I believe the article I chose for my blog post “Community Policing and CompStat: Merged or Mutually Exclusive” provides a lot of insight into who the police are and what modern policing is in the public sphere. The article addresses the various types of policing through history and the consequences of each type. Then it addresses the (relatively) new acquisition of CompStat systems and how technology affects the development of policing.
The article begins with a broad historical summary of policing in America. I will provide a brief overview. The first period is called the political period. This featured politically appointed police by alderman and tax assessors. The idea was to find the best-qualified officials in each area to police the area. However, political patronage became a large component of the system and resulted in a less than effective force. Additionally, due to the close ties of police to their districts, it resulted in increased violence on ethnic lines and towards strangers.
The second period is that of the professional/reform era. An objective outlook defined policing during this time in the 50s and 60s. Police interactions were standardized and maximized for efficiency. Officers were expected to meet quotas of various quantitative measures (e.g miles driven, arrests given, tickets issued). Many policies were opposed to the political era, officers could not live in the same neighborhood the patrolled (to limit political influence), for instance. Many events in this time, however, suggested these techniques were not as effective. Riots, police behavior the Civil Rights movement, and Vietnamese war protests all eroded at the legitimacy of the police, and by extension the objective methods they employed.
The second period is that of the professional/reform era. An objective outlook defined policing during this time in the 50s and 60s. Police interactions were standardized and maximized for efficiency. Officers were expected to meet quotas of various quantitative measures (e.g miles driven, arrests given, tickets issued). Many policies were opposed to the political era, officers could not live in the same neighborhood the patrolled (to limit political influence), for instance. Many events in this time, however, suggested these techniques were not as effective. Riots, police behavior the Civil Rights movement, and Vietnamese war protests all eroded at the legitimacy of the police, and by extension the objective methods they employed.
The most recent is the community-policing era. This is defined by more familiar relationship between police and citizens. The same officer was likely to deal with problems in the same neighborhood. Officers can then tailor their role specifically for the target community. Police officers are also given more authority and autonomy to deal with situations; in recent times the news has shown us that this is a mixed bag. The article then addresses a new issue in the community-policing era, the use of CompStat. CompStat is a management tool used by police that includes collecting and compiling statistics. This would seem to indicate a return to the quantitative influence professional policing. The author notes that the CompStat system can also be effectively used in community policing, providing in depth statistics about a given beat.
I found this article to shed a lot of light on the public police. Not only does it have a brief and clear description of the history of American policing, but it addresses current issues as well. That being said, considering this is an article for police chiefs, it only talks about the effects from the police end. While the statistics would indicate safer communities when CompStat is initiated, it is not clear as to what cost to citizens.
I found this article to shed a lot of light on the public police. Not only does it have a brief and clear description of the history of American policing, but it addresses current issues as well. That being said, considering this is an article for police chiefs, it only talks about the effects from the police end. While the statistics would indicate safer communities when CompStat is initiated, it is not clear as to what cost to citizens.
I couldn’t really fit this in anywhere else in the post, but I found it very interesting that when addressing newer policing methods the author chose more terms associated with business. Law enforcement seemed to be treated more like a product with the people as consumers.
I found your last sentence to be very powerful. It left me thinking about what repercussions could arise from having a public-private law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteThe CompStat policing methods are interesting as a reminder that the next wave of public law enforcement is already here. This article, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/technology/privacy-fears-as-surveillance-grows-in-cities.html?_r=0 , reveals that the Oakland Police Department recently received a $7 million grant mainly for preventing "terror attacks". An even more recent development came out claiming that a majority of this grant money will be allocated towards building a data center that will "collect and analyze reams of surveillance data from around town". Similar to CompStat, Oakland has been employing their own form using Hot Spot policing that focuses on spatial analysis.
Also, in the Sklansky reading he states that we have already left the community policing era and have entered a "intelligence-led and predictive policing".
This personally worries me for several reasons, but one in particular is if giant corporations like Target are being hacked, who is to say that our public law enforcement data centers won't be as well. If a criminal were to get their hands on all of the public law enforcements data the outcome could undermine the entire operation. Just some food for thought.
-Alex Rose
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe article is very interesting and I would like to talk about the demands of the citizens-consumers who are watched and monitored by those models of policing. One very interesting point Professor Musheno and Gilliom-Monahan raise up is that surveillance is not always imposed to an unwillingly mass. It may even be demanded by citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between the citizen and the consumer may be unclear, especially regarding to their demand for efficiency.
When we buy a product as a consumer, we expect it to be efficient, i.e. to fit our needs.
When we pay taxes as a citizen, we do expect results from public law enforcing policies, regarding to our safety. This "rational" reasoning come from the fact that since the primary school, we have been taught that watching, evaluating and, if necessary, sanctioning the action of public authorities were the missions of a good democratic citizens. To judge, the citizen needs statistics, empirical data.
Compstat is one answer to this demand for concrete results. In a dialectical way, citizens allow public law enforcing agencies to watch them more closely, to collect more personal data to the extent that they know that they will be entitled to use the same statistical tools to judge the efficiency of public law enforcement.
The successive changes of management models may reflect a will to adapt to the expectations of the citizens who would have judged the former model ineffective.
Romain MILLARD
This article provides a very interesting history of policing in the United States! With regards to the use of CompStat and similar diagnostic tools, I find that I have mix feelings about the issue. On the one hand, the use of spatial policing can enhance law enforcement agencies’ productivity and efficiency by pinpointing hot spots and detecting patterns of illicit activities. It can also deter potential offenders by increasing the probability of committing a crime in the area and being apprehended.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that though, I worry that the surveillance data collected for the CompStat system may be abused and may lead to unintended consequences – or what Gilliom and Monahan termed “function creep.” I also feel that more research should be done on the question of whether the use of spatial policing do prevent crime or merely displaces them to other areas.
- Jessica N. Siah, DIS 102 -