Unit 3 Chapter 6 Reading The Police: Purpose and Organization.

Unit 3

Chapter 6 ReadingThe Police: Purpose and Organization

2

Preventing Crime

Crime prevention is proactive. It aims to:

Reduce crime and criminal opportunities Lower the rewards of crime Lessen the fear of crime

Law enforcement’s ability to prevent crimes relies in part on their ability to predict crime.

Determining when and where crimes will occur Allocating resources accordingly Crime mapping, as with CompStat, helps

3

Comp Stat

A crime-analysis and police-management process built on crime mapping that was developed by the New York City Police Department in the mid-1990’s

4

Historical Eras in American Policing

5

Chain of Command

The organizational chart of any police agency shows a hierarchical chain of command.

Represents order of authority Quasi-military structure Span of control—the number of personnel or unites supervised by a particular commander.

6

Span of Control

The number of police personnel or the number of units supervised by a particular officer.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

7

Policing Styles

History helps shape policing styles,how agencies see their purpose, andchoose to fulfill it.

There are three basic policing styles:

1. Watchman2. Legalistic3. Service

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

8

The Watchman Style of Policing

The watchman style of policing are typically in lower- or lower-middle class areas that have a lot of crime.

This style is marked by: Order maintenance Controlling illegal and disruptive behavior Considerable use of discretion

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

9

The Legalistic Style of Policing

Legalistic style police departments are committed to enforcing the letter of the law and take a “laissez faire” stance on behaviors that are simply bothersome.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

10

The Service Style of Policing

Service style police departments strive to meet community needs. They are:

Concerned with helping rather than strictly enforcing the laws. More likely to supplement law enforcement activities with community resources. Popular today.

Policing Styles

Which one do you think is the most effective? Why???

12

The Kansas City Experiment

Random, increased, decreased and routine patrol had no significant result on crime or citizens fear of crime.

Police & Education

What are the benefits of having an educated police force?

Police & Education What are the problems of having an educated

police force?

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E

© 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger

Pearson Prentice Hall

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

15

Benefits and Problems Associated with Hiring Educated Police Officers

•Benefits

Better written reports Enhanced public communication skills More effective job performance Fewer citizen complaints Greater initiative Wiser use of discretion Heightened sensitivity to racial and ethnic issues Fewer disciplinary problems

•Problems

More likely to leave police work More likely to question orders More likely to request reassignments

CRIMINAL JUSTICE TODAY, 10E © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc by Dr. Frank Schmalleger Pearson Prentice Hall

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

16

Discretion and the Individual Officer

Even as police agencies adapt to threats posed by terrorism, individual officers still retain a considerable amount of discretion.

discretion = choice

17

Factors that Influence Discretion

There are a number of factors that influence police decision making, including:

Officer’s backgroundSuspect’s characteristicsDepartment policyCommunity interestPressure from victimDisagreement with the law

18

Professionalism and Ethics

Today’s demands for police professionalism require that police officers have specialized knowledge and they adhere to professional standards and police ethics.

Accreditation is a step toward greater professionalism. Ethics training is integrated into most basic training programs.

Here is a great guideline for resolving ethical dilemmas taken from the Loyola Marymount Center for Ethics and Business:

So you’ve got an ethical dilemma on your hands. How do you figure out what to do? Generally speaking, there are two major approaches that philosophers use in handling ethical dilemmas. One approach focuses on the practical consequences of what we do; the other concentrates on the actions themselves. The first school of thought basically argues "no harm, no foul"; the second claims that some actions are simply wrong. Thinkers have debated the relative merits of these approaches for centuries, but for the purpose of getting help with handling ethical dilemmas, think of them as complementary strategies for analyzing and resolving problems. Here's a brief, three-step strategy that shows you how to combine them.

STEP 1: ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES

O.K., so you're going to stay on this side of the law. What next? It's probably easier to start by looking at the consequences of the actions you're considering.

Assume you have a variety of options. Consider the range of both positive and negative consequences connected with each one.

STEP 1: ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES

Who will be helped by what you do?

Who will be hurt?

Who will be harmed?

STEP 1: ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES

What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? After all, some "goods" in life (like health) are more valuable than others (like a new VCR). A small amount of "high quality" good can outweigh a larger amount of "lower quality" good. By the same token, a small amount of "high quality" harm (the pain you produce if you betray someone’s trust on a very important matter) can outweigh a larger amount of "lower quality" pain (the disappointment connected with waiting another few months for a promotion).

STEP 1: ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES

How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run? And if you’re tempted to give short shrift to the long run, just remember that you’re living with a lot of long-term negative consequences (like air and water pollution and the cost of the S&L bailout) that people before you thought weren’t important enough to worry about.

After looking at all of your options, which one produces the best mix of benefits over harms?

STEP 2: ANALYZE THE ACTIONS

Now consider all of your options from a completely different perspective. Don’t think about the consequences. Concentrate instead strictly on the actions. How do they measure up against moral principles like honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the dignity of others, respecting people's rights, and recognizing the vulnerability of individuals weaker or less fortunate than others? Do any of the actions that you're considering "cross the line," in terms of anything from simple decency to an important ethical principle? If there's a conflict between principles or between the rights of different people involved, is there a way to see one principle as more important than the others? What you're looking for is the option whose actions are least problematic.

STEP 3: MAKE A DECISION

And now, take both parts of your analysis into account and make a decision.

This strategy should give you at least some basic steps you can follow.

While not perfect, this at least gives us a baseline to operate from. It helps us to analyze ethical problems that confront the criminal justice field daily. Half of the battle is for those working in this field to be cognizant of the ethical consequences of their actions. Oftentimes, people who find themselves in trouble are going through their careers blindly and not thinking about what they are doing. You have to constantly ask yourself, “Am I doing the right thing?” Also, “Is this right?”

One of the best pieces of advice I can give you is to constantly hash ethical problems out. Both in your mind and with others. By doing this, you can resolve issues by using your own instinct of what is right coupled with fresh perspective from others. A ‘fresh’ set of eyes can illuminate issues or solutions that you were not even aware of. With that in mind, I think this would be a great point in the seminar to discuss several ethical scenarios. When answering the following questions you need to tell me what you would do and why. The first four are from Thompson Rivers University and can be found at: http://www.tru.ca/ae/php/phil/mclaughl/courses/ethics/bioeth/dilemmas.htm

Scenario 1:

A man has been sentenced to prison for armed robbery, and admits guilt for the deed. "But", he argues, “I’ll never do anything of the kind again. I'm not insane or a danger to society. I would be happier out of jail than in. My wife depends on me for support and she and the children would be far happier if I were able to be the family breadwinner again. As to the influence on others, almost no one would ever know about it; you can keep the matter out of the newspapers and no one except you will ever know that the crime was committed. Therefore, you should release me" Assuming he is correct, what would you do?

Scenario 2:

You are shopping and notice a man stuffing a turkey into his pants. Do you report him?

Scenario 3:

Why punish the theft of $100,000 more than the theft of $100? Is there a difference?

Scenario 4:

Why punish attempted murder less than murder? For example, in Illinois attempted murder has a sentencing range of 6 – 30 years while murder has a sentencing range of 20 -60 years. Why should there be a difference?

Scenario 5:

You are a police officer and work in a very rough area. You know that the community has been terrorized by a ‘Thug’ for years. You personally have worked on several murder cases and you know that ‘Thug’ has committed them. He has also raped several young boys over the years. Thug has not been charged because all of the witnesses are terrified of Thug and have refused to testify.

Scenario 5:

One night while on patrol, you see a car driving erratically in front of you. You turn on your lights to pull the car over for traffic violations. Initially the car refuses to stop. At some point you see a Tech 9 assault rifle come flying through the air from the car; however you are not sure from which person in the car. You stop the car, and sure enough, Thug is seated in the front passenger seat. You arrest everyone in the car. You know that simple possession of this weapon will get an offender 10 – 30 years in prison and that you can get charges approved by the DA and most likely secure a conviction if you lie and say that you saw Thug throw the Tech 9 from the car. What do you do? What do you do? (Sounds like Keanu Reeves from Speed)

Scenario 6:

You are a prosecutor who is trying a mother for the brutal murder of her two year-old daughter. The little girl was savagely murdered and the evidence against her is overwhelming. The defense has decided to go with a jury trial because the only chance to beat the case is to empanel jurors with low intelligence and a hatred for the justice system. Because of your brilliant professors in college, you do a spectacular job with the case and you know that the case is won. However, you are worried about the jurors.

Scenario 6:

The case is sent to the jury to decide the case. Strict rules are adhered to concerning jury deliberations. Absolutely no one is allowed to listen to the deliberations. They are to be strictly done in secret. However, a sheriff deputy guarding the door overhears the deliberations. The vote is 11-1 for not guilty. The lone holdout is about to cave because he wants to go home. Even though the deputy is not supposed to listen in on this information, she tells you about the deliberations.

Scenario 6:

Right after this information is disclosed to you; the defense enters the room and asks to speak to you. You step out of the room. The defense has spoken to their client and they are concerned with the length of the deliberations. They want to plea to a reduced charge of 2nd Degree Murder for 20 years. If not for the information just given by the sheriff deputy, you would have never considered a plea short of 1st Degree Murder. You also know that you are not supposed to know what happens during deliberations. What should you do?

Scenario 6:

New twist. After much wrangling, the prosecutor took the plea. You are the sheriff deputy and know that it was wrong to tell the prosecutor what you did. If you disclose this information to the judge – or to anyone – you will be fired. What do you do?

Scenario 7:

(True Story) you are a defense attorney. In the cannon of ethics (which governs all attorneys), you are to uphold the attorney-client privilege. This means that you cannot disclose any communications made by your client – even if they confess to a crime. You represent a defendant who is charged with murdering 3 people. In one case your client shot and killed two police officers. In the other, he shot and killed someone during a robbery. Your client is facing the death penalty.

Scenario 7:

You go to meet with your client. During your conversations with him, he confesses to both crimes that he is charged with. He also tells you about a fourth murder. He tells you that he murdered someone with his brother during an armed robbery at a McDonalds. His brother is charged and so is an innocent man that was picked out in a lineup. Both are facing the death penalty as well. Your client laughs as he talks about an innocent man being charged instead of him. He chuckles as he talks about the man possibly going to death row.

Scenario 7:

You ask him if you can disclose this information to the authorities. He refuses to waive the privilege. The only concession that your client makes is that you can tell people once he dies but not before. You now know that the police have charged an innocent man in the McDonald’s case. What should you do?

Scenario 7:

Does it matter that you will lose your license and never be able to practice law again?

Scenario 7:

In real life the attorneys upheld the attorney-client privilege. The innocent man was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. After over 20 years passed, the murderer died and the lawyers disclosed this conversation. The innocent man is now released on bail waiting a determination by the prosecutor as to the validity of this scenario.

Scenario 7:

While much of the media lauds the defense attorneys as heroes for upholding their oaths, it does raise serious questions. How can they let an innocent man rot in jail? Even if they would have lost their license to practice, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay for the innocent man’s life?

Scenario 8:

One last ethical story that demonstrates doing the right thing even if it is to your detriment. There was a recent story about a college girl’s softball playoff game. During the game, a girl was at bat and hit a home run. She began to run the bases and accidently missed first base. When she turned to go back and touch it she blew out her knee. She lay down on the base path and could not move. The coach wanted to put in a base runner to finish running the bases.

Scenario 8:

The umpire pulled out the rule book and said the rules clearly state that if anyone from the girl’s team entered the field, the homerun would not count. The coach was at a loss as to what to do. Meanwhile, members of the opposing team who were on the field gathered and carried the injured girl around the bases. The homerun counted and eventually contributed to the other team’s loss. Was this right?

Scenario 8:

The competitive part of me would want to win. However, what these girls did was beyond admirable. They did what was right even though it cost them. I would hope the angel on one shoulder would drown out the competitive devil on the other.

What is Due in Unit 3:

• Read Chapter 6• Complete the Matching Project• Participate in the Discussion Board• Take the Unit 3 Quiz • Attend Seminar