the capture of wanted criminals. in other words, Ignore anyone/anything out of the ordinary untill the crime is committed.)

this is their primary role. not their only role.

Which do you think the Police should concentrate more on. Solving crimes, or Preventing them?

Solvers. The prevention isn't working very well.

Y know what would help reduce crime, especially in the cities?

Police boxes. Not dissimiliar to the Doctor Who Tardis of Sci-fi fame.

In Glasgow, we used to have a police box manned by two policemen on every street, and that really helped to prevent crime. One of them would be on the beat patrolling the street and the other in the box, ready to phone for assistance if they needed. Street crime was very much supressed to say the least.

Now these boxes are used as burger bars and tourist tat koisks. Our policemen spend more time filling out paperwork in the station than they do on the beat. And crime is getting out of control.

Tokyo in Japan has adopted this police box system and truly made it their own, and just look at their crime rates compared to Glasgow.

Particularly in Britain, I think we need to rip up all this ridiculous red tape and let our police do their real jobs, preventing and investigating crime.

so do you believe it's possible (without turning into a police state) to totally eliminate crime?

Somehow, I don't believe that it is possible, even if the police are "cultivating" crime.

As long as society has laws, there will always be crime. Totally eliminating it simply isn't in the cards I'm afraid. Reducing it, preventing and keeping it somewhat manageable is totally in the cards.

As far as 'crime farming' goes, maybe the problem is simply the way in which the police force is funded? Although I don't see an alternative.

In Dobbs' scenario, it sounds like legalizing marijuana would largely solve that problem. After all, we're talking about a substance that a whole hell of a lot of people partake in. Eliminate the ability of the police to control the supply of marijuana in this instance, and you reduce the amount of people suddenly jumping to the new inexpensive harder alternatives (and the resulting cycle of crime when the price of the harder alternatives goes up.)

Maybe this is why police are generally against the idea of decriminalizing pot posession? (Let alone legalizing it.) Or the incredibly easy use of 'I smelled pot' as a pretext for investigating something else...

Politicaly speaking, the police is the tool of the executive branch to enforce the laws of the legislative branch.

Meaning they are there to protect and serve the law.

When I was in the Public Safety Academy that long ago, I remember someone telling me...

It does not matter if you have the best cops, the best department or the best equipment. You will only be able to provide the type of law enforcement that the citizens want you to do.

I worked for 10 years as a cop in a college town. The town did not want any agressive law enforcement, so we were not as agressive as we could have been. They did not want us to do car chases, so we did not. However, in the next county, where I live, they will chase you till the wheels fall of your car. The county where I live wants hard agressive law enforcement, and you can see it by the way the city police and sheriff operate.

Remember that as citizens, the police works for us, and we as a city or county are the ones that eventually dictate what type of enforcement we expect and demand from our law enforcement officers.

Vic

Your question is misleading, and poorly phrased.

They can ask him question. They can always ASK. Whether or not he chooses to answer or not is entirely up to him.

If your question is they should let him go unquestioned, then no, the police have the right to ask, and perhaps they should. If the question is should they let him go if he chooses not to answer their questions, then yes, he has the right not to speak to them or justify his potentially suspicious, yet still legal behavior.and should the suspicious perp not answer any of their questions... then what? would you preferre the officers take the proactive approach or a reactive approach. Proactive being, to detain the man untill their questions get answered, or even escorting him to his destination, or Reactive as in letting him go because he really didn't break the law and there is no evidence yet that any law was broken, not knowing if he is going to break the law, or if he already did.


Both. Your poll is lacking that option...
Primary... like The Highlander... there can be only one.

Solvers. The prevention isn't working very well.and not all crimes are solved...

Meaning they are there to protect and serve the law.so... crime preventers then? to protect it would indicate to keep people from breaking it..

Politicaly speaking, the police is the tool of the executive branch to enforce the laws of the legislative branch.

Meaning they are there to protect and serve the law.QFT.and should the suspicious perp not answer any of their questions... then what?Then the coppers find something constructive to do with their time, or gets pacified by their target, picked up by their collegues & put away for harassment. At least, that's what should happen.so... crime preventers then? to protect it would indicate to keep people from breaking it..No. They exist simply to uphold the law. As long as the law doesn't say anything about proactively preventing anyone from violating it, the police only stops crime, they don't prevent it from happening.

Tasking the police with crime prevention is a recipe for disaster. Crime is usually a result of either social problems or a lack of self control. No police force has the means to address either cause, so all they can really do is abolish liberty & privacy in an attempt to seize potential criminals (that's innocent people).

Given that anytime someone talks about giving the police more leaway, more tools or more power people talk about it becoming a police state. the Media will play anything that makes an officer look over and over again, but those that risk their lives to save others are given a 5-10 min spot and then quickly forgotten.

but the one thing I ask is this... what do you think the PRIMARY ROLE of the police officer should be.

Are the police...
Crime Preventors: in which they strive to prevent crimes before they happen.
(Arrest a drunk driver before he gets into an accident, question people acting suspiciously, Patrol areas to look for anything out of the ordinary, remove tresspassers before any violence or theft is done...)

Crime Solvers: where they find and arrest those responsible for a crime, but only AFTER the crime is committed.
(Respond to emergency calls only, look for clues at the crime scene, assist in the capture of wanted criminals. in other words, Ignore anyone/anything out of the ordinary untill the crime is committed.)

this is their primary role. not their only role.

Which do you think the Police should concentrate more on. Solving crimes, or Preventing them?

Crime Solvers are more cool..Ever watch CSI or Law and Order?Any episodes about them giving out speeding violations?

The poll presents a false dichotomy.

The threat of apprehension deters crime. Solving crimes serves both masters.

Reading your post further, the police should not interefere with the actions of people who haven't broken the law yet.

Just because I'm acting strangely is not cause to stop me. They're not the thought police.

Reading your post further, the police should not interefere with the actions of people who haven't broken the law yet.

Just because I'm acting strangely is not cause to stop me. They're not the thought police.

No room for reasonable suspiscion? Also, in a situation where people are innocent until proven guilty, no one has technically committed a crime until proven in a court of law. Therefore police interfere with the actions of 'people who haven't broken the law yet' as a matter of course.

Okay, semantics... semantics. But policing is part 'keeping the peace', and there should be a degree of crime prevention as well. Methods don't necessarily have to include The Ministry of Truth.

Okay, semantics... semantics. But policing is part 'keeping the peace', and there should be a degree of crime prevention as well. Methods don't necessarily have to include The Ministry of Truth.
That's fair. I've been known to argue that all distinctions are semantic.

But the police can prevent crime by being effective crime solvers. By increasing the threat of apprehension, crime is deterred.

That's fair. I've been known to argue that all distinctions are semantic.

But the police can prevent crime by being effective crime solvers. By increasing the threat of apprehension, crime is deterred.

No doubt. But reasonable suspiscion of a potential murder shouldn't mean that the police wait until the murder occurs.

Their purpose is to beat hobos an' Ingins.