Police-Community Relations(PC-R) or Community Policing
INTRODUCTION: Electric and internet media had been highlighting the Community Policing Program of Punjab Police in which police and the public at large will join hands together to fight street crime and domestic civil unrest. It struck my mind to write an introductory article to aware the public about the background and working relationship of police and the community in which they both could join hands to fight un-controllable menace of crime. Police and the prosecution seem to be helpless in performing their duties affectively. To a common man, police community relations could mean the citizens taking law in their hands and start fighting criminals on their own. Certainly, it is not so.
The modern police officer walks a tightrope between the right of the community to be protected and the right of the individual to be left alone by government. It is generally assumed that most people voluntarily obey the law and police themselves; if they did not, many more policemen would be necessary to maintain order. Today’s police officer, in addition to apprehend bank robbers and murders, directs traffic, transports the sick and the injured to the hospital, helps children cross streets on their way to and from school, man polling places on election day, provides shelter and cares for the drunks and drug abusers, investigates accidents, settles family disputes, locates missing and runaway children, and host of other things. Police officer in uniform must be everything to all he serves. He also has to dispense justice not just to maintain law and order. He must be a professional in every sense of the word – calm, detached, knowledgeable, and dedicated. As crimes become more complicated, and the means of committing them become sophisticated, the work of the police become challenging. Despite the technological advancements, personal contacts, forensic skills, and legwork, are still the hallmarks of an effective police department. A successful police department must have the respect and confidence of the community. The denial of justice to even one person is like ripples on a pond, spreads wider and wider until all are touched. The individual police officer, like the “point man” on a combat team, leads the forces of the government in maintaining domestic tranquility in the various communities throughout the country. The individual police officer has a mandate to use the authority and power granted to him in a reasonable manner while rendering his services demanded by many.
Over the centuries, man has attempted to regulate himself within the confines of the society in which he lives. Every society, whether it be a primitive tribe or a complex civilization, provides some form of government. The government consists of a legislature, an executive branch and a judiciary. The government may be run by a monarch, by a dictator or a troika, or by the representative of the society or may be a combination of the various systems. Even the Common Law had dictated, ”For purposes of mutual protection in a society, political groups of men have joined together.”
Policing the community means performing the primary function and to operate as a permanent presence in the community. They are empowered to impose force or threat of force in solving the problems that arise in the community. Police activity involves intruding upon the citizen’s affairs. It represents the force of sanction and punishment. Police role as a patrolman, investigator, monitoring surveillance and the like clearly separates the police from the public. The nature of the police job is beyond public scrutiny thus their isolation from the community is inevitable. Day-to-day activities of the police in the community are as varied as the domestic order. The character of law enforcement varies among communities and from one area to another within a community. It is because of the varying expectations of law enforcement in different kinds of communities i.e. community behavior, community norms, and community attitudes toward police. A homogeneous community may have well-defined expectations of police. The police in such communities may detect more law violators but they handle the cases informally. In the heterogeneous community criminal sanctions are more readily applied to the same behavior to accomplish the same objectives. The objective of the police is simply to maintain order in the community. Police behavior must therefore be understood as part of the class conflict in most communities.
Apart from the concept of community policing, societies encountered technological revolution thus making the citizens more sensitive toward their rights than just their safety. The introduction of Police-Community Relations meant to strengthen and make more effective the traditional police function. Efforts are underway to strengthen the police organizations through;
Increasing their training, recruitment, and size;
Professionalism of the force;
Improve deployment strategy; and
Enhance their public image.
To police the enlightened 21st century civilization, police should
be collegiate with improved training programs. Recruitment and Promotion should be modernized to reflect education, personality, and assessment of performance. Business-like management policies should be adopted to effectively and efficiently utilize manpower, modernize communication with motorized patrol and computerized record keeping, and formulate more explicit policy guidelines governing areas of police discretion. Patrolling to prevent crime, preserve order, and enforcement of laws must be improved through police professional attitude toward their work. Efficient enforcement of the law is not the sole end of police function, but respect for “the rule of law” is essential. Police “professionalism” rests on the values of a democratic legal order, rather than on technological proficiency. The community then must grant legitimacy to the police and show deference to the police authority. Police should be accountable to the citizens subject to the control of police and the state, because it is the responsibility of the government, of which the police is a part,” To insure that its servants behave in a civil fashion (Skolnick, 1972).
Police officer is viewed as a walking, talking, loving, living human being who eats and breaths just like anyone else in the society. Yet his or her role as a police officer distinguishes him or her from a common person in society. He must not loose his or her assertive behavior while the public must not forget assisting police as its civic and moral duty. Police officer on duty acts as a father/mother, big brother/sister, son/daughter, doctor and psychologist, social worker, sympathetic observer and or strict law enforcement agent. He/she is a package of socio-politico-economic and cultural mix, yet blind in color, race, and religion.
Lack of having adequate system for responding to people’s distress is well known problem in Pakistan. A more cooperative relationship throughout the social services system, including police, would be more appropriate to serve the needs of an ethnocentric society of this country. Inherent police work seems to be the only frontline function of police helping people. Police represent civil order, repression and help while greeted by the public with fear, hatred and affectionless respect. Police is seen as the gun slinging, trigger happy-encounter expert crime fighters. They are also known as unscrupulous terrorizing of women, children and the helpless. Revolutionaries and the poor portray police as representatives of the ruling class and the elites of the society. Police sense themselves to be embattled with, over-worked, underpaid, and alienated from the community. In-fact, police are called for help in myriad types of situations by the same people who, otherwise, would not have to do anything with them. These are the people who make rather general statements about police response as, “they are never there when you need them”. Some people even believe that all the domestic robberies are either planned or pulled by the police themselves. This belief gets confirmation when some officers are exposed to be involved in criminal activities. Citizens’ attitudes toward police and their fear of crime are most obviously reasons for police distrust. Most citizens have been criticizing Police response time to serious nature offenses. The matter of the fact is that each individual in a diversified society looks at police from the eye of the beholder’s view-point. The problem seems to be a simple one; a failure to communicate. Also the problem of policing, in a so called democratic society like ours, breeds from needs, desires, and values of groups and individuals at large. Many people also claim that law enforcement, as it is being practiced, abridges the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the common man. For the creation of police force, Sir Robert Peel had argued, on the basis that society needed some organized means of achieving public order, control over crime, and tranquility in the cities (Skolnick, 1966).
PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF PC-R
The following few definitions of Police-Community Relations (PC-R) may shed some light for the layman to understand what community policing really means? The relationship of police to people as well as police function is quite complex and multifaceted. Police is viewed as an agency with a responsibility of social control and social support tasks:
(a) Social control function of police is an attempt to “suppress or isolate disruptive behavior or to enforce proscribed behavior in the interest of the common good; the legal system is the most explicit form of social control where the law explains: (1) specific rules of conduct; (2) planned use of sanctions to support the rules; and (3) designated officials [the police] to interpret and enforce the rules;
(b) Social Support is the helpful response of police to human needs in situations of economic, emotional, environmental or physical stress (difficulty). Social conditions, however, might be correlated with the incidences of some of the tasks police perform. The maintenance of “law and order” crises or social unrest within the society may be the major concern that police must feel.
COMMUNITY POLICING is the call for a return to an earlier era of policing, a time when officers on the beat knew their constituents and their neighbors in detail. Community policing is an umbrella of programs designed to bring police closer to the public through, as Skolnick and Bayley,(1989) have suggested:
1. Community based crime prevention;
2. Reorientation of patrol activities to emphasize non-emergency services;
3. Increased accountability to the public; and
4. Decentralization of command, including under certain circumstances, civilianization.
Police is like an index to mind of any country’s political regime. In other words, the nature of police activities and the nature of government are coincidental. The “people get the government they deserves, and the police can only be what the public will allow.” Police and the police-work have often been received with ambivalence and ambiguity by the people, negating the very need for stability and the hatred of repression for both the segments of society that is police and the public. Police, universally, perform both social control and social support tasks, yet police sense themselves to be embattled with and alienated from the very species they serve. The concept in the new police is that benevolent prevention of crime in a more effective social control than repression. Sir Charles Rowan, a co-designer of the Metropolitan Police London, had once expressed that “benevolent prevention was more desirable in every way, because preventive action not only surpassed repressive action but that it would surpass detection in stabilizing society and stopping crime (Cumming, 1970).”
History of Police-Community Relations cannot be separated from the history of police establishment. Evolution may be slow or may be sharp many essential concepts in the new are always taken from the system overthrown. Indo-Pak Police forces have been influenced by the British police system with the organizational set up following the Royal Irish Constabulary in the early days of East India Company’s partial possession of Indian-Subcontinent. Indo-Pak is mainly a village-oriented society, where the village government of elders, the Punchayat with village headman (Numberdar) as a leading authority in the absence of landholders had assumed, through the social necessity, a social control responsibility of the village people’s daily life. Village headman used to protect life, liberty and property of the villagers with the help of “chokidar”, a government representative. Under the philosophy of self-help, the numberdar would summon every household with abled men to provide “night watch” on rotation basis. The “chowkidar” was responsible to report any incidence of mistrust, birth and death of the villagers to the authorities.
The hierarchy of authority ran from “King/Emperor” through the prime minister for General Business and “Diwan” for revenue matters. The empire used to be divided into provinces with Sipahsalar or Subedar at the top with “Faujdars” or “Qilladars” and “numberdards” of the village administration. Large cities were administered by “kotwals” and downward who provided police protection and regulated night patrol (watchman system), maintained and administered prison to imprison criminals, prostitutes and alcoholics. Village policing was a self-regulatory mechanism tied closely to internal power structure of Village society. Everyone in the hierarchy was subject to be accountable to the “king” or the “Emperor.” From Chudergupt Mourya to Sutlan Muhammad Ghuri and Mughal dynasty, all the rulers of Indo-Pak had been maintaining social control through a village-oriented community policing system. As one can extract from the Indo-Pak history, the community was always intact with the enforcers (Azhar Hassan Nadeem, 1989).
The government, whether it represented Hindu dynasty, Muslims Rulers or the British Empire, had always worked closely with the community and its members to provide the type of enforcement, the diversified community wanted. Maurya, Gupta, and Mughals were content to establish contact with the autonomous villages but not to reorder policing within them. The empires were administered autocratically through a system of agents extending from capital to province, from province to subdivision, and from subdivision to landlord or village headman. Military commanders provided internal security, while the army fought intruders. The functions of revenue-collectors, judges, magistrates, and chief of police were performed by the military commanders or the respective officials (Curry, 1932). One thing in Indo Pak society is determined that the emphasis was placed on individual responsibility to normally behave in the community. In community, misconduct of each individual was watched and checked by other members and elders of the community and the degree of admonishment was applied to the individual as well as the family. Punishment enacted for deviant-behavior was carried out by the elders or headmen/landlords, in accordance with the degree of abnormality. It varied from simple disapproval to social isolation of the family to banishment of the individual offender or both the individual as well as the family. Disgrace to the individual used to be implied disgrace to the family thus the concept of community policing was in force. Kotwal and Darogha (police sub-inspector), however were considered to be cruel and corrupt to maintain law and order for the king.
Police-Community Relations is an ambiguous phrase which means different strokes to different folks in different situations. The expected role of the Community-Relations’ Divisions vary from one department to another. Some departments set up police-community relations programs just because others are doing it. Others are interested in creating police-community relations programs because of the funds become available through the government grants or donors, which is unethical to spend tax-payer’s money. Skolnick (1965) had quoted “The History of San Francisco Police-Community Relations Unit which reflected a struggle between two opposing interpretations of the role of the policeman and of his relationship to the community.” Defining the Police-Community Relations is as difficult as its implementation into different police departments. Some of the definitions are quoted from the prominent figures in the profession of law enforcement and the academia. They are:
A Police-community relations program, according to Louis A. Radelet (1980), is NOT a public relations program “to sell the police image” to the people. It is rather a long-range, full scale effort to acquaint the police and the community with each other’s problems and to stimulate action aimed at solving those problems. It the reciprocal attitudes of police and civilians with a thrust in working together in the community to anticipate and to prevent problems before crisis occurs. PC-R is viewed as a kind of tripod based on three equal components: public relations; community services; and community participation (Murray Ross-1955). In other words, the prevention and control of crime (predatory crime) is a super-ordinate goal, in which all elements of the community have an important stake.
Pamela Mayhall, 1985, viewed Police-Community Relations as a marriage ongoing, person-to-person relationship that involves mutual respect and acceptance, self awareness and other-awareness, interdependence rather than dependence, commitment and continuing work on the relationship, effective communication and mutual willingness to listen, and crises, mutual problem solving while having fun. Mayhall further cements her views by adding that “in police-community relations, neither party can divorce. For better or worse, they will have a relationship for both parties to make the relationship a positive one.
Ralph A. Olmos in his book “An Introduction to Police-Community Relations” defines Police-Community Relations (1974) as a system of related equipment, materials, techniques, information, tasks and people joined in a collective effort to better maintain order and protect life and property under a democratic legal process.
Howard H. Earle in his masterpiece “Police-Community Relations-Crisis in Our Time, 1970” gives new meaning to the concept of police-community relations as an art concerned with the ability of the police within a given jurisdiction to understand and deal appropriately with that community’s problems, involving the idea of community awareness of the role and difficulties faced by the police while putting the honest efforts of both the police and the community to share in the common goal of understanding the problems of both, with conscientious effort for harmony and cooperation.
The International City Managers Association defined Police-Community Relations is a police-department-initiated program designed to offer an opportunity for police and other public and private agencies and individuals in the community to discover their common problems, ambitions, and responsibilities and to work together toward the solution of community problems and the formulation of positive community programs. PCR is called as a problem-avoidance methodology which, when correctly organized, can create healthy community attitude (ICMA report No. 286, 1967, p.3).
According to Bernard and Clark (1976) the term PC-R refers to the positive interaction between members of the Police Department and members of the Community. This involves both negative and positive relations. The negative relations are generally those that are unplanned, break downs in communication, and obstacles to further interaction situation. The positive relations are various interaction experiences that stimulate further communication and cooperation between the community and police. Bernard and Clark distinguish Public Relations (PR) from the Police-Community relations (PC-R), calling PR as an art of achieving good will through such techniques as publicity, advertising, promotions and even propaganda.
Police-Community Relations is not just Public Relations which involves using gimmicks to sell the department to the public. Public Relation is just one-way communication from police to public. It simply focuses on the positive side of the police and does not receive or encourage public to give feedback to police of how actually the police are doing their job. P-R may be included in PC-R but not the other way around. Police-community relation is not a massive use of press agents or electric media coverage to falsify the story in order to make the police look good in the eyes of the beholder. PR is used to cover up the bad police practices or as a substitute for professionalism in law enforcement procedures. Police-Community Relations should never be looked upon as soothing and cooling mechanism when police is in trouble or to white wash police incompetence or misbehavior for the funding agencies and their agents (scrutinizing bodies). Also the PC-R unit or program must not be considered as complaint handling department, taking side of an irate citizen against a particular officer, because such a practice antagonizes police personnel toward the PC-R unit or the program, lowering police morale. Police-Community Relation can never be focused on a single community issue, it should exist to provide equal opportunity to all regardless of their socio-politico-economic status. This could jeopardize police authenticity and integrity. An effective Police-Community Relations unit must rest upon a philosophy of law enforcement that sees the officer’s role as preventive as well as detective in all its fairness to help prosecute the suspected offenders.
Danny F. Pace (1989) defined ‘community relations’ as the total effort of the criminal justice system to become a part of the community, and is composed of a number of areas of effort. He (Ibid) called “Community relations” an umbrella concept placing various functions under the Police Community Relations Programs. Mr. Pace defined PC-R in light of the following diagram:
Human- Human- Community- Community- Public-
Interactions Relations Crime- Interactions Re- prevention lations
(Reproduced from Danny F. Pace’s Community Relations
Concepts, Custom Publishing Company, 1989, p.7).
“Community relations may be defined as the sum total of the support that exists between the police and the community” (Harry Caldwell).
“Police and Community Relations is a concept for total police organization, not merely the preoccupation of a specific unit or bureau with the department” (Radelet, 1977).
Robert Wood, Curriculum Consultant to the Texas Department of Public Safety, emphasized that police-community relations is “the sum total of all contact, attitudes, impressions, and opinions that constitute the bond between the public and the peace officer”, he further added that “police participation in any activity that seeks law observance through respect for law, rather than through law enforcement”.
Betty Bertothy in her “idea book” (a practical Guide for Texas Police Officers) contended the following:
“Basically, police-community relations is an exchange of ideas between police officers and the public they serve, with three objectives:
To educate one another on each groups’ needs’
To establish acceptable methods of meeting these needs; and
To give each group the opportunity to eliminate conflicts which are rooted in false perceptions.
From the above few definitions one can conclude the
basic principles of Police-Community Relations as:
Community relations must be directed toward every community within the police jurisdiction;
Community relations is the specialized job of specialized and trained unit, but at the same time it is the job of every officer on the force;
Community relations is a full time job to be operated around the clock, not just on the part time basis;
Community policing is a new philosophy of the current po
lice role requiring a new police image;
Community relations cannot be limited to part of the department dealing with part of the community on a part time basis;
Community relations must consist of planned programs involving the whole department for the whole jurisdiction by the motivated police force, designed to implement a philosophy focused on gaining and maintaining the good will and the support of every community within the police jurisdiction.
Community Relations concept is not a public relations or complaint receiving unit against police officers, every complaint, however, should be communicated to the complainant about its outcome.
Community Relations philosophy must be internalized in the head of the department and other supervisory staff and personnel that rookies intuitively grasp it as the “proper” attitude.
The term “police-community relations” must not be confused with the term “Public-relations”. Police-community relations is a program permeating all the work of the police department and utilizing some specialized units or individuals that are aimed at promoting harmonious relations between the police and all the communities within a territory and among communities themselves as well. The concept of police-community relations has a theoretical basis that each police territory has various communities consisting of people with different socio-economic vocational, political, and religious backgrounds. It is important that harmonious relations exist between each of these communities within a territory (city) and all of the other communities therein. Police is in a better position to maintain and sustain harmonious relations among all of the communities fall within the jurisdiction and the police community. Police must identify some of the activities to carry out in order to help establish and maintain harmonious relations among the various communities within the jurisdiction and between the police community and each of the others. Some of these activities may include:
Perform all police duties in relations to all citizens in such a manner that resentments, antagonisms, and bad relations between the police and the individual members of the society may be minimized or at least avoiding public scene;
Establish and frequently use the channels of communications with each community within the territory;
Establish fair, equitable and assertive procedures for processing citizens’ complaints against police and most importantly keeping the complainant informed of the results of the complaint;
Establish a formal PC-R program within the territory, deploying the most competent, educated, and professional police units throughout the territory;
Manual with clear policy guidelines involving police discretion;
Get all members of the police force to engage in community activities leading to human betterment and progress; and
Full police participation in all multi-disciplinary planning activities directed toward community problem solving.
Problem of tension in police-citizen relations are inevitably linked with socio-economic, and political stresses, with the helplessness and despair of powerless people, with slums, poverty, substandard housing, unemployment and un-employability, educational discrimination, and other social malignancies. There is much more to good police-community relations than merely romanticizing the police. Police-community relations programs meet the criteria of systematic problem solving between the police and the community, thus preventing crime and delinquency.
Need for PC-R is felt as institutions and groups of people have grown apart through lack of communication, prejudices, discrimination, philosophies, and outright alienation from one another. The fact is that Law Enforcement agencies need the support of the citizens they serve in order to provide better law enforcement services and a more harmonious law abiding citizens. The cooperation and assistance of each institution, groups, and individual citizen must be stimulated and sustained. PC-R programs have the potential for creating and strengthening bonds of communication and participation between the police department and community so that they both are supported in fulfilling their responsibilities in law enforcement and honorable citizenship.
The major Goal of Police-Community Relations Programs is to establish better relationship and understanding between police officers and the citizens. The most important and the hardest challenge of establishing a working Police-Community Relations is to sell the program to other members of the police department by removing their anti PC-R feelings and the potential threat it seems to have for the maintenance of the status quo. The following functions, however, are being purposed to have ultimately greater harmony and cooperation between the police and all people of the community:
Develop a program to bring about a better understanding and improved cooperation with the community spearheading the goal of reducing crime and delinquency;
Actively engage in various community relations projects with civic and fraternal organizations, as well as the schools and distributing materials to stimulate greater respect for the law;
Coordinate activities of Police Department in the areas of Public Relations: speakers, tours, and development of special programs such as law enforcement week, and national police week etc.;
Develop a positive and a true image of the police function in maintenance of law and order, preservation of peace and protection of life and property of the people;
Develop programs for presentation in police recruit and in service training classes centering around the individual police officer’s role concerning PC-R;
Provide a direct liaison between the police and the poor of the community in handling of grievances and winning support for the police responsibilities;
Promote programs geared to assist the ordinary citizen and the rank-and-file policeman in getting along; and
Coordinate activities with community agencies and grassroots groups to assist their leaders in methods, systems, and referral contacts to resolve problems dealing with needed police service.
Properly developed and planned police-community relations may bring about the following changes:
A greater harmony between the police and the policed;
A decrease in the rate of crime and delinquency;
A better control of crime and delinquency through the apprehension, punishment, and rehabilitation of a large number of law violators;
A re-establishment of communication line s into the community so that both and police problems can be worked out and resolved;
Increased working relationships with citizen and official groups;
Introduction of PC-R course in the recruit and in service training classes;
Prevention of situation of high tension between the police and the local residents;
A more professional and influential police department;
A greater understanding and cooperation between the police department and the community they serve;
A better police image perceived by the community;
Higher salaries for all personnel in the police department; and
Many more tangible and foreseeable positive changes.
PAKISTAN POLICE- A PANORAMIC VIEW:
The historical development of Pakistan Police in general and the metropolitan police function in particular could be linked to the British Reform of nineteenth century metropolitan police which was the direct result of urbanization and pauperization of the landless peasant and descendant proletariat of greater London. The movement for the development of the middle classes and their attempt toward assumption of power gave way to the development of metropolitan police of England. Similarly India had an increase in dacoitism or banditry (armed robbery) resulting in lawlessness and breakdown in traditional controls of in the subcontinent Indian society. British imperial control expressed in the mutiny of 1857 was the direct impetus and support for the development of the forerunners of the modern Pakistani police. It was developed as a bureaucratic institution during the periods of upheaval and unrest and was seen as a force that would promote stability but those who were to be stabilized looked at the stabilizing institution (the police) as the representatives of repression leading the police and the policed to ambiguity and ambivalence.
History of Pakistan Police runs parallel to its roots in pre-East-India Company rulers of the sub-continent and the British Police Reforms. According to Banton (1961) Police tasks include:
(1) supportive elements, such as service call, personal,
family and other disturbance calls, and help for physically and mentally ill and disoriented people, and
(2) involvement in consensual crimes such as alcohol and
drug abuse and sexual misconduct (victimless crimes).
Prior to the nineteenth century, police function was not assigned to a bureaucratic institution of organized force. Anglo-Saxon and Norman systems prevailed the maintenance of peace, order and law-enforcement. These systems were based on the theory of Collective Responsibility, where all people living in the community were held responsible for each other and by extension for the control of each other’s actions. This system was called Mutual Pledge System in which all able men between the ages 16 to 60 were held responsible for the actions of the members of their families as well as for those of all the other members of the community. Upon witnessing a crime, each member of the society was supposed to raise “hue and cry” for the apprehension of a fellow group member suspected of breaking the law. If the group failed to apprehend the law-breaker, the Crown would fine every household for the assessed amount of fine. This system was replaced by the assigning of this function to a specific person or persons in the community.
Earlier constable system gave way to the Justice of the Peace to provide law and order and justice services, all in one. England had gone through the turmoil of law and order, where the mixture of the Celtic, Germanic, and Scandinavian (Danish) systems was in operation. After eleventh century, the Viking-Norman-French institutions replaced the earlier mixture system. Collective Responsibility of the community concept was never out of sight, except the local officials were considered to be responsible for any mishaps in the society. Medieval England we saw the Serjeants(old English spelling) of the peace in the North and West and the Frankpledge or the Tithing system for the rest of the country. All systems were based on the philosophy that the peace was communal jobs and the responsibility of all able-bodied men of the community through a specific person’s responsibility for the administrative and functioning of the system or the government. Thus the sheriff (shire reeve) was introduced to collect taxes as well as to ensure law and order and justice for the residents of the county (reeve).The Sheriff was an agent of the Crown but obviously belonged to the feudal world. Now we have CONSTABLE responsible for law and order and JUSTICE of the PEACE accountable for Justice. The English Parish Constable of the Middle Ages emerges as the direct lineal descendent of the ancient tithing and the Serjeant of the peace of became closely related to development of the justice of the peace. Judicial separation from the function of law enforcement was fully developed in the fourteenth century.
The Industrial revolution of the eighteenth century caused a huge growth of the poor and landless class of urban population and the development of cheap distilled alcohol-gin gave birth to the metropolitan police of London in 1829. The structure of the French Police system was introduced in the late seventeenth century under the monarchy and was institutionalized under the revolutionary governments that overthrew the monarchy. Sir Robert Peel and Lord Fielding had emphasized on the liberal philosophy and understanding of the nature of the people for the Metropolitan police of England. The Whigs, however, developed political currents maintaining the sharing of the power by large segments of the population. The process of Criminal Prosecution from accusation, through inquiry and trial, to punishment was considered to properly involve the systematic mortification of defendants (Black, 1968). The concept of “due process” and the Fifth Amendment, prohibiting self-incrimination were the innovations included in the United State of America’s Constitution. Previously the concept of trial by ordeal was the norm. For example, in the case of “dunking” of the suspected witches: if they drowned, they were innocent, if they survived, they were guilty and thus executed.
Sir Charles Rowan, co-commissioner of the metropolitan police believed that the preventive action not only surpassed repressive action but it would surpass detection in stabilizing society and stopping crime. Police was to patrol unarmed, their strength was to come from a moral position, not from strength of firepower. The working of police was conceptualized as working with little power and force but cooperatively and respectfully with the population. Remember! Bobbies have been permitted to have and use guns under certain circumstances since the mid-1970s (Philadelphia Inquirer, December 17, 1978). The new police had:
(1) Territorial responsibility,
(2) Tight supervision,
(3) Bureaucratic and semi-military organization, and
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Home Secretary was put in charge to raise police standards and the attempts were made to reconcile supervision from the central government with management by local authorities. The actual police function is the responsibility of the Police Chief Constable and the Home Office (Secretary) exercises considerable influence regarding the legal accountability. Rural area police force was put under the County Councils linked with the Central government through financial support (revenue sharing) and the legal accountability with Home Office (Ministry of Interior) The Metropolitan Police of London operate directly under parliamentary control through Scotland Yard (HQ) responsible to the Home Office.
India’s most part was under British influence from the late seventeenth century through the mid of the nineteenth century and the organization of Indo-Pak police system was developed, directly patterned after the development of the Royal Irish Constabulary. In 1792, the governor general of India was vested to bring police under the British control followed by legislative approval at the end of 1857 mutiny. Civilian Constabulary with a bifurcated nature was put in charge of the rural policing in India with all-India officers corps and provincial constabulary to maintain law and order. There was no upward mobility from provincial police force into the Officers Corps. Officers were appointed throughout Indo-Pak territory regardless of their ethnic and cultural background. They spoke English or their native dialect and lived in government provided accommodation, thus isolating from the constabulary as well as the public at large. Police in India was charged with law enforcement and maintenance of law and order responsible to deal with cognizable (Serious nature offenses) and non-cognizable (less serious or misdemeanor offenses) and complaints (non-law enforcing tasks such as mediation of civil disagreements).
The development of Indian Colonial Police System was a British Colonial activity with a distinctive feature of cultural setting and the colonial nature of the institutions. In other words, National Indian antecedents influenced the development of the Colonial Police force. There has been the policing function of the villages and local social system and that of Imperial Power, where “the expansion and contraction of an Imperial Power always set upon an impermeable stratum of village institutions” Bayley, (1969). The police legacy to the independent Pakistan is composed of three major elements:
Structure of the system which had been organized in almost the same way as it was originated in 1861;
The concept of the role of police within the society where police duties today are very much what were considered “proper” police duties under the British
The attitude of the public and the government officials and policymakers toward police.
The village government system was composed of the village Punchayat of elders, the various feudal landlords, maharajahs, and princes. The village government system assumed all responsibilities dealing with daily life. The princely system was superimposed on the village system to benefit the princes and the exception of few who ruled their subjects benevolently. Much of the ruling was done through punchayat. Both systems had policing powers, the princes by default or through assumption and the punchayat through social necessity, subject to British control in the name of peace.
Later part of the eighteenth century history took a turn resulting from social unrest and disruption and the British introduced police reform in India patterned after the already tried Irish Constabulary System. In 1792, The East India Company was empowered to police. Legislative enactment following 1857 mutiny disruption of social order was passed. Reformers also introduced the government of India Act 1858, the Code of Civil Procedure 1859, the Indian Penal Code 1869, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Act of 1861. The Police act of 1861 put policing under provincial or state control and established four principles of police organization:
Establishment of civil constabulary for police work;
Inspector General was to head the provincial/state police force and to run police administration;
IGP was responsible to the provincial government whereas the superintendent was answerable to civilian collector; and
The Superintendent of Police was to supervise the village police (Kumar, 1971).
Police principles clearly indicate that policing was
and still is the function of provincial governments. An additional National Police Officers Corps (PCS) was functionally responsible to the I.G.P. and managerially was placed under the central government or Home Secretary or Ministry of Interior. Because India was considered a province of Britain, the Officers Corps was established in which only British Nationals were inducted to maintain check and balance between the Central Government and the Provincial Bureaucracy. Ranking Officers in the Provincial Police System belong to the Pakistan Police Service (PCS). The function of the Provincial/State police is to ensure local responsibility and self-government. PCS Officers represent the National Police Force but once assigned to the Provincial Government, they become part of the Provincial/State Government.
High standards which were set for (PCS) Police Officers Corps by the British are still being maintained at Training Institutions of higher learning for police with an attempt to teach the members of the Police Officers Corps to look on themselves as interdependent with the general population. Such a self-concept fulfills the requirements of socialistic pattern of society, the police and the public are to a great degree dependent on each other. Police is a part not apart from the community. Hierarchical differences exist between the PCS officers and the Provincial/State forces as well as within the Provincial/State forces. Such as, the Constabulary is composed of men and women with minimal education and less stringent, equivalent to general population. Non-commissioned police officers are selected among college graduates, representing a bit higher class of social stratum. The Pakistan Police Service is run by the National Government, whereas the Provincial/State government runs the non-commissioned police officers and the constabulary.
The unarmed or lathi or baton carrying police force has no firepower. It is assigned to police posts or stations throughout the police districts to enhance police visibility to deter crime and to respond to problems of the people as they arise. Civilian and unarmed police represents preventive patrol and to hunt missing children, investigate crimes, to assure safe streets, to regulate traffic and to interpose in village quarrels including responding to the articulate needs of the masses for police assistance. The force is detailed on the face of the earth of Pakistan; in metropolis, cities, towns, villages and streets. The following major activities of a typical law enforcement agency are:
Prevention and repression of crime;
Maintenance of the peace or domestic tranquility;
Protection of life, liberty and property;
Enforcement of all laws;
Detection of crime and respond to reported incidences;
Recovery of lost or stolen property;
Apprehension of offenders;
Regulation of non-criminal conduct;
Control of traffic;
Miscellaneous police services;
Investigation of crime; and
Preparation of cases to assist prosecution in court.
Because of the nature of policing as outlined above, the Pakistani police, over a long period of time, have been mistrusted and alienated from its masters-the general public. They are identified with oppression and repression. Police protégés, the Britainers and the Princely class have always had police force at their disposal to oppress the depressed ones, thus leaving the scars of repressive memories in the minds of the masses affecting relations between the police and the policed.
Police’s dual role of repression to tranquilize the social unrest and to assist victims may mislead the passing by citizens the very police operation assuming that police are brutalizing the innocent citizen. Eye-of- the-beholder may be failing to see the other side of the coin that police are also sympathizing with the victim party in their effort to keep peace on the street under the Safe-Street Act. When they read the puffed-up news released by the electronic media in the morning news paper, the citizen’s stereotyped vision of police brutality is confirmed. On the other side, no one bothers to stop and report the positive role of police helping the victim(s). The event does not get media attention thus the police-victim relations go un-noticed, and the police reputation of being bad gets one-sided attention. One can analyze this situation from the following scenario:
Police on the scene are noticed along with two other elements; (1) the perpetrator(s) and (2) the by-standards. When police, under the management pressure and public’s watchful eye encounter the perpetrator, they, out of fear for personal safety and public pressure, use maximum force available to overcome perpetrators’ physical movement. The observers see the action as police brutality thus side with the perpetrator, calling police action as aggressive and unjust. At this moment the police are actually fighting two enemies, the perpetrator and the hostile public, resulting police action of arresting the offender, with the use of maximum force available, and escaping in haste.
If the situation is reversed and the police feel encouraged by the observers or the police friendly people, the perpetrator is condemned for his/her bad action, the police then could operate in harmony with public and face just one enemy instead of two on the streets. It is more likely that police will not have to use force but tactic of making an arrest and placing the perpetrator into custody. On one hand, the police will be encouraged by the public support while the perpetrator feels embarrassed and gets discouraged to repeat his/her offensive behavior. This is all about “police-community relations” or “community policing”. PC-R is a necessary ingredient to “good policing” in terms of relationships, which occur as a result of every contact between the police and the citizenry. PC-R programs seek to bring together law enforcement and the community in an effort to understand mutual problems and concerns. PC-R must not be viewed as an aspect of police work; it must be accepted as an outcome of police work.
One must not make a mistake that the community could take law into its own hands and start dealing with offenders on its own. Public can only assist the empowered police to take legal action and help prosecution through:
(1) Credible witnesses; and
(2) Reliable evidence.
If the police officer on duty asks any citizen to help him/her making the culprit’s arrest, he/she then could be commissioned by the ordering police officer to act as a peace officer under the “pose-commitatus” rule of law. As a civic duty, public is supposed to do what a police officer is paid to do to maintain law and order and to keep peace in the society.
In general people think of the police as being brutal and venal and such feelings are quite deep and pervasive, while police are often asked to provide assistance in time of trouble to an individual, family or group. Under the stressful societal atmosphere police need to develop a cooperative relationship with the public under the clear understanding that law enforcement is the police job. The training materials in Police-Community Relations of the training institute must emphasize that “The Police cannot discharge their duties to maintain law and order without the backing and goodwill and cooperation of the people. Every law enforcement agent must be regarded as a wise and impartial friend and protector against personal injury and property by every law abiding citizen. Such confidence building slogans and inner feelings begets police the necessary cooperation for successfully combating crime. Police position enables law enforcements agents at all levels of rank and file to perform many non-regulatory functions during which small courtesies and favorable services rendered to the individual citizens would go a long way in building up goodwill for the police. The other day police was seen helping people through flooded streets of Lahore and the new media’s role in publishing such events had a great impact of citizen-friendly police. Hello police officers please continue to gird up and buckle up for these and other types of good-Samaritan deeds. Similarly, it is the duty of individual citizen to commend and communicate to the bosses of such law enforcement agents for a little appreciation and encouragement. We shall soon see police and community team up in arms against culprits.
According to one study conducted by Bayley (1979) indicated that people who have had good experiences with the police were more likely to approach police for help, thus building a familial type of feelings and relationships. Bayley suggested that the more the cordial relationship police develops with public, greater becomes the number of extraneous demands made upon them by private citizens. National police Officers Corpse builds a nation with a unitary identity if exposed publicly. “Police have a task that is greater than getting cooperation in enforcing law, they have a task that may help build a cooperative and successful society”, Bayley said.
Training and education at the academy and the university levels are important to the development of successful PC-R operations. In addition to the qualified manpower, accountability of individual police officer for his or her actions is the most important ingredient and there must be a concerted effort on the part of police administration to share appropriate values and beliefs with the individual police-person and to insist that what is demanded behaviorally will indeed be expected without exception. The administrator will also have to account for the entire department. Such an accountability and community involvement in setting law enforcement standards, “PC-R could become an on-going reality, not merely a hoped for dream” (Cohn and Viano, 1976).
Defining the Police-Community Relations, one must de-phrase the concept and take each part into consideration separately:
“POLICE” in this segment is introduced as an independent dimension, apart from the community and coming into it from out side. Police-community relations can be thought of as the interaction between persons empowered to maintain “order”, and others who are bound together by geographical, sociological, psychological and philosophical ties. “order” is the set of rules that various segments of society must understand, accept and cooperate within the social framework. When there is a high degree of consensus the maintenance of order is not too difficult to achieve. Police is the instrument of society to protect and preserve it. In other words, what society endorses, the police implement and what the police do is what the community wants. In our approach to police in its relations to people, we will try to prove that “police is public” and “public is the police” they are part of each other rather than apart from each other. Police-community relations
Defining “COMMUNITY” as a process of meeting needs of people is better fitting into our topic. Sociological definition of community simply means, “People” living in geographical proximity, with a common language, religion, ethnicity, political preference, with mutual respect and sympathy to share. It is true that each community has its unique dimensions, community problems, however, have similar features. Community, however, focuses on the needs of its members. These needs may include basic biological requirements of food and shelter, sociological requirements of order and psychological needs of identity and value.
“RELATION” as defined in Fairchild’ Dictionary of Sociology is “any connection between two or more individuals, two collectivities, or an individual and a collectivity.” Among many types of relations, here it means only “good relations” or “associative relations” characterized by an understanding of, appreciation for and acceptance within the group.
HISTORY OF POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS
For the police to achieve the organic union with the people they serve and to achieve the status in which “the public is the police and the police are the public,” it will be necessary for the police to exercise initiative and imagination to deal effectively with our changing times (C.G.Conner, 1973).
The rapid mobilization toward urbanization and increasing social complexities leading to a social revolution has greatly increased the strains upon the police component of the criminal justice system. Pakistan police force is seeking new approaches to relieve some of its problems by increasing police accountability and effectiveness.
Texas A & M University Police had developed its theme, “Police Professionalism” (with some reservations) as a key to better community policing, suggesting three things to be considered in relation to the topic:
the parameters of police-community relations must be defined;
the criteria for police professionalism must be understood; and
the role of police professionalism in bettering community relations must be clarified.
There is tremendous need for the professional Police
which would contribute to the improvement of the community relations, thus, resulting better life for everyone. Although, it is hard to pinpoint the time frame for such a noble achievement, but the embarking on a journey in the right direction may be more important than a destination. Police must make an effort for betterment of relationships with the communities they serve, which may be the only way out to fight crime effectively.
In a pluralistic society, the police do not and cannot please every body. Some communities feel neglected, exploited, ignored and persecuted. This situation was created in the United States of America during the decade of 1950. Minorities felt them-selves alienated from the main stream and saw police brutality as a tool to oppress for the majority. Police was seen as the representatives of the ruling class, the majority, thus were called with bad names as “pigs” and “fuzz” as a connotation of hate. Police-community relations became a national need. It was the National Conference of Christians and Jews who began directing attention toward urban problems of minority groups and their interaction with police. As a result of the combined efforts of Christians and Jews, the first National Institute on Police and Community Relations was held on the campus of Michigan State University in May 1955.Police supervisors, clergymen, educators, and social workers met and set some of the common goals that have since been incorporated into police-community relations programs. The same institution of higher learning had established the National Center on Police-Community relations in August 1955. The institution became known for five fold functions:
St. Louis Police Department had established the Division of Police-Community Relations in 1957. In May, 1962, the San Francisco Police Department established a community relations bureau with two fold purpose:
To create a better understanding between the police and the community; and
To promote greater public cooperation with the department.
Police-Community Relations may be appearing as a new police philosophy to build a new police image, but there was a time when every able man had to serve the community by performing volunteered watch and ward duty as a civic responsibility. Earlier, the police used to walk the beat and there was little or no problem of communication between the officer and the public. The officers knew almost everyone on their beats and they in turn were recognized and respected by the citizens in their area. As the patrol functions became motorized and the police work became depersonalized, serious communication problems arose. Officers became faceless symbol of authority, against which frustrated citizens often struck out as the only tangible and visible agent of the power structure. Police attitude toward citizen as unresponsive and oppressive, police became the natural targets for pent up frustrated unemployed, homeless and aggrieved.
Modern era story of town of St. Louis depicts that it had appointed four-man constabulary without pay in 1808. It was mandatory for every able-bodied male between 18 and 60 to serve a four-month tour of duty until the regular uniformed police force appeared in 1854. In 1955, the National Conference of Christians and Jews convened a conference in St. Louis, which eventually led to the first police-community relations program with the appointment of a full time director and citizen committees in 1957. Store-front centers were added to the program in 1966. PC-R programs included the following:
Another project named POLICE-COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES CENTER was started in 1971 at the Model City Police Precinct in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The city had the highest reported crime rate and complaints against police officers and injuries to the police personnel. City mayor and the police administrator had gotten together to discus future plans to ameliorate the crime problem. The police department had put a sergeant in-charge of PC-R unit to start a boxing program for the street youngsters. Soon, the number of the participants reached over 150 and demanded more PC-R programs in the area of social services and recreational activities. Later on the Center was equipped to have a “four point program”; an “outreach program”; a “referral services”; an “athletic program” and a “drop-in-center” program. Later on the Center had arranged wilderness trip for juvenile delinquents guided by volunteered police officers to supervise the trip. The goals of the trip were to develop sense of self-respect, pride and accomplishment. The objectives were set to:
Provide close contact between juvenile youths and police officers;
Create a situation where the boys work with police as a team; and
Acquaint the youths with a once in a life time experience.
The success of the project can be judged by the decline in reported crime for the city and initiation of several similar programs sponsored and financed by the Mayor’s office as well as the community contribution. Additional programs included:
First aid training;
Self-defense for men and women;
Personal grooming classes;
Dance and recreational activities for young and old.
Similarly, THE CHICAGO POLICE BUREAU OF COMMUNITY
SERVICES were responsible for building constructive relationships with the citizenry. The bureau consists of three divisions and each division maintains three sections to serve the community and to build police image. The Neighborhood Relations Division consists of three sections:
The Human Relations Section;
The School Visitation Section; and
The Staff Assistance Section.
The Preventive Programs Division includes:
The Youth Crime Prevention Section;
The Business Crime Prevention Section;
The General Crime Prevention Section;
The Public and Internal Information Division includes:
The Publications Section;
The Public Interests Section; and
The Special Activities Section.
OFFICER FRIENDLY PROGRAM IN KANSAS CITY, U.S.A.
Unfortunately, it is customary for mothers to scare their babies when crying even for the milk by threatening them, “ok, I am going to call police if you don’t shut up.” The fear of police stays in hearts and minds of youngsters for a long time to come. To remove such type of stereotyped image of police from these kids’ minds, Kansas City, MO., had set up a unique “officer friendly” program where officers in uniform and equipped with police gadgets are assigned to visit kindergarteners twice a year. Children are told about their scheduled days.
When the assigned officer reaches to the assigned school he says good-morning to every body. The he introduces himself saying, “Every policeman is your friend, and a friend is someone one who likes you and will help you, and he goes on and on praising cops and explaining their duties in the community.” The sole purpose is to remove the bad image of police that a child may have had picked up from his/her parent. He also lets children touch his gadgets with caution and allows them to get into his police vehicle. He goes from classroom to classroom introducing him/herself and knowing students by their names. He also delivers a sermon about traffic rules and regulations and gives safety tips for road crossings etc. At the end he says, “Each one of you is important to the policemen. We all care about you, he kisses many children and hugs others and lets them know that police is actually their helper.”
Kansa City Officer Friendly program was born in Chicago, Ill., Police Department in 1966 with collaboration of Director of Curriculum and the Sears-Roebuck for financing the program. Later on Officer Chuck Williams introduced the “officer friendly” program to Kansas City P.D.
Operation Handshake is another PC-R program was introduced in 1968 by the Philadelphia Police Department, under which Rookies used to be given the first assignment to go into the business community, introduce themselves as community relation officers on the block and shake hands to know them when they would be patrolling the beats. Strolling through the streets, visiting churches, and schools in the area and shaking hands seemed to coax smiles from the stern-visaged citizens.
COFFE KLATCH was Covina Police Department’s idea of Neighborhood Coffee Klatch where a host family would invite a few neighbors for a cup of coffee with the beat cop. The officer on duty will spare his time to meet the families and friends to tell them about police job and crime problem in that specific area. With a brief lecture and slides, the officer would entertain questions from the audience with a positive attitude. Usually the police department would arrange for the coffee and donuts and ask the host family to invite neighbors at their place. Police department would also arrange movie-making equipments to show it later to teach the participating officers lessons in personal attitude as well as to show it to the rookies during their academy training.
Other Programs Included were:
School Resource Officer
Police Athletic League
School Safety Program
Neighborhood Watch-Community-Oriented Policing OR CRIME WATCH PROGRAM.
INCERT-The Indiana Council of Emergency Response Team worked as:
Integrated Police Services Delivery System;
Career Criminal Apprehension Program;
Field Investigation Program;
Police Service Officers;
Victim Service System;
OPERATION IDENTIFICATION is another program introduced to the households to mark their valuables for identification from the recovered property. Included are:
Conjugal Prison Visits;
McGruff: The Speaking Dog
The Volunteer Police Corps;
Victim Compensation Programs;
NEW ISSUES POLICE WILL BE FACING IN THE NEAR FUTURE:
Drugs and Crime;
Crime Prevention and Youth
Discretionary Police Power
Police Accountability etc.
International Experience in Police-Community Relations Programs:
“No police force work in a vacuum” said William Clifford in his book “Crime Control in Japan, 1976”. In fact, the police in any society are a social control agency that responds to the ways people keep or break the law. Socially valued behavior of the people shapes police role in each society. Police in the United States of America reflects British heritage of three principals of “watch”, “constable” and “sheriff”.
The “watch” had it origin in self-policing where the men were hired, deputed on routine basis or volunteered for civic duty to mobilize their movement between the hours from dawn to dusk, to patrol streets in vigilance of fire and other illegal activities of deviant behavior. The purpose of the watch was simply to raise hue and cry to keep people alarmed against any mishap. Boston had its first watch in 1638 and New York had organized first Rattle Watch in 1652 (Wrobleski and Hess, 1986).
The “constables” were paid government representatives who maintained routined and volunteered patrolling force from dawn to dusk, kept records of the incidences, birth and death to report to government depositories once and a while, helped sheriff to collect land revenue and other taxes. They were also responsible to carry out municipal court orders and act as liaison in both civil and criminal matters.
The “sheriff” was appointed by the colonial governor to represent colonial government as court officer with extended duties of law enforcement in the role of a ‘town marshal’ and tax collector for the county in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Sheriff’s role did not include ‘crime prevention’ and was unable to control frequent outbursts of mass disturbances and riots. His deputies were hired part-time on the basis of fee-for-service. Policing was considered civil in character which was an extension of the basic responsibility of each citizen to maintain order. Distrust of centralized authority led the colonists to develop decentralized policing system emphasizing on personal freedom, the function of police became service oriented. Even the Constitution had delegated responsibility for law enforcement to the state and local level.
Throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, a growing tide of immigrants continued to flow to America and the population swelled to 8.8 million in the decade between 1900 and 1910 (Golden, 1981). Diversification in the immigrant population of the United States was seen as a threat to “The American Way,” and they were forced to live in ghettos and below the poverty line, resulting some of them adopting either illegal or deviant life style. As the criminal class continued to grow, municipal authorities started to look for an alternative form of policing. Following the London Reform of Metropolitan Police, New York had imported the idea of uniformed police force in 1853 followed by many other large size cities, replacing the 200 years old system of “watch” and “constable” in the United State. Since the Constitution had left law enforcement powers in the hands of the states and local communities, American Police, unlike their British counterparts, lacked the powerful, central authority of the crown to establish a legitimate, unifying mandate, instead American Police derived both their authorization and resources from local political leaders (Kelling and Moore, 1988). Under the local control, aldermen and the ward bosses exercised the control of police shaping the character of law enforcement in the neighborhood. Ward politicians patronizing their favorite police leaders appointed precinct captains of their choice. Captains, therefore, used to decide which laws to enforce, whose peace to keep, and which public to serve (Fogelson, 1977).
The urban police in the United States did not eradicate crime, they simply regulated it. Decentralized police force controlled by the corrupt politicians who used the police both as a source of patronage power and as a means of extracting bribes and payoffs from illicit enterprises, had forced the politicians during the first decade of the twentieth century a strong movement for police reform. Replacing foot patrol and rudimentary criminal investigation, established techniques and tactics were developed toward professionalism of police force. It was August Vollmer in 1920s and 30s supported by Wickersham Commission and followed by O.W. Wilson, and a strong police reform organization strategy was developed, removing from the political machine’s domination (Wilson 1950). Police were placed under civil service umbrella emphasizing on professionalism through enhanced education level and specialization. Policing in the political era simply had not achieved what the community wanted. The community was willing to give support to new approach of reformation to maintain peace and order without the interference of political machinery.
Police management became more hierarchical in character, developing “bureaucratic policing” in which police managers (leaders) maintained control over the rank and file with emphasis on uniformed standards of police conduct, removing the flexibility present in an earlier era. Professionalism became defined as specialization and technical proficiency, controlled by bureaucratic organization.
Modes of policing became preventive motorized patrol and rapid response to public demand, enabling police department to eliminate foot patrol, placing the patrol officers behind the wheels and controlling or supervising them via radio communication. Relationships between police and the public became “a thin blue line” that protected the lives and property of a passive and dependent community and police and community relations became sour. Developments in criminalistics became emphasized and police reinforced their image as professionals (Kelling and Moore, 1988).
Researches conducted in 1960s and 1970 and Kansas City Preventive Patrol experiment in particular indicated that motorized patrol as well as the response time to the citizen’ calls had little or no influence on crime rate, satisfaction with police and levels of fear in the community (Kelling and et al. 1974). Increasing the police numbers in New York showed that no change in crime rate (Chaiken, 1975). Similarly, rapid police response had little impact on arrests, community confidence in police, or fear of crime (Kelling, 1988). Such activities in one area simply displace criminal activities to other areas. Research also showed retroactive crime investigation was also considered ineffective. It was concluded, however, that most crimes were solved because of information received from the community, concluding that when police and community relations are poor, little information is likely to be offered (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988).
1970s research had redirected the American Police toward new directions of community policing that recognizes that police need to establish new working relationships with the community, relationships that enlist civilian support and assistance in both the planning and execution of policing task. The only solution to community satisfaction, crime prevention and successful criminal investigation is to shift community support or implied community support toward police rather than would be criminal or the offenders.
Police-Community relations in United States of America dates back to the 1940s when Wickersham Commission presented its report to President Herbert Hoover recommending many reforms in dealing with crime and order problems. August Vollmer including the post World War II sociologists had greatly influenced the need for a new type of specialized police training. In 1942, Joseph D. Lohman, a lecturer in sociology at the University of Chicago, Illinois, had offered the very first course on “The Police and Minority Groups” at the Chicago Park District Police Training School. Boston Police Academy followed the tradition of offering similar courses developed by a socio-psychologist Harvard Professor Gordon W. Allport in 1944. During the post W. W. II era the following activities on the relevant topic of police and human relation were arranged:
In 1945, Milwaukee Chief of Police Joseph T. Kluchesky addressed the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police on the topic, “Police Action on Minority Problems.”
In 1947, the National Conference of Christians and Jews had arranged a summer workshop in Detroit for teachers and other community leaders to reduce tension between elements of the community and police;
In 1950, The Southern Police Institute at the University of Louisville, Ky. had offered a thirteen-week curriculum on human relations and on Principles of Police Work with Minority Relations;
In 1952, The Los Angeles County Conference on Community Relations offered specialized training in human relations, race relations, the police and the minority groups and similar problems;
In 1954, International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Association of Inter-group Relations Officials had sponsored a joint conference at Philadelphia on the topic of gaining local cooperation to achieve orderly and just communities;
In 1955, The National Institute on Police and Community Relations at Michigan State University’s School of Police Administration and Public Safety;
In 1961-65, Michigan State University through the funds provided by the Field Foundation as well as LEAA, had established a National Center on Police-Community Relations for research and manpower development. Later on funding was provided to all cities with a population of thirty-thousand plus to establish some sort of community relations program;
Summer 1967, the riots and violent upheavals forced the
American government to realize that an intense and profound divisions among its people, both racial and social exists. Traditional patterns of community relations, such as block committees and precinct councils, had failed to do the job of bridging gap of communication between the public and law enforcement agents. Between the years 1967 – 1973, more police-community relations programs were initiated, but the National Institute on Police and Community Relations at Michigan State University was discontinued in desperation. In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals had identified Community-Based Crime Prevention efforts were to be lunched. Social, economical, and political stresses with racism, slums, poverty, substandard housing, unemployment and un-employability, educational discrimination, and other social malignancies were identified as causes for tension in police-citizen relations. For an evaluation of police-community relations, the following six types of programs of the past were reviewed:
Police training programs;
The objectives of the course should be geared toward
“Change in behavior” of the participant rather than changing attitude. No matter what everyone’s personal attitude toward others may be”? What matters? is that a uniformed police officer should behave like a professional to enforce a law assertively? Among the specific training techniques are:
Programmed Instruction – involves a philosophy of education with a long history, putting a learner in an ordered sequence of stimulus items, each of which brings forth a specified response from the participant. This method leads student from what they know toward what they are expected to learn in a given program.
Situational training – It is referred to as “work-study”, “Field training”, “Practicum”, “Field trip observation”, apprenticeship” and “Internship.” Arranged to provide some on-the-job learning experience, usually before joining the agency.
Case Analysis or Situational Analysis – Simulated situations are enacted through role playing or on film, in search for new and better ways of coping with embattled urban relationships.
Crisis Intervention and Conflict Management – It is new name for human relations and the community relation where police officers are exposed to family crisis intervention, consumer protection and landlord-tenant disputes settlement.
Sensitivity training – confrontation or encounter group which was developed by John Dewey in his idea on “progressive education”. Sensitivity training involves learning that stresses the affective dimension, employing empathy-building and projective techniques based on group therapy. It is a technique to improve police and community relations fostered by educational consulting agencies whose imparters include university professors and professionals. Social-psychological game theory plays a prominent part in the sensitivity training, such as “Operations Empathy” – Skid Row role for the police officer to play for a day or so and experiences the real street crime partner in the scenario. Sensitivity training is good for the police officer’ overreaction in tense community incidents or about training police for “affective disengagement.”
Police-community relations institutions:
The Police-Community Relations Institution is based on the
Human relations training for the police is vital;
Crime prevention can be achieved through PC-R programs;
Tension between the have not and others are basically for political and economic variations;
Change in police and community behavior depends upon the revision of existing criminal codes;
Many such programs have been initiated in police academies as well college settings and in the communities where people and police interact on daily routine basis. In these institutions particular issues by name are not discussed. These institutions have very important role to play for the educational advancement and behavior modification.
Metropolitan Police programs:
Dr. Lee P. Brown has classified police-community
Relations programs in large cities into four types:
Externally oriented – programs are developed
by police-community relations units in police department and are directed toward the general public;
Youth oriented – programs are directed mainly
toward youth in the community;
Service oriented – programs aimed at the
alleviation of social problems in the community; and
Internally oriented – programs are operated
on the premise that every police officer is a police-community relations officer and stress officer-on-the-beat efforts to create good relationships.
Police and the community relations programs and other activities concerned with youthful attitudes and behavior are synonymous. Program objectives commonly stress that respect for law and authority is attitudinal insurance against delinquent behavior. Among such programs are:
Police-school liaison – officer is stationed
in school in full uniform to encourage youth to see police officer as friendly and helpful, ready to answer any student would have to ask. The officer was solely responsible to decide to make referrals for the problem students or having meeting with teacher, student and parents if the problem involved trio presence. Good program for visional situation but had its pros and cons as viewed by the observer.
The School Resource Officer – is the
cooperative effort of the public schools and law enforcement to develop an understanding of law enforcement functions and to prevent juvenile delinquency.
Driver Education Program in high schools;
The Officer Friendly Program;
Police-Community Relations Youth Councils;
Teenage Traffic Court;
Career Day at Schools
Police Partner in Philadelphia;
Ten Post and School Contact Programs;
Police Youth Service Cops;
Police Junior-aid Programs;
Police Cruiser Tours;
Junior Crime Prevention Projects;
Student Symposia on Law and Order;
Youth Protection Instruction and Narcotic
Public Relations and public Information Programs:
The best of all public relations programs is what tax payers measure “the quality by what happens when they need the service?” Good police service is considered the best public relation. The most elaborate public relations schemes and projects are no substitute for quality performance by the individual police officer in contacts with citizens. Television, radio, the newspapers, the news magazines, departmental newsletters, advertisement and the like directed to public education and information can be important instruments and allies of police public relations.
6. Special Purpose Programs:
The Special purpose programs that may or may not
serve the purpose of Police-Community Relations projects are:
* Some cities have full time assigned police officer in job opportunities and job training centers in economically depressed areas to serve as crime prevention;
* New Orleans had Police Foundation, in addition to Ford Foundation to raise funds by public solicitation to help defray tuition costs for local police officers attending local colleges;
* Clergy-police relations project bringing in clergies from various denominations who rode the red car with Philadelphia City Police Officer on an eight-hour shift. Similarly, Los Angeles had International Clergy-Police Council and Washington, D.C. had Clergy-initiated referral services in which delinquent youths are sent to certain ministers for help in solving their problems. Church groups have been active running “storefront” clinics for narcotics addicts and halfway houses for released prisoners;
* Boston Police sponsors a program through which they help applicants to prepare for police entrance exams.;
* The San Jose, California Police Department uses public service time for scheduled Spanish-Language radio broadcasts providing information about police, probation, parole, legal aid and the like;
* Illinois Chamber of Commerce sponsors a program to better police service and police community relations;
* Atlanta Police Department used to assign their rookies to Crime Prevention Bureau (PC-R unit) for several weeks before they could be given a regular police job, and many more such programs are in operation in the United States.
There have been many public relations and public
information activities initiated by the police and other criminal justice segments to improve Police-Community Relations with specific objectives such as Police – Puerto Rico relations; Police – Chicano relations, and Police – Native American relations.
2. ENGLISH EXPERIENCE IN PC-R PROGRAMS:
Following the Brixton riots in 1981, Lord Scarman (1985, pp. 7-8), who concluded the official inquiry had said, “The success of policing operations depends in the last resort not upon questions of techniques or professional expertise but upon the degree of confidence felt by society in its police… The young blacks… who confronted the police in Brixton…had no confidence in the police. They saw themselves as the victims specifically of police harassment on the streets…the police by their refusal or inability to adjust their methods to the social situation with which they were confronted, angered and alienated them. The police failed in their fundamental duty, which is, and always has been, the maintenance of public tranquility.
English bobbies have traditionally been unarmed and have been known as “citizens in uniform,” but the Brixton riots were devastating to the self-image and public image of the English Policemen. The police in England had been working for the law and for the citizens rather than for rulers of the country. They had been enjoying mutual relations and respect between police and the public. During the student riots in 1960s, the English Police had walked alongside student demonstrators, guiding them rather than engaging in conflict with them. The rosy picture of the British Police Constable was shattered by the events in Brixton, Liverpool, Manchester, and other cities. As a result of the inquiry, Lord Scarman called for “change” in police recruitment, training, discipline, and patrol techniques.
“Citizen in uniform” police’s closest ties were to be to the public that he served. Police Constable was an autonomous agent who served the law rather than any government entity. Courtesy, friendliness, and helpfulness became standards that were proclaimed for the force. Englishmen grew to hold their policemen in esteem with affection and respect. The citizen knew that police are there to protect them against criminals without becoming symbols of the arrogance of power and politics (Critchley, 1967). According to Miller, (1977), English bobbies, however, emphasized restraint when dealing with ‘respectable’ Londoners, and used power when confronting the ‘lower orders’. The middle class Londoners were happy when police dealt harshly with vagrancy, alcoholism, and indecency, but the lower order Londoners (factory workers) took it as harassment.
In the twentieth century, the lower order belonged to ethnic minorities who had migrated to larger cities of England and from immigrants from former British colonies in Africa and Asia. The new comers performed menial work for low pay and suffered the discrimination of the majority. The conventional wisdom about English Police Constable is that the organization had built up a large reservoir of goodwill with the English public that most of tem regard their police with affection and respect. In 1980’s antipolice sentiments spurred a reevaluation of Police-Community Relations. Simon Holdaway (1983) had documented police brutality toward and contempt for minorities. Michael Brogden (1982) had suggested that police in England are not really answerable either to the government or to the public and thus had accrued a dangerous amount of power. The modern British Police have assumed the apparatus of a professional force equipped with sophisticated weaponry, communication technology and techniques for crowed control. Higher standards for selection, training and a sense of professional identity that do not allow for “outsider” interference in their operations and organizational structure to be circumvent. Instead of local control of English police. Central Government, and the Home Secretary in London are, now supportive of police agencies modernization.
One problem that confronts the English police in the face of ever more desperate and armed criminals in the large cities is the extent to which police officers should be armed. Waddington, 1988 had quoted one police official commenting regarding weaponry and training “…do we opt for the open carrying of weapons with the consequent loss of our unarmed image, or do we choose the concealed carrying of firearms, which may be publicly more acceptable, but operationally less efficient”. As a result of report titled “arming an unarmed police,” weaponry is now supplied to police installation and in patrol cars. As compared to other countries, however, English police constable continues to maintain a rather friendly image among the public. British police has a benevolent role. Sir Richard Mayne, laid the foundation of the first metropolitan police force in London. He originated the theory that the prevention of crime is the primary theme that it should be based on a force that is of the people and the civilian force, that only minimum force should be used in any confrontation situation and that the ethic should be patience and courtesy and helpfulness towards the general public, irrespective of their social position but at the same time, a hard vigilant face toward the offender.
Crime prevention is the basic goal of each English police officer and to minimize the crime rate, a uniformed patrolling presence in the streets of London and other bigger cities is constantly maintained around the clock. Police are to protect and help, that they are the guardians of liberty, free speech, and that of normal political activity of whatever spectrum can take place because of the police. Police are the enemy of the wrongdoers, but friend of and protector of and equal agent with the respectable law abiding person irrespective of their social position or racial origin.
The English people hold high esteem for the status of their Police officer. Police corruption in England exists because of the vice (pornography, homosexuality, street betting, prostitution and the like). Corruption free force has to be motivated for ethical believes from the very beginning. It is these green areas where police do not think the acts committed are crimes and the danger creeps in. In the past, cases have been noted where dishonesty had entered into the transactions between the law-breaker and the law enforcer. Most police bosses are of the opinion in bringing the corrupt officer into the open and prosecuting him or her to the very limits of the law – breaches of faith as well as breaches of honesty. Police corruption is cut-out surgically whenever it shows its head, despite the unpleasant publicity and recrimination that necessarily follow the washing of dirty linen in public.
Police relationships with public and with racial minorities in particular are based on intellectual acceptance, absolutely fundamental because equality is the only possible way of treating people. All people yearn for absolute equality of treatment, because it helps to identify the evils of the society and dangers that one might face in future. There is no substitute in a street confrontation for both sides to realize that they are dealing with each other as equal. Such feelings give police officers tremendous advantage in the discharge of his/her duties in such a situation. Avoiding the gung-ho mentality with a good supervision, police officers are very well discouraged to be dishonest and corrupt. English police philosophy of corruption is that you cannot bribe men into being honest, you can only not exactly shape them into being honest.
As for Police-community relations programs are concerned in England, every uniformed police officer with Metropolitan Police force is supposed to be a part of benevolent policing in Britain, because English society I benevolent society. Sir Richard Mayne, laid the foundations for so much of what is good in police work. He originated the theory that “the prevention of crime is the primary theme, based on the force of people requiring the use of minimum forces in any confrontation situation and that the ethic should be patience and courtesy and helpfulness towards the general public.”
Police officers’ training at every rank level stresses the intellectual acceptance, absolutely fundamental to the equality of treating people.
Also the English policemen are not differentiated by the specialized names, because it connotes a group of officers to that specialized work. All uniformed officers are trained equally to prevent crime benevolently in a benevolent society. Therefore, there are no specialized units called Police-Community Relations Program units. Every police officer has a complete freedom to initiate certain actions to deal with different problems, but according to the concept of management as laid down by the organizational structure and the delineation of respectability between certain ranks.
British police operates on the principles set by the judiciary as for the interrogation and investigation limitations are concerned. The prevailing facts are that the police have a right to question anybody about any crime and that civilians, the public, have a duty to help uphold the law and assist police in apprehending offenders. Rules also exist to assist harmonious living, to prevent disruptive behavior, so that if anyone breaks the rules there should be some form of sanction. British police have changed themselves according to the socio-economic and political status of the people, which has improved the general standing of the police in the community causing general respect of policemen for themselves. There is greater closeness between community and police because of police involvement in the community or vice-versa. In addition, British police are using volunteer groups dealing with first time delinquents. Police and public involvement with each other is helping to gain greater knowledge of one another creating feelings of belongingness.
The key concept to the success of Police-Community relations in England is “the autonomy of the police as agents to serve the law and to prevent crime and protect citizens against law violators rather than any particular government or political party.” Also, “the general impression of the unarmed, friendly and helpful English bobbies remains dominant,” helping improved police-community relations. Followed by Brixton riots’ inquiry by Lord Scarman (1985) several recommendations were made to effectuate police-community relation in England:
Increased foot patrol;
Opportunities for the officers including supervisors to become more familiar with their communities;
Assignment of officers of different ages to inner city areas;
Integration of the local patrol officer into central police operations.
3. Police-community relations experience in Japan:
History of Japanese police is closely linked to the development of political structure in Japanese society. Japanese borrowed the idea of consolidation of economic and political structure from the Chinese during seventh century. Japan began to develop a centralized state with the country divided into provinces under the administration of appointed governors. During the Yamato period, police and judicial functions were performed under the directions of the imperial ministers of war, justice, and popular affairs. Taika Refofrm of 794 A.D. gave police an independent recognition. The actual task of policing the community was carried out by the civilians. The Taika Code called the development of the go-no-na-sei, groups of five households charged with the maintenance of peace and order. The village head was given the responsibility to supervise these groups. The army used to be on alert if the need arises (Ames, 1976). Between the ninth and twelfth centuries a feudal system by the landlords was developed, breaking away from the central imperial control. A war broke out in 1467 A.D. that lasted for about a century. Finally, consolidation was made by Hideyoshi in 1600 A.D. and establishment of Tokugawa shogunate appeared (Reishauer, 1988). Growth in economic and increase in population and specialized manufacture gave way for the development of urbanization, disabling the old system of law enforcement and replacing five family (go-no-na-sei) responsibility with gonin-gumi as a central social control agency
The Tokugawa leadership directed that the local magistrate (machi-bugyo) be appointed in each city. Acting as chief of police, the prosecutor and judge, the magistrate appointed samurai to carry out the police function. They in had hired lower status individuals (criminals and out casts) to do the dirty work of policing work including interrogation and punishments (Leavell, 1975). A secrtet police (metsuke) was also developed to keep various daimyo under surveillance. Japanese had also developed watch posts to keep people controlled. These posts were the predecessors of today’s koban (police box) police. Tokugawa era police was not uniformed or under standardized code of criminal procedure, they were there to simply catch the criminals and punish them. Social control was left to informal surveillance and deterrence as the responsibility for the individual citizen’s behavior (Ames, 1976).
A coalition of samurai seized control of the imperial court and in order to join the Western community, restored Meiji emperor, who in turn developed law to unify society with new system of operation and control. As a result the people of Japan were united under Emperor Meiji. Tokyo had faced lawlessness. The magistrate became powerless and helpless, the central government hired ex-samurai bureaucrats who had shown loyalty to the emperor to appoint police militia (Leavell, 1977). Yukichi Fukuzawa had studied continental police systems had recommended the creation of specialized police force, thus in 1871 the militia was replaced with rasotsu and the Local Administration Act was issued to standardize the organization of the Prefectural police (peavell, 1975). Kawaji Toshiyoshi designed the modern Japanese Police System. Kawaji Toshiyoshi’s recommendations included:
The police should be a national organization under home ministry;
1. Tokyo, the capital, should have a separate police department operated by the Home Ministry;
Police function should include both judicial and
administrative activities to be administered by separate agencies;
Police should be armed and prepared to handle
emergencies without the help of army;
Supervisors of the local police functions should
be responsibility of prefectural governor; and
The police should administer the fire departments.
As a result of Kawaji recommendations, a Home Ministry was established in 1873 and in 1874, the local police was placed under the Home Minister and assigned to local prefecture. By 1875, police, all over Japan were wearing Western Style Uniform provided by the new regime. A set of regulation known as the Gyosei Keisatsu Kisekei was declared in 1875 which described the role of the new police. The new role of police included:
Crime prevention rather than apprehension of criminals alone;
Supervision of fire fighting groups;
Licensing tea houses and brothels to control contagious diseases; and
Serving public health agents.
Police substations and police boxes were established in 1876 bringing the police into the increasing contact with people. Between the years 1885-1891 a system of residential police boxes – chuzaisho and koban was established. Public Service Examination system to select police personnel was introduced. The TOKO (Special Police Force) was introduced in 1911 in Tokyo to maintain state political authority and became involved in the surveillance and meetings of the organizations, in censorship of books and papers and in election control.
Post World War II era, the police function was curtailed at the recommendations of the American law enforcement experts:
1. To take fire fighters responsibility away from police and place it under the separate fire fighting administration;
2. Judicial and legislative functions were stripped away;
3. Decentralize police force by assigning an
independent department to a population of 5000 or more;
4. Establishing rural police force, organized by each prefectural;
5. Public Safety Commission composed of citizens was placed under the control of prefectural governors.
In 1948, the new law went into effect and the local police was unable to handle the situation, Reform Police Law of 1954 in which police was to be placed under National Public Safety Commission and a National Police Agency (NPA). Basic policy is directed and regulated by the national body. This way the police stay independent from the local political control.
Japanese police gain their legitimacy from some of the basic characteristics of Japanese culture:
1. The Japanese ideal harmony supports both a police presence and police activity;
2. Police in Japan are viewed as public servants performing a desired service;
3. Police is conceived as a position of high respect;
4. Traditional respect for authority is deeply ingrained in Japanese philosophy and history;
5. Japanese Police are a fundamental part of the national family, in which government employees demand respect;
6. Japanese police perceives them-selves as public servants engaged in aiding public in the preservation of order instead of being viewed as repressive agency of control.
7. Police role is viewed as moral force whose role and its performance are in keeping with the society’s central values.
In essence, police ought to be visible in the community without causing any threat to it. They should be seen interacting and respecting each other. The Japanese police organization is very similar to any other country’s police organization. National Police Agency, called koban is stationed in Tokyo with eight regional police bureaus spread through out the country. The Perfectual Police agencies, called Chuzaisho are responsible to provide police protection for rural areas of Japan. Specialized SWAT type police is maintained to control any emergency situation but they are living in barracks like an army unit. To maintain good police-community relations, the members of chuzaisho police live the village and required to visit each household twice a year. The purpose of such visits is to know every member of the family and acquaint with neighborhood news and problems that might occur. The chusai-san (police officer) is invited to local celebrations and other functions only to keep him-self abrupt with community affairs that might help him in crime prevention and control. To avoid any possible corruption, the chusai-san is transferred to another location after every three years, unless there was a need for early dislocation.
Koban maintains police post in the urban area and functions the same way as his rural counterpart chusai-san. Police boxes (similar to those of storefronts in the United States) are found at every few blocks to assist citizens. The kobans time is divided into three shifts with a twenty-four hour shift for every officer in every three days. After serving police box tenure the officers move on to detective work, traffic police, riot police or other specialized police function (Bayley, 1991). In addition to police box duty the officer also provides counseling to troubled individuals, marriage and divorce counseling, money management counseling and parents of the troubled children advising or alcohol addicts. He is also responsible to organize neighborhood crime control and traffic safety groups and to maintain good police-community relations. Volunteer crime control organizations are also quite visible throughout Japan. Japanese police travel an extra mile to build a good rapport between us and them. Japanese police seek acceptance to social values rather than their counterpart U.S. police who seek simple compliance to community’s moral values.
Police in Japan had adopted a proactive attitude toward its people. On one hand, the police show their concern for the welfare of the people on the other hand, they take proper precautions to prevent any mishaps or to take stern action for criminal activity. Japanese feel that the peculiar Japanese police culture is one of the main contributing factors to the low crime rate in Japan. They also believe that the close relationship between police and public contributes to social harmony and good neighborhood relations.
Police of the Meiji Restoration period were ex-samurai and of high social status who looked at to be the protectors of the society, but the post World War II era Japanese police became public servants (ueno, 1986). Japanese police is known as friendly and efficient force in the modern world.
Police Ties to the Community:
Japan has a national police force in Tokyo with eight (8) police bureaus in various parts of the country. Prefectural police and local police agencies are under their subordination. Specialized riots police stay in barracks in each prefecture to control riots. There are two types of police force in Japan: (1) Koban in urban areas and (2) the Chuzaisho in village or rural areas. They are situated in all neighborhoods and constitute the heart of the Japanese police operation.
Koban or the police box is the urban police force in which each officer patrols and visits neighborhood households to maintain demographical information including the location of each household. They are usually “storefront” offices. Kobans work in three shifts. Koban officer has to work 24 hours shift once in every three days. Work in koban is the first assignment for a Japanese Police officer before moving to the detective work, traffic control or riot police. Police officer is supposed to know in detail what is happening in his neighborhood.
“The koban police officer gathers data about people in his area, working late hours on his beat observing every activity that might require eye-witness testimony to crime, keeps lists of people who are cooperative with police, of people who own guns or words, of all rented homes and apartments that might serve as hideout for fugitives, of people with criminal records, and of people with mental illness. He also keeps an organizational chart on the gang and groups with detailed activities they might be engaged in, lists of old and retired people in his area to pay periodic visits to keep up with welfare and wellbeing, including total population and its characteristics of the area (Ames, 1981).
Among other duties, a koban officer acts as counselor to troubled individuals in the neighborhood including marriage and divorce counseling, money management, family counseling, and helping with alcohol and drug addicts in his area. He is also responsible to organize volunteer groups in the neighborhood for crime prevention and traffic safety and delivers lectures or arranges talks on the topic among people who gather on festivals or special occasions. The Japanese people are fond of their police and the koban officers entertain individuals and groups at the police station for exchange of information and other discussions. Koban also provides a basis for spying on the populous by a government that has become tyrannical or hostile to the people. Model community relation practiced by the Japanese police is the capacity for control rather than service that is built into the system. Modern forms of communication, greater mobility through patrol cars and other technological advances are quite in order among Kobans.
Chuzaisho is the rural or village police in Japan and the police officer is known as chusai-san lives with his family in a small office-cum-house, marked by signs and a red light at the entrance which has been provided by the government. Chusai-san is the most prestigious officer in the village who enjoys the status of a school principle and headman. The officer spends his time patrolling the area, visiting the residents, and conducting police business out of his office in the chuzaisho while his wife entertains calls for help and takes crime reports usually reported at the office. Chuzai-san has to visit each household twice-a-year to become acquainted with all the members of the household. He collects neighborhood news and problems that might be occurring. He always available to his people and is invited to all celebrations in his neighborhood. He integrates himself into the community life to keep informed about matters that might aid in his task of crime prevention and crime control. Ames, 1981, describes one crime investigation in a local area as:
“A burglary was reported in chuzai-san’s jurisdiction. He had the woman (complainant) fill out several forms about the crime and the loss resulting from the crime. The woman had offered him something to eat and hot tea while he was waiting for her to complete the forms.” To prevent corruption in these situations, the chuzai-sen is transferred to another area after every three years of tenure. This way he is prevented from abusing his office, He is allowed to accept normal Japanese ceremonial gifts.”
The Japanese system of local police stations illustrates an important principle about police-community relations. Effectiveness in policing goes beyond a reactive response to crime and deviance on the part of police officers. According to Bailey (1991), “the Japanese experience emphasizes the importance of the police as an agency that works with the public to obtain a commitment to lawfulness.” Japanese police officer seeks the acceptance of the community’s moral values where as the American police officer brings the people into compliance by coercion or actual use of force. Japanese police educate people for compliance that can be promoted in a positive way by police efforts.
4. Singapore Experience in PC-R
SINGAPORE Police has followed Japanese Police pattern of visiting neighborhood. A melting pot city-state with Chinese as a majority of its population, Malays, Indians and Pakistani, has launched kobanlike program since 1981 with Ninety-one neighborhood police posts (NPP) for regular home and business visits. They organize crime prevention associations and develop close links with community groups and leaders. An NPP unit consists of five police officers for eight-hour shift and forty hours a week work, while investigation task is carried out by a special unit. Unlike Japanese society, the Singapore society is a mixture of many ethnic groups with different custom religions, and economic status whereas Japan has a homogeneous population. Singapore experience might be befitting to Pakistani society in its community structure.
Singapore has become a model nation in the development of community policing, according to Quah and Quah (1987). Singapore, a city-state with a population of consisting Chinese, Malays, Indian and other introduced a major reform of its police in 1981. Singapore is an Island republic. According to the World Competitiveness and Confidence Report of 1993, Crime, in Singapore is well under control with a fifth consecutive year. Juvenile delinquency and gang activities, however, have been on the increase because of growing population and materialism. Singapore youths are loosely-knit with street corner gangs who have very weak link with traditional secret societies. Police, therefore, has adopted an approach of counseling and education to deter the youths from activities, including:
Activities organized through the Police Boy’ Clubs;
Talks to school students;
Production of a video tape on the evils of secret societies released to all schools in Singapore;
Counseling of youths detected to be involved in secret societies; and
A Prison Visit Program targeted at wayward youths to be expose to the realities of prison life.
Singapore police is adequately equipped and supported by effective legislation to deal with such a threat, yet it has been concerned mostly with syndicated crimes related to secret societies. Other than drug trafficking, secret societies are often known to operate public entertainment outlets, vice, prostitution, and gambling rackets. Despite public’s unwillingness to report such activities to police due to the dear of retaliation, the successful suppression had been possible through its tough preventive detection laws. It has also been vigilant and has been taking stringent enforcement action to prevent foreign criminals, especially those with links triads and organized crime syndicates. Singapore had used Japanese police as a model and divided the city into ninety-one neighborhood police posts (NPP). Singapore introduced motorized Koban-like police force equipped with modern communication system, and weaponry.
Policies in three areas have been instrumental in controlling crime rate in Singapore:
Enhanced Operational Capability; and
Efficient Manpower Utilizations.
(a) Community Policing in Singapore:
In Community policing, the Singapore Police implemented a policy to garner public support, cooperation and involvement of the community to fight crime and disorder by narrowing the physical and psychological gaps between the police and the community. Community policing policies are targeted at solving problems at their source, rather than battling the symptoms, which are likely to resurface if the root cause is not identified and eradicated. The programs, such as, the Neighborhood Watch Groups, crime prevention exhibitions and talks, Police Boys Clubs and the Crime watch programs through electronic media, and Police Involvement and representation on Resident Committees and in the community service. The police of Singapore regularly visit homes and businesses, organize crime prevention associations, and develop close ties with community groups and leaders. Neighborhood Police Post (NPP) is usually staffed by five officers, and there are Chuzaisho-like three shifts of eight-hour a-day, patrol units, responsible to intercept any criminal activity as well as to provide police assistance to any one who may needs or demands it. These programs have projected the police as a much friendlier personality whom the community can approach at any time, anywhere for assistance. The Community Policing in Singapore is successful because:
It has better rapport with the community;
Community is more cooperative;
Effective Crime Prevention Activities;
Quality Arrests performed by the police;
Low crime rates are proven fact for success;
Criminal investigation and traffic control tasks are carried out by specialized forces not considered to be part of NPP.
(b) Enhanced Operational Capability of the Police:
In order to be able to detect and deter crime, the police must have capabilities to respond to crime report in an effective and professional manner. The acquisition of a comprehensive and modern command control and communication system is underway. Technological gadgets have become more accessible to the public to detect criminals used Close Circuit Television, reinforce barriers at doors and windows to delay police entry, soluble paper to destroy evidence, advanced equipments to counterfeit currency and credit cards, and computers to store coded data bases, programmed magnetic strips on charge cards and make illegal electronic fund transfers. Singapore police also had received state-of-the-art technology in crime prevention and detection. The Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Polygraph, DNA profiling, image management system (IMS) and computerized investigation management system (CIMS) are available to the police to aid in investigation. Effective legislation and timely amendments to existing legislation to deal with new trends in crime ensure that the police have effective control over crime by nipping potential in the bud. Legislations introduced include, murder, drug trafficking, offenses committed by the use armed weaponry, and kidnapping. Development of close links, international cooperation and sharing of intelligence with foreign counterparts are becoming increasing important as criminals become increasingly mobile and engage in cross-border activities, such as money laundering, alien smuggling, drug trafficking and the use of counterfeited currency and credit cards.
(c) Effective Manpower Utilization:
With the continued growth in private sector, demands for qualified manpower affect the recruitment and retention of the police officers. The police, therefore, has adopted training and manpower development policies to ensure efficient use of manpower. More effective force deployment and National Servicemen, reservists, and volunteers to complement the regular police is crucial to ensure that police presence on the ground is not compromised. Officers are trained to respond to the ground situations independently and with wider discretion to make decisions. Electronic gadgets are acquired and police officers are trained through in-service programs to stay with the technologically equipped criminals.
Singapore model is directly borrowed concept from Japan with some modifications regarding the size of jurisdiction. The difference in Singapore case is that the population of the city is composed of many ethnic groups with different religions, customs and socio-economic status, where as, Japanese society has homogeneous characteristics that had carried village culture into its modern cities and factories. Also, Japan has a pervasive surveillance of the population model of policing, whereas, Singapore is different in characteristics.
Because of the diversity in the community make up, community policing, in Singapore has become the focus of attention in police departments around the world. Neither British reforms following Brixton riots nor the Japanese neighborhood patrol post shows the pervasiveness of the perception that professionalism, in the sense of depersonalizing police operations and over-emphasizing crime control at the expense of community services, has had unfortunate effects on the state of police-community relations.
Singapore, being a city-state, may have characteristics totally different from any other metropolitan city or the country, but with force deployment strategy, sovereign unit of Singapore was able to manage to keep the low profile on crime rate and because of the separate pockets of ethnic groups living in different areas may have had an opportunity to maintain community based crime prevention programs.
5. French Experience in PC-R
General public views French Police as brutal when dealing with suspects. In order to collect information about citizens, the French Police violate civil liberties through excessive zeal and the action of the members of the force are known as traditional police abuse. French Police practice of brutality had started in seventeenth century with their internal spies and to tighten the Napoleonic era national security. Police is seen as agents of the state rather than public servant. French Police had tried to change police image following the 1960s civil disobediences, but police practice had not changed from its repressive attitude, secretive information gathering compulsions and lack of accountability to a preventive and dissuasive public servants. 1987 riots have proven, once again, that French Police had gone back to its traditional stance of guarded mistrust with respect to their police forces.
It can be concluded from the brief account of French Police activities that France is no-where closer to having police-community relations programs. French police may be a professional in its tactics to control its citizens through oppression but their image and respect among citizens is certainly has hit the bottom rock.
6. German Experience in PC-R Programs:
German Police may not be as closer to its community as the British Police, but they had been trying, from time to time, to be “citizen friendly” and closer to building a constitutional and democratic type of police. During 1950s, German Police had used a slogan “The Police, Your Friend and Helper” on posters which represent “Public Relations” rather than “Community Relations” programs in their effort. 1970s reforms were geared toward making the German Police a “professional” force rather than efforts to bring it closer to the people. Police leaders were instructed the importance of participatory management and respect for the rights of individual officers rather than members of the community. German police have become a terrorist control force by building up a system of technologically sophisticated information procurement, using computers, wiretaps, random surveillance and other methods closely depicting the “covert” activities as compared to Japanese system of collecting information through “overt” (neighborhood surveillance) activities. “Community oriented policing,” has not become a major movement in Germany. Complex technology of surveillance and crowd control coupled with the problems of terrorist activities and social unrest, German Police has been handicapped to introduce any sort of police-community relations. German police, however, is much more relaxed with their community as compared with France or they have been less visible in the community as compared with England. Australia, Norway, and Sweden have developed sami-community related police organizations allowing very little interference by the community in police professionalism.
7. Canadian Experience with PC-R
Traditional Canadian police practices find their roots in England (Young, 1996) with a primary function to prevent crime, detect crime, and maintain order. There was a little or no interaction between the police and the policed. As a result, police was considered “apart from the community, not a part of the community (Ibid). Animosity was obvious between communities and policing bodies.
Faced with accusations of incompetence, inadequacy and failure to positively interact with the very fabric that they belonged to (the community), the Canadian had responded by developing and deploying community policing programs (Stanfield, 1996). Under the community-based model, the Canadian police was supposed to be working alongside communities to help them manage their own risk. The central principle of the concept of community policing was a full partnership between the community and the police in ascertaining and amending local crime and disorder problems.
The community policing approach provides a sharp contrast to the traditional policing approach. Traditional public policing approach emphasizes the ability to rapidly react to incidents and respond to the crime call within the shortest period possible to enforce the law, whereas, community public policing emphasizes the use of proactive measures to identify and solve problems and keep the peace (Bayley, 1994). The proactive approach enables police to seek solutions through the establishment of a general intervention policy. This intervention policy is strengthened by a consistent effort to have consultations with the community to build TRUST and show a brother-like sympathy. The establishment of a partnership allows the police to consult:
With the community in general; and
With groups of clients and more specialized agents
to discover community’s needs and expectations. The basic objectives such as : reducing the rate of victimization; reducing the feelings of insecurity; and increasing public satisfaction with the police (Ibid) are the responses to concerns expressed by the community. This approach also helps police to maintain legitimacy and remain relevant.
Following are the basic strategies of community policing:
Decentralizing the police service by making each police officer responsible to the field situation;
Fostering the community autonomy of volunteers and citizens;
Fostering a great visibility of the police;
Police preoccupation with accountability; and
Greater participation within the community.
Critically speaking, community policing is simply another effort of the state to regulate its citizens’ behavior. Community policing may allow for further abuse of power and less accountability because the “concept” achieves the TRUST of the citizens and not specific means. Increased presence of the police in society may increase the enforcement of laws but may also prompt the police to become more significant agents of moral regulation. As police move from a role of strictly enforcers to that of educators, we should acknowledge the increased role of police in defining morality on a local level. In other words, police have invented new ways to intervene public affairs and public privacy than ever before.
8. Indian Police Experience with PC-R
Generally, Indian police have been mistrusted and alienated from the public. British and pre-British are the major factors to in this situation. The police forces were used by the British in their struggle against the movement for independence. This intensified the popular distrust of the police and its identification with oppression and repression. In other words, the independence struggle pitted police against national movement. Because the police bore the brunt of repression, those memories still very much effectuate relationship between the police and the policed. India and Pakistan share this stigma till today.
People think police as being brutal and venal. People believe that bodily injury is a consequence of normal visits to police station. These feeling of distrust and injurious attacks are quite pervasive and deep rooted. On the other hand, police are often asked to provide assistance in time of personal trouble. Under such a fear and negative feelings, police-community relations have become a concern in both the countries; India and Pakistan. A major emphasis of the police training is also to help police see themselves as partners of the people.
Despite all of its difficulties, police has to develop a cooperative relationship with the public that it serves. All this has to be done within the framework that law enforcement is the police job. Even in training, recruits are taught that if they help public, the public will help them in fighting crime. The training college of the ISP in the Punjab distributes the handout with following script:
“The police cannot discharge their duties to maintain law and order without the backing, goodwill, and cooperation of the public… The police are in a position to perform many non-regulatory functions during the course of their duties and small courtesies and services rendered to individual citizens would go a long way in building up goodwill for the police and an appreciation of their difficulties. They must always willingly offer their services for various causes, i.e. natural calamities, floods and fire.
Community policing has become customary in the West, the Europe and the Asian countries as well. After the Brixton disturbance in 1981, England has increased its foot patrol, required of their officers to know their neighborhood and their problems and the integration of the local police units into central police operations.
French people view their police as brutal while dealing with suspects. In order to collect information about citizens, the French Police violate civil liberties through excessive zeal and the action of the members of the force are known as traditional police abuse. French Police practice of brutality had started in seventeenth century with their internal spies and to tighten the Napoleonic era national security. Police is seen as agents of the state rather than public servant. French Police had tried to change police image following the 1960s civil disobediences, but police practice had not changed from its repressive attitude, secretive information gathering compulsions and lack of accountability to a preventive and dissuasive public servants. 1987 riots have proven, once again, that French Police had gone back to its traditional stance of guarded mistrust with respect to their police forces.
It can be concluded from the brief account of French Police activities that France is no-where closer to having police-community relations programs. French police may be a professional in its tactics to control its citizens through oppression but their image and respect among citizens is certainly has hit the bottom rock.
German Police may not be as closer to its community as the British Police, but they had been trying, from time to time, to be “citizen friendly” and closer to building a constitutional and democratic type of police. During 1950s, German Police had used a slogan “The Police, Your Friend and Helper” on posters which represent “Public Relations” rather than “Community Relations” programs in their effort. 1970s reforms were geared toward making the German Police a “professional” force rather than efforts to bring it closer to the people. Police leaders were instructed the importance of participatory management and respect for the rights of individual officers rather than members of the community. German police have become a terrorist control force by building up a system of technologically sophisticated information procurement, using computers, wiretaps, random surveillance and other methods closely depicting the “covert” activities as compared to Japanese system of collecting information through “overt” (neighborhood surveillance) activities. “Community oriented policing,” has not become a major movement in Germany. Complex technology of surveillance and crowd control coupled with the problems of terrorist activities and social unrest, German Police has been handicapped to introduce any sort of police-community relations. German police, however, is much more relaxed with their community as compared with France or they have been less visible in the community as compared with England. Australia, Norway, and Sweden have developed sami-community related police organizations allowing very little interference by the community in police professionalism.
Reasons for lack of interaction between Police and Public
Police in Pakistan has long been governed under Act of
1861 introduced by the imperial domination and had been considered as a British colonial activity. The connection with the imperial power has earned the police of Pakistan a reputation of being repressive and oppressive in their functions in the community. Fairness and justice are not associated with Indo-Pak police. During 1857 mutiny and civil unrest (the independence struggle), the Indian sub-continental police pitted against national movement and fought to suppress or to kill Freedom fighters. The foreign origin superior police officers in Indo-Pak police ordered to stand against their own kind.
Also, during eighteenth century the growth of dacoitism had disrupted the village solidarity where the Village Punchayat became less effective in maintaining law and order. The imperial iron hand taught Indo-Pak police to be faceless in order to protect the interests of the British Royalty. Police-community relations that were in grunted village-oriented police now have gone sour to the extent that Pakistani police have a task much greater than getting cooperation in enforcing laws. They have, as Shane (1980) had stressed, a task that may help build a cooperative and successful society.
The traces of police induction go back in centuries of prehistory when men felt to protect themselves, their territory and crude possessions. Mesopotamian (3500-700 B.C.) and Egyptian (4500-500 B.C.) civilizations had used formalized methods of community policing. Iraqi society during 7000 B.C. shows the use of community policing to protect their farming communities. A community head or clan in the ancient societies had emphasized the concept of self-policing form of law enforcement. The patriarch maintained the order of his family by putting the responsibility equally on each member of the community. Communities increased in numbers. Theft and lad fraud had become common crimes of the time, sophistication and the complexities of social system proved the concept of self-policing inadequate. Ur-Nammu (2150 B.C.) and Babylonian King Hammurabi (2100 B.C.) had codified laws are the signs of law enforcement under the philosophy of individual responsibility to protect the community against common offenders. Similarly early Greek Civilization (800-600 B.C.) had prepared legal Codes of Draco and Solon that opposed tyranny and injustice. Solon’ reforms had emphasized local autonomy. Then we see the Roman law coming into affect as the Laws of the Twelve Tables (450 B.C.) where the responsibility to enforce laws was delegated to someone else.
During the post Roman era, groups in England had formed themselves into tuns and introduced the protection principle of “hue and cry” a concept that required every able-bodied man to help in the chase and apprehension of lawbreakers, failure to take part could force payment of restitution or punishment equal to that of the lawbreaker. In Indo-Pak society, the headman or the landlords were imposed on restitution money in cases where they had failed to apprehend the offenders of criminal activities and hand them over to the government for punishment. In 800 A.D., the Frankpledge system required every freeman over the age of twelve to belong to a group of ten families, known as “tithing” for the purpose of community policing and to maintain peace and harmony of the community. Ten tithings were named “hundreds”, headed by a “reeve”. Several hundreds formed a “shire” headed by a “shire-reeve”, who was given military, judicial and civil powers also vested with “posse comitatus” or power of the county to commission any by-standard to assist the agent of the law to respond to hue and cry and to seek out and return the offender for trial and punishment, establishing a community relation force. Later on during William, the conqueror (1066 A.D.) and Assize Clarendon (1166 A.D.), the “hue and cry” was replaced by “horn and hounds” to catch the escapee from justice. During the same time “comes stabuli” or “(constable)” came into being with duties to assist sheriff. Increased urbanization, trade, affluency and crime, the English atmosphere had to introduce, “the Statute of Winchester” in 1285 A.D., establishing police for every community and reaffirming community policing concept by paid members of the society. Watchman called bailiff guarded the city gates from dust to dusk and kept vigil over all residents, lodgers and the prostitutions. A unit of police called “des moeurs” was responsible for regulating street walkers, and prostitutions and limiting them to the area they belonged to. Edward III established the office of the “justice of the peace” in 1361 performing duties as law enforcement agent as well as judge (magistrate). “Merchant police” was created by the businessmen to protect their businesses from thugs and thieves as a part of community policing. Residents of parishes (counties) were required to take turns in the parochial police was replaced by the paid police. In 663, Charles the II created “night watchman” force to guard the City of London. “Charlies”, “Shiver and Shake Watch” were the humorous names called for watchmen.
United States of America first became the British colony followed by other nationals from Europe. Immigrants from each country of Europe had followed its own old system of policing. Shire-Reeve and Constable (Chief of Police) were imported to police new settlements. New England, a village centering around the industry and commerce, the “and “watch and ward” became effective type of police. South being agricultural and rural community established “county-sheriff” and “Parish-Sheriff” in Louisiana. New Amsterdam (New York) had experienced “watch and ward” called “rattle watch” for they used to carry large “rattles now” to warn would be offenders of their presence and keep the citizens half-awake to be alert against any intruder. Thus New York and elsewhere in the United States the concept of self-policing through community participation was introduced. The history of policing in the United States indicated that, as the Reform Era evolved, the role of the police became narrowed to law enforcement and crime control. Almost all big cities had followed reforms of the London Metropolitan Police Department.
Slowly and gradually, as the industry grew larger, the volunteered force was replaced by the paid police service converting into a professional police service they declared themselves to be professional experts on crime and as crime fighters, citizens became the passive recipients of police protection. The net result was the development of “professional policing” that relied on motorized patrol with a radioed-communication. The doctrine of rapid response to calls for emergency services, and an emphasis on the retroactive of investigation of crime was in place (Moore-Trojanowicz, and Kelling, 1988). Command and Control style of management was used to increase efficiency and accountability thus reducing the police role to a legalistic style of law enforcement. To establish clearer authority to command, the police administration was structured on the hierarchical, top-down paramilitary chain-of command. The police, however, failed to win the “war on crime.” Early settler-era through 1960s and 1970s, crime rate in the United States of America had soured to its new heights. Administrators at all levels of government worried and tried different strategies from an increase police in numbers to professionalizing police personnel, but nothing worked. Policing all over the world in general and Pakistan in particular entered into a time of crisis, public unrest and rise in street crimes indicating ineffective law enforcement practices. One of the most thrilling reasons that necessitated PC-R in Pakistan was “Thana Culture” which is explained below:
1. THANA CULTURE:
The police-legacy left by the British to sub-continent Indo-Pak police include:
Structure of the Police Station;
Perceptions, attitudes, and predisposition toward police on the part of both public and policymakers; and
iii. ‘Proper police-role’ as stereotyped police duties.
Colonial domination was replaced with parliamentary and
federal features of bureaucracy (Ministry of Home Affairs and the Home Department) to handle police affairs through the inspector-general of police. Contemporary police system – control by the provincial governments, horizontal stratification, and functional specification between armed and unarmed police remained the same. The new political context affected the manner in which police were held accountable and not the way they were organized to accomplish police purposes. The principle of supervision of police by civilian administration has been preserved as it was stated in the Police Act of 1861, with I.G.P. at provincial level and Senior Superintendents at district level. The SSP was to hold his charge “under the general control and direction” of the district magistrate (SSP is independently responsible for the internal management of the force, whereas, the D.M. is responsible for the correct use of that force in coping with security problems of the district). It simply means that there are two hierarchies with supervisory authority over police activities - police hierarchy culminating in the I.G.P. and a civilian hierarchy running from D.M. to the Secretary of the Home Department, (Bayley, 1969).
Similarly, the Village policing was a self regulatory mechanism tied closely to the internal power structure of village society. Indo-Pak Police in the late eighteenth century was represented as oppressive and unfair where extortion flourished unchecked through all ranks of officials responsible for the maintenance of law and order (Government of India, Report of the Indian Police Commission, 1902-3). In 1792, Police administration was taken out of the hands of landowners (zamindars) and districts were divided into parts over which a darogha (thanedar-subinspector of police) became responsible for law and order in his area and to supervising the village headmen. He was accountable to the district judge for every action he took. Later on, darogha’s arrogance and tyranny became noticed by the district officer and he was blamed for deteriorating conditions in the countryside and in 1814 the old system of village policing was restored and the collector (the chief executive officer over each district) was made head over village police to supervise. But, in Bengal, the darogha system and his extra-legal methods of policing and investigating crimes continued to flourish matchlessly. Today’s macho image of police as well as urbanization and industrialization have attracted villagers to move toward metropolitan Pakistan and most of the young and restless have joined police at low level of ranking. Cultural shock of the village migrants has crowded cities causing job scarcity for the unskilled. Most young people have joined police force filling up the low-rank level slots. These officers, after completing the basic training are being assigned to patrolling and crime prevention activities. Community policing, in the hands of new officers is suffering because of lack of professionalism and proper communication skills, causing hurdles in the softening of the relationships between the community and the police. Newly hired and trained commissioned police officers of the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and higher, including the inspectors are showing improvement in PC-R programs through communication skills as well as personal behavior and attitudes toward a challenging job. Newly inducted low level police force and the role of the village level police services as depicted below have given a new image to the current police services or are in the way of community policing efforts of the Police in general and the Punjab Police in particular :
Chowkidar or dafadar is inherited position of the past which was filled by the collector and wages were paid partially by the local community - punchayat and partially by the government. He is provided with a brass-bound lathi (club) and a leather belt as his uniform or identification while on duty from sundown to sunrise.
Darogha (Thanedar or police sub-inspector) is another inherited position held by the S.H.O. who had continued enjoying his arrogance and tyranny throughout the British Raj and maintained his style into thana-culture of Pakistan.
Thana culture is a typical phrase that represents police power or authority and gives citizens a special message of police hatred-ness, police-discretion and a place where coercion to take confession from the innocent or the guilty alike is obviously visible or felt, the building structure, the thanedar, the personnel and even the visitors leave a particular impression of repression and oppression. By analyzing “thana culture, one can positively conclude that there is no place for the public in general or the poor in particular to have to do with police. “Thana-culture” negates community policing concepts and discourages the community involvement with police. A Thana-culture can best be prescribed in terms of:
Physical structure of building layout and equipments: Since the darogha system was introduced in India, the thanedari system represented the pinnacle of police authority known till today. The buildings were constructed on or near the highways, visible to all with distinction of a long walk-way, directly leading to the darogh office, lock-ups to be seen on both side of the walk-way where poor suspects are locked up, visible to all entering the main corridor where darogha could be seen indolent and remote, horrifying the visitor(s), with an adjacent office of the muhharrar (record-keeper). Around the office of the thanedar, other offices are located to conduct investigation, usually, through the use of third-degree. One could, upon his entrance, easily hear the crying of the suspects under investigation. The whole scene can be seen or felt as a horrifying stage. Citizens (respectable or otherwise) could not feel comfortable or un-embarrassed when visiting the thana for any purpose. Present thanas represent the century old structure of tyranny and the powerful.
General appearance of police personnel and spoken dialect
inside the thana are seen as the representatives of oppression, in uniform, usually an unbuttoned shirt, loosely hanging pent with un-buckled leather belt, running in and around the thanedar’s office with few files and paper sheets in their hands, yelling and screaming on each other or at the people who have been called upon to pay official visit to the police station. The muhharrar is heard in roaring voice asking the purpose of the visit to who-ever enters his office. The language or dialect, they use represent an un-civilized and un-educated slogans of abusive tone.
Thanedar’s office and his personal appearance represents an image of a feudal lord or a king of small sultanat. His
wrestler type look with long or thick mustache and a cigar or pipe, puffing smoke out of his mouth is good enough to scare a gentleman. Not moving an inch out of his dominating chair, pays due respect to no one, cares for nothing, simply asks what have you brought in or how much you will be leaving behind (gratification) as a favor? Deal for the graft has already been cut, either by the muhharrar, a tout, or another police officer involved in the matter before one’s meeting with thanedar. Muhharrar does not move a bit without his boss’ approval. Neither initial report nor the FIR like documents can be entertained without his approval or say into it.
Muharrar of the Thana, records, interior of the office, equipments & his public dealing represents arrogance with leading sentences and without listening to the whole story of the complainant. He has already manufactured what he was going to write into his roze-namcha (daily diary). Muhharrar’s attitude of negating the complainant version gives one a message of non-cooperation and zero outcome of the report. People visiting police station with high hopes of entertainment of grievances feel disappointments at the hands of muhharrar till they offer some sort of graft or even entertainment at the first stage. On the hole, thanedar and the muhharrar with their arrogance are the anti-PC-R program representatives.
Third degree method of investigation inside thana or at the private torture cells. Not to mention that Pakistani police officials are quite intelligent and are capable of finding truth out of even hard core suspects, they instead of using technical methods to get the truth out of the suspect(s), use of third degree is applied to begin with. Then the confession is obtained through the use of force or threat of force to record confession, ultimately to be proven coerced confession in court. Police’s macho attitude is also anti-community policing factor.
Police attitude toward public; (Expected gratifications) and
Public attitude toward police (General and specific);
During Maurya, Gupta, and Mughal dynasties, the policing was left up to the autonomous villages and even during British occupied Indo-Pak, the traditional police system persisted mutely. Kotwal system for the towns/cities and darogha system for the rural area, though corrupt and arrogant, reminded people of the sub-continent, as the unacclaimed rulers of their territories and positions of law enforcers were coveted by many, for the opportunities it provided for extortion and receiving bribes. The kotwal, darogha and their staff were pictured as being ruthless, cruel, arbitrary, and effective only when their own interest used to be involved. The police was seen as the expansion and contraction of an imperial power always set up an impermeable stratum of village institutions. Public view of police as “what would you bring in when you enter thana and what would you leave behind when you return from the station?” gives one feeling of selfishness and corruption. Every member of the police force expects gratification of one sort or the other from civilian visitors. Police attitude toward citizen is seen as arrogant till the purpose of one’s visit becomes an obviously gratifying event. Acquaintances, mediators, and touts are welcomed while the strangers are disrespected or at least ignored with their purpose of visiting the station, showing indifferent attitude categorically. Everyone entering the station is suspected of wrong doing at first, cooling the attitude down as some link for the visit is established. No one seems to be welcoming the strangers and they are always given run around from room to room and officer to officer. No one seems to be there for proper guidance and worst of all is the attitude of the muhharrar when he starts asking suspicious questions to the visitor(s). Police services should be treated business-like and all the visitors must be treated like customers without whom the business of police would go broke.
As it goes with the territory, police job requires to suspect everyone till proven otherwise. Police officer in uniform has no relatives, no friends, and no one to sympathize with, sees nothing but suspects every one around, feels nothing but distrust all in the surroundings and, considers himself as a professional that causes distance between the police and the policed. Public views police as their steps and the police considers public as their potential enemies with whom they have to encounter one time or the other. In adequate training and lack of proper education to become a cop, a few disguise to be crooked and engage in illegal activities while on the force. “One bad apple rots the whole lot”, a single police officer engaged in extra-legal activities represents the whole force with bad image. Bad apples must be weeded out during selection, training or before the expiration of probationary period.
Qubza Groups (land mafia) and Police Touts ( un-authorized police informants);
Under the patronage of political shelter or police cover-up, there
exist groups of people who engage in illegal activities, mostly the illegal possession of land and lots from the innocents or ignorant citizens. Some people ‘play cop’ by becoming touts to the police, helping them in solving crimes and obtaining prosecutions through faked witnessing activities or providing fabricated evidentiary supports in criminal investigations. Some are busy in collecting jagga-tax by blocking roads and drive-ways. Qubza groups and the police touts undermine police efficiency, corrupt police as well as the policymakers and handicap the whole system of justice. Innocents are entangled while the actual perpetrators run around free and clear.
Investigative cells; Police detectives are provided
investigation rooms adjacent to the S.H.O’s office. Suspects
of many crimes are interrogated quite harshly and in loud harassing voices. Third degree method is applied to obtain confession from many innocent citizens. Respectables are humiliated by ill-trained and ill-educated dehaties (village) cops. Ill-mannered treatment leaves bad impression on the visitors and presents a sickening atmosphere in and around the police station. People do not want to be called in the police station, because there they feel isolated, helpless and vulnerable to police pressure for confession or indentured release. Investigation rooms, again represent police repression and extortion susceptible atmosphere. Also such places are used to negotiate corruptive deals in the open.
Location of the lock-ups and their residents;
Police lock-ups or temporary holding cells are usually constructed
in rows on both sides of the pathway to the S.H.O’s office. These hold-ups represent the run-down condition of the building in general and inhumane treatment to the suspects. Remember! Every body is innocent till proven guilty in court of law and therefore every suspect deserves humane treatment while in custody. But, because police philosophy is, “every body is guilty till proven innocent in court of law”, police therefore treats every suspect as bona-fide perpetrator and provides with worst boarding and lodging conditions. These lock-ups are filthy, under-equipped, and overcrowded cells to hold few but kept many for undetermined periods of time. Some are being held even for no charges framed.
Initial reports and delayed F.I.Rs.;
Generally speaking, when some one walks into the muhharrar’s
office with complaint to file, he or she is asked to wait outside for hours and hours. One has to be lucky to be called in sooner than expected by the available muhharrar. Most of the time, desk clerk (muhharrar) refuses or makes excuses to take down the report. In actuality he is buying time for extortion. The sooner the complainant comes up with some offer, the earlier the muhharrar becomes activated to grab his complaint register and starts writing in set aside mode of report writing. Depending upon the size of the deal or graft, or the nature of the offense or the degree of the influence, the muhharrar forwards the case to the investigator, who in turn, decides conditionally to pay visit to the cite of the crime or the parties involved to conduct interrogation and investigation. Most of the time, the investigator gathers irrelevant facts or invalid evidence and rounds up non-reliable witnesses to prepare F.I.R. for prosecution. Depending upon the weight of the graft for police investigator-prosecutor and the judge, the decision is rendered in guilty verdict or not-guilty verdict or even nolo-contender as final judgment. FIR’s are usually delayed waiting for the reports (forensic) to be in or follow-up investigation before the case is prepared for prosecution. Public needs to be educated for these genuine delays.
2. Rising tide of crime and disorder demonstrated the failure of police strategies;
3. Accusations of police misconduct, especially during their open encounter with civilians during the routine check of police;
4. Public perception of incapable police in combating crime; the belief that police are never there when you need them;
Political interference with law enforcement practices;
Un-ethical political practices to induct less qualified and unfitting characters to the police force;
The concept of global village and electronic media introduced the sophistication of committing mafia type crimes;
Advanced technology had introduced new wave of computer crimes for a lone and technically trained computer hackers, leaving a pace in police training to combat such offenses;
Stereo-typed “thana culture” kept police apart from its low and middle class clientele, widening the gap in interaction with one-another and allowing the elite or the powerful to control police;
Police corruption antagonized the common man from reaching the police and asking for justice;
“Thana muharrar (clerk) and investigators’ usual refusal to take down the report and conduct preliminary investigation without offerings by the victims (complainants);
Thana oficials’ usual practice to ask the complainants to visit police station time and over;
Lack of prosecutorial independent investigation or prosecutor’s dependency upon police case preparation resulting poor outcome in cases thus police become blameworthy for corruption;
New motorized police patrolling made the police faceless to be seen and interacted by the citizens;
Third degree method of investigation had stigmatized police as corrupt and brutal;
Police encounters had scared people to come into contact with police even for justifiable police help;
Socio-economic unjust practices had paranoid the common man to stay away from police contacts;
Lack of coordination among the criminal justice practitioners police power has dominated the mal-justice outcomes of the system;
Relaxed police supervision practices and unjust promotion and advancement policy; and
Police-unionization put the police administration under stress seeking better working conditions (Walker, 1983);
Research conducted by the Western World recognized that “police and the communities they are policing must try to become co-produces of crime prevention. Increased cooperation between police and the community is what has taken hold as “Community policing” (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988a). To further the concept of “community policing”, Moore and Trojanowicz, 1988, 1989) gave the basic description as:
“In community policing, community institutions such as families, schools, neighborhood associations, and merchant groups are seen as key partners to the police in the creation of safe, secure communities. Community policing acknowledges that police cannot succeed in achieving their basic goals without both the operational assistance and political support of the community….In community policing the community’s views….about what constitutes a serious problem count. So do their views about what would be an appropriate police response.”
Even Sir Robert Peel’s appointed commissioners Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne had emphasized that police should work in cooperation with the people and that members of the office (police) should protect the rights, serve the needs, and earn the trust of the population they policed (Critchley, 1967). Melville Lee (1971) discussed Peel’s principles of law enforcement that, police officers are “public servants in the fullest sense of the term.” Excerpts from Lee’s text stated “the conduct of doing duty in a quiet and determined manner will probably induce well-disposed bystanders to assist him should he require it.” Lee further stated that “the modern system rests, as the ancient one did, on the sure fundamental of mutual reliance.”
Success of community-police relations requires a “people’s police” attitude. Rank-and-file officers need to recognize that the police are a service-oriented organization dedicated to keeping the peace, defending the rights of the people, and enforcing the laws. The concept simply means:
1. Reviving the ideas of “the people’s police”;
2. A more reasoned basis for police work – to deal with complex problems in a more complex way rather than just to follow the letter of law. Instead they should use more discretionary power in a positive way (Bittner, 1970);
3. A deeper, more comprehensive interest in human life – police are both entitled and required to take an interest in and help to resolve human problems;
4. An acceptance of the view that “relations” is a process not a production, It requires mutual respect and mutual exchange and cannot be compartmentalized if it is to be effective.
5. A “system” is defined, according to the system theory, is a set of elements, or components, interacting with each other, such as groups of systems as in criminal justice system. Systems are guided by the following principle:
(a) The whole is greater than the sum of its parts;
(b) Elements of a system interact in repetitive patterns;
(c) Transactional reciprocity;
(d) Interactions are governed by a set of rules;
(e) Systems tend to maintain a balance among the
elements of the system;
(f) Open systems exchange energy, or information flow, with the surrounding environment (Norgard & Whitman, 1980).
The Main Initiatives and Prominent Suggestions on Community Policing
Police agencies are part of several systems and are also a system within a system. A police officer is a part of a family system and the police agency system. Police help to shape the system in which they participate, and they are shaped by them. Each of these systems is, in effect a community with which the police must relate. Community is a group of people sharing common boundaries, such as common goals, needs, interests, and or geographical location. The task of police-community relations appears more complex as each community is considered. “A positive relationship must be formed if effective community relation is to be accomplished (Fischer, 1981)”.
Since long, the public has been viewing police as inept, uneducated and corrupt political puppets or as tough guys with little compassion. Media had been supporting to these effects. Police officers were expected to be a combination of lawyer, psychologist, soldier, social worker and everything that soothes the grieved ones. But police profession in general has promoted mistrust, fear, and cynicism while the training aspect had made police officers to be suspicious of all, and to assume a role of objectivity and authority over those they serve, leading toward separation between the police and the policed and police engaging in fighting criminals on one hand and those who criticize their aggressive role toward criminals on the other hand. Crime prevention and education programs by police agencies have promoted better police-community relations. But it is only possible when every police officer realizes that he or she must take the first step in showing the public that they too are citizens who wish to assist the public in policing the community. Because the police department’s capacity to deal with crime depends upon its relationship with the citizenry, no lasting improvement in law enforcement is likely unless police-community relations are substantially improved. Up until recently, public relations and the police community relations mean the same thing to police. They never go beyond the activities designed by the department to make the department look good instead of being good; the two phrases apart from each other. Government officials, criminologists, politicians, doctors and police high-ups are of the opinion that with steady awareness of the citizens of their constitutional rights, the law enforcement methods used to anticipate and prevent disturbance must shift in emphasis toward community relations and human relations programs. Nothing is new about law enforcement practices but the concept of law enforcement being actively involved in programs to reduce general community tensions. Crime prevention and police community relations are complementary causes and can be reversible ends-and-means. Police are primarily responsible for enforcing law and only indirectly responsible for resolution of social problems.
In an article “RE-VISIOING COMMUNITY POLICING” by Ronald T. Stansfield in Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing Firsthand Knowledge with Experience from the West, he had outlined the policing as a differentiated social structure reframing community policing within the developmental logic of the “Spectrum Policing.” Analyzing the history, he has revealed three major forms of policing in the modern era:
Vigilantes in the Agricultural Era;
Public Police in the Industrial Era; and
Private Police in the Information Era.
Stansfield (Ibid), had outlined three factors determining the dominating police during a particular era:
The size of the economic surplus;
The extent of private property; and
The complexity of the community structure.
He further describes three types of policing for the particular social strata population:
Vigilante Groups are the police of choice among the poor; people used to live in small farming (peasant) communities of kinship, where the landowners controlled economic surplus to satisfy their selfish (safety) needs. The poor in the farming communities had limited safety needs and used their limited human resources to satisfy them. They had used vigilantes (volunteer groups), ‘hue and cry’ and ‘posse’ as strategies to reproduce social order.
Public Police are the police of choice among the middle classes; and
Private Police are the police of choice among the elites.
During the Information Technology, communities are using several forms of policing, only one of which – private police – dominates.
In fact, in stratified communities, the developmental logic of the spectrum of Policing, several forms of police will co-exist but only one will tend to dominate. True community policing is the result of the combined efforts of several different police forms. Community policing is intended to satisfy the basic human needs (including the property possessed by an individual) to feel safe and secure, as pointed out by Maslow in his article “hierarchy of needs,” (1970). Police’s everyday actions are directed at reproducing the existing orders of ‘status quo’ (Ericson, 1982) toward kinship groups who existed in economic organization of the peasant or landowner (Marx and Engels, 1947). Farming technology had caused uneven distribution of wealth among he people producing a stratified social structure (Ibid). Typically, the elites had controlled the economic surplus to satisfy their greedy needs, creating a poor class who then used to satisfy their basic needs in poverty, thus
Following are some of the areas of police concern in their efforts of bridging the gap between the police and the policed:
Crisis intervention which is another common name for the special attention currently focused on the police in their mediation function. Crisis intervention including family crisis, landlord-tenant encounters, abused children, battered spouses, psychological stress in police work, drug abuse and suicide, rape and mental disorder and consumer protection are the most frequent requests made to police that place the responding officer in the duel role of enforcer and helping agent and some times he/she is viewed as bias by one party over the other. Team policing and alternative patrol strategies in police operations are undergoing study and experimentation. Actually, the effective delivery of services to the community is the police goal which is possible only through the closer police-community collaboration. All police officers on the force are not trained to tackle crisis intervention calls effectively. Police action in such situations can only be effective if supported by the enactment of domestic violence legislation empowering the police to intervene close party disputes. Similarly patrolmen have a unique impact on juvenile’ attitudes. It is important for the police officers to realize that they are usually the first contact a juvenile has with “the system”. Police discretion of dealing with juveniles must be focused on the care and protection of the minor. The philosophy of discretional care and custody of children allows the officers to use a broader action for the juveniles who are involved in minor violations. When dealing with children related cases police officers should act as a social worker rather than a strict law enforcement practitioner. Also when dealing with emotionally disturbed children, police officers should take necessary care not to discriminate against them that could mentally hurt them more than they already are. Again police officers should be properly trained to handle children with special needs.
Police professionalism has been identified as having high incidences of stress and stress related diseases, causing high divorce rate, more cases of juvenile delinquency in the family, increased use of drugs and alcohol to get temporary relief. Police officers suspect everyone else and become almost isolated from fraternity groups, developing an attitude of viewing every one an enemy and increasing the amount of killer stress. Police administration is suggested to develop and implement programs that could provide ventilation and resolution of police stress for officers and their families. Regular counseling and guidance should be provided to keep the police employees free of job stress.
Police ethics include police behavior and “misbehavior” such as corruption, discrimination, violation of human and civil rights and numerous other police misconduct. Many police officers condemn fellow police officers for being corrupt, while dismissing practices of perjury, gratuity accepting, and evidence planting as a necessary part of the police job. Police malpractice ranging from major offences to minor infractions is considered to be acceptable and normal police practice. Social and political influences also have negative or positive affect on police profession. Unethical police practices can be decreased in increased monitoring of police action by the public as well as more stringent selection and promotion procedures for police personnel.
Political Policing. Pakistan police is viewed by
public as playing partisan political activities with police department and its officers as the pawns of political machines and bosses. Police agencies have notoriously been integral to political spoils systems. Political science experts have successfully argued in favor of police having a legitimate, respectable, and indispensable political role to play. The tyrannical use of police by the politicians to forcefully perpetuate themselves has been common and quite acceptable in the in the history of human maneuvering. Police service is in the realm of public administration, by its nature political. Therefore, the slogan of the critics “police should be divorced from politics” is nothing but nonsense. The community is constituted of citizen taxpayers who vote, attend public hearings, sign petitions, and write editorial letters to kick up political dust. In this sense, “community relations” is a political policing. In clear sense, the basis of social control is authority that has a moral quality. Politics is a process of making authoritative decisions that command assent. Power implies force or coercion as it applies to police as well as to the government (politics) at large. Police must be accountable to the community, with its moral intelligence to distinguish between corrupting political pressures and the needs of the larger community. Police leadership must insure that partisan interests are separated from community priorities. Wilson and Daley (1968) called politics and policing are integral of each other, and Wilson suggests that to alley police and community more closely requires ambitious public, political education as an integral part of problem-solving projects.
In Neighborhood Policing, police control revolves around the idea of local government accountable to residents of the neighbor-hood for all activities and services with a precinct station idea. Because the police is not under the civilian control, they control themselves in a manner irrelevant to community needs and wishes. To bridge the ever-widening gap between the public and the police Arthur Waskow (1969) suggest:
Restructuring police into federations of neighborhood forces with control of each neighborhood force in the hands of neighborhood people through elected commissions;
Creation of countervailing organization responsible to a real political base, able to hear grievances and force change; and
Transformation of the police “profession” and role so as to end the isolation of policemen from the rest of the community, thus to establish de facto community control by informal means.
Certain aspects of police organization would continue to be handled at central headquarter: records, fingerprinting, radio-communications, specialized squads, training, planning and research. Waskow concludes with reference to police
Para-military model of police organizations is good for efficient and effective delivery of police services, but professionalism creates a veil between the police personnel and the public. Police departments are suggested to make optimum use of supervision and leadership skills for more scrutinized services if the professionalism has to prevail. Basic organizational principles of chain of command and communication with alert supervision can create a high degree of morale in the police agency. Police chief must use basic principles of organizational management, delegate proper authority, and keep lines of communication open to reduce inefficiency and corruption.
“COMMUNITY POLICING is a nineteenth century style of policing in which police maintained a presence in the community” was introduced by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in their article “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety”(1982). Community Policing such as walking streets and knowing the citizens in the area inspire feeling of public safety and reduction in fear levels for the community. Wilson and Kelling advocated that the officers should get out of their depersonalized cruisers to promote public confidence and elicit citizen cooperation for community preservation, public safety and order maintenance instead of just fighting crime and responding to reactive calls for police assistance. Patrolmen should identify neighborhood problems and needs and set a course of action for effective response.
PROGRAM IMPLIMENTATION: In order to implement police-community relations programs, society must be made aware of the attainable goals of law enforcement before programs are devised that seek either total elimination of disturbance and civil disobedience. It is important to point out that the degree of police power required for the provision of a society free from chaotic class difference disorders would be enough to destroy all pretense of individual liberty. Law enforcement must continue to strive between anarchy (the complete absence of government and law) and a feeling of total inability to increase protection of our society. Social problems of any kind are remedied or relieved through power – political or economical power. To get the cooperation of responsible persons in the community, the police must show responsible people potential situations. Police should enlist the cooperation of neighborhood leaders and they should be included at the planning level, well before the direct appeal, during critical periods are needed.
It is suggested that police department must establish a specialized unit called police-community relations with three functions; planning, coordination and evaluation. Planning must be closely associated with research, because the lack of systematic research to develop bodies of data is considered to be a stumbling block to the police achieving true professional status. Without planning, a police agency is left with two alternatives:
the procedures remain the same because they have worked in the past; and
to employ a trial and error method of creating change that could be too costly.
In PC-R, the planning identifies the goals of the police agency – exactly what objectives does the department intend to accomplish by engaging in police-community relations programs, such as reduction of crime, lessening public tension against police in the community, developing good relations with juveniles, less fortunate ones, decreasing the case of brutality of police or aggression against police. Once the short-range or the long-range goals have been identified, decision should be made as to how much and how many of the department’s resources will be needed to accomplish desired objectives. Usually, police departments operate on line-item budget basis leaving little room for lump-sum adjustments, therefore, requiring the PC-R unit to compromise on the feasible objective rather than an ideal objective to meet manpower and financial resources.
Coordination in PC-R is another area of sensitivity to be considered by the administrators. PC-R must be a total department effort rather than a few officers assigned to the unit. In this regard the PC-R unit can function most effectively as a departmental resource providing support and encouragement for fellow officers. Coordination efforts have to be encouraged by the middle management or it can be in vain. The PC-R unit personnel will maintain two-way communication with middle management as well as their fellow officers to discuss any merits or demerits of the program and they could assist in training line function personnel during school visitation hours or orientation sessions during the roll call meetings. In establishing goals and objectives, a plan should be established as a means of measuring the success or failure of goal achievement. By comparing the before and after results of a specific objective, some gauge of the program’s success could be obtained. The plan then could be modified to achieve feasible results or abandoned all-to-gather.
In view of the program performance evaluation, the police administrator should expect the program’s glowing success and even occasional setbacks thus adjusting to a realistic attitude, the administrator might want to create a feeling of openness and honesty among the subordinates in evaluating program efforts. Evaluation procedures should be viewed as an integral part of a continued planning process in terms of guidance for future planning. Evaluation should be a continuous, on-going process in order to detect any flaws as early as possible to modify the plan.
PC-R unit should be manned with only the personnel required to do the job. Overstaffing can cause unnecessary drain of manpower and equipment from field operations. PC-R personnel should be selected from their planning and administrative skill point of view. The administrators and the middle management should perceive.
PC-R unit, having high prestige with a firm commitment for success, must consider its location within the organizational chart. In order to avoid problems of isolation, the PC-R unit should not be housed far away from the Headquarter or at least supervisor of the unit should always be closer to the administrator.
Community Policing Concept was first implemented in the 1970s when team policing was instituted in the Unites States. The concept brought together groups of junior officers and a supervisor who were given jurisdiction over a designated neighborhood area on a twenty-four-hours-a-day basis. The team was left alone to decide the strategy of patrolling, force deployment, working hours, assignments, and methods within broad policy of guidelines established by the department. The purpose of team policing was to create strong ties between the police officers and the community they served and to involve the neighborhood in police operations. In view of team-police’s less effectiveness, foot patrols were reintroduced to control drug dealers, vandals and other petty criminals associated with community decline. Officers on foot are more easily approachable and offer a comforting presence to citizens. The current foot patrolmen are equipped with mobile communication gear similar communication gear that is used in patrol cars. The Police Foundation evaluated foot patrol and found that it had little effect on community crime rates, they, however had helped to improve citizen attitudes toward the police (Criminal Justice Newsletter 16, 1985).
Community policing supporters assume that citizens actually want an increased police presence in their neighborhoods, but the fact is that the same citizens who fear crime may also fear the police (Ralph Taylor and Jack Greene (1988). The new role of police must be reviewed and changed from law enforcer to community organizer and police training must be revised to reflect the new mandate with a new type of police recruitment.
Local law enforcement agencies in the United States find themselves struggling to identify their responsibilities and define their future role in an effort to combat terrorism. The new police order must address terrorism and home security in the areas of crime prevention, intelligence gathering, and information sharing to ensure the safety and welfare of citizens.
Problem-oriented Policing strategy is introduced to identify particular community problems – street level drug dealers, prostitution rings, gang hangouts, and juvenile delinquents – and try to decide problem through diversification rather than legality channel. This strategy is aimed at reducing community fear levels and police and the community closeness. Problem oriented policing has the following features:
Police Community Newsletter with accuracy to inform citizens of police activities;
A community-organizing response team designed to build a community in collaboration with police organization;
A citizen contact program that kept an individual officer always in the same area of the city to maintain community contacts;
A program in which officers re-contacted the victims soon after their victimization to reassure them of police action; and
Police-community contact centers are established where two patrol officers, a civilian coordinator and three police aids are staffed to assist citizens. A school-liaison officer prevented truancy and a park police officer controlled vandalism.
The critics argue that foot patrol strategy had a hock effect on the local criminal population, but had very little effect on long range police community relations and its impact on crime control decays. Samuel Walker in Justice Quarterly 1, 1984 had argued that depersonalized motor patrol of 1930s had produced some positive effects on crime control strategy of police by introducing telephone that has brought police and the community closer than ever before. He concluded that police are actually incapable of improving the community’s perception of public safety. Similarly Jack Greene (1988) had argued that police defines “community” in terms of administrative areas to allocate patrols but they are failing to understand “community” in terms of an ecological area defined by common norms, shared values and interpersonal bonds. Also Roger Dunham and Geoffrey Alpert (1988) advocated that residents of different neighborhoods have distinct views of the police role and that no single approach to community policing can possibly be appropriate for all areas.
Problem-Oriented Policing is a philosophy that “focuses on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police services including the traditional law enforcement practices, crime prevention, problem solving, community engagement and partnership (United States Department of Justice, Office of the Community Oriented Policing Services, “What is Community Policing,” July 4, 2005). Three key components to the Community policing philosophy are:
(1) The creation of and reliance on effective partnerships with the community and other public and private resources;
(2) The application of problem solving strategies or tactics; and
(3) The transformation of police organization and culture to support this philosophical shift.
Earlier discussions on Community-Oriented Policing resources and practices that have a direct application to terrorism deterrence and prevention through data collection, and analysis protocols, and technologies that may be used a platform for gathering intelligence to assess terrorism vulnerability, including the community partnership provide ready framework for engaging citizens in helping police to identify possible threats and implement preparedness plans (Ibid, 2002). According to Rob Chapman and Mathew C. Schieder (2002) community policing could play an integral role in homeland security. They contend that applying the principles of organizational change, problem solving, and external partnerships, community policing can help police to prepare for and prevent terrorist acts, and respond to the fear such threats engender. Community policing helps to build TRUST between the community and law enforcement, which allows officers to develop knowledge of the community and resident activities and can provide vital intelligence relating to potential terrorist actions and their affiliation with ethnic and religious groups with whom police have built a rapport. Using existing data sources, agencies can conduct target vulnerability assessments and develop risk-management and crisis plan. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust is the central goal of community policing. Effective community policing also involves intergovernmental and interagency collaborations, essential for the collection and exchange of intelligence, the identification of threats and vulnerabilities, and the sharing of resources in the event of an attack.
Problem Solving Concept is a broad term that describes the process by which specific issues or concerns are identified and the most appropriate remedies to abate the problem are identified. Problem solving is based on the assumption that “individuals make choices based on opportunities presented by the immediate physical and social characteristics of an area. The idea is that if the underlying conditions that create problems can be eliminated then so will the problem. Problem-oriented policing dealt with the conditions that cause a problem; this concept of policing required officers to recognize relationships that lead to crime and disorder and direct their attention to issues of causation, Herman Goldstein, 1990. According to Spelman and Eck (1987) Problem-oriented policing converged on three main themes:
(1) increased effectiveness;
reliance on the expertise and creativity of
closer involvement with the community.
These themes are implemented by attacking underlying phenomenon that deplete patrol officers’ and detectives’ time, and educating officers to study problems and develop innovative solutions to ensure that police address the needs of citizen.
Organizational Transformation for the successful PC-R programs, inside the law enforcement agency requires that a set of basic values should guide the overall delivery of services to the community. Organizational transformation involves the integration of the community policing philosophy into the mission statement, policies and procedures, performance evaluation and hiring and promotional practices, training programs and other systems and activities that define organizational culture and activities. In the community policing model, individual police officers are given free hand to resolve concerns with their community, because they are the most familiar with communities’ and thus are in the best position to forge close ties with the community and create effective solutions. Community policing emphasizes employee participation with individual police officers’ wider discretionary power to make operational decisions suitable to their assignments and they are often seen as generalists than specialists.
Adopting Community Policing to Homeland Security:
Terrorism is considered as a local crime issue like traditional crimes. International and domestic terrorists commit ancillary crimes like, fraud, money laundering, drug trafficking, and theft to provide resources for their terrorist activities. Because of the similarities between the traditional crimes and terrorism, the investigative approach to both the categories is the same. Officers should be able to, during their PC-R activities, apply kills to analyze the terrorism problem, perform threat analysis, develop appropriate responses and reflect these efforts in the mission, goals, and objectives of the department (Scheider, Chapman, and Seelman, “Border and Transportation Security America, Quarterly, 4, 2003).
Community Policing Practices, including the philosophy
of decentralizing the decision making and accountability, fixing geographic and general responsibilities and utilizing volunteer resources, law enforcement agents are most likely to come into contact with individuals who are either directly or indirectly involved in terrorism.
The difficulty to move up to the proper chain of command during the terrorist activities suggest that the lower ranking police officers should be empowered to make independent decisions to respond quickly and decisively to any event. Officers who work in a fixed geographic area for an extended period are more suitable to develop specific intelligence that may be vital part of counter-terrorist efforts (ibid, April 2003). Integrating the homeland security responsibility into the agency’s mission statement, goals, policies and procedures, training programs should reflect the adaptation of the philosophy.
Training, such as firearms, driving, unarmed defense and criminal law, to law enforcement agents, should be an analytical preventive approach in the post-incident management and investigation. Training should include:
Understanding the nature, dynamics, and operations of international terrorist groups and how that translates into more effective patrol and investigative functions;
Understanding the locations, movement, and plans of international terrorist cells that live and work in local communities;
Gathering and analyzing intelligence on potential terrorist activities;
Conducting threat assessments;
Conducting inquiries and investigations into potential terrorist while safeguarding the basic rights of the all citizens;
Training should be provided within the larger intelligence
context to recognize the signs of terrorism and would be discernible to a regular beat officer or detective;
Police should take a leadership role in maintaining community confidence by educating the general public as to the nature of threats and actively responding to specific community concerns. The public should know what to look for, what to do, and how to respond.
(ii) Decentralized Decision-making and Accountability:
In community policing, individual line officers are delegated with an authority to solve problems and make operational decisions. Leadership is required and rewarded at every level; supervisors and officers are held accountable for decisions and the effects of their efforts at solving problems. Empowering officers at the lower levels will allow them the freedom to pursue leads or suspected terrorist activity, or identify possible terrorist vulnerability within the community.
(iii)Fixed Geographic Accountability and Generalist
In community policing, most staffing, supervision deployment, and tactical decision-making are geographically based for longer time that enable them to foster communication and partnerships between individual officers and their community. As a result officer should be more attuned to rising levels of community concern and fear. Community policing generates TRUST and increases satisfaction among community members and police, which in periods of heightened unrest or crisis can translate to dealing more effectively with community fear.
(iv)Utilizing Volunteer Resources:
Community policing encourages the use of non-law enforcement resources within a law enforcement agency such as volunteerism, which involves active citizen participation with their law enforcement agency. Volunteers can help free up officers’ time and allow them to be more proactive and prevention-oriented. In generality, volunteerism can help to make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues, and disasters of all kinds.
(v) Neighborhood Watch:
Neighborhood Watch programs can be used, in addition to serving as crime prevention role, as the basis for bringing neighborhood residents together to focus on disaster preparedness as well as terrorism awareness, to focus on evacuation drills, and exercises, and even to organize group training.
(vi) Volunteers in Police Services (VIPS):
This program provides training for civilian volunteers who assist police departments by performing “non-worn” duties effectively freeing up officers to spend more time on critical issues. The program provides resources to assist police officials by incorporating community volunteers into the activities of law enforcement agencies.
(vii)Community Emergency Response Team (CERT):
This program provides civilians with training in emergency management planning and response functions to bolster the capacity of local communities to respond to disasters. Volunteers in this program provide immediate assistance to victims, and organize spontaneous volunteers that help improve the safety of the community.
(viii)Medical Reserve Corps (MRC):
This program coordinates the kills of practicing and retired physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals to help their community during large scale emergency situations. MRC volunteers may deliver necessary public health services during crisis and play an integral part in police preparedness and response strategies.
(ix) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED):
This program includes the controlling access to neighborhoods and buildings and conducting surveillance on specific areas to reduce opportunities for crime to occur and increasing the sense of security in settings where people live and work through activities that encourage informal control of the environment. Law enforcement agencies will have to get involved in community planning to ensure growth and construction of facilities to minimize the vulnerability to terrorist acts. The conceptual thrust of CPTED is that the physical environment can be manipulated by design to produce behavioral effects that will reduce the incidence and fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life. Also, police headquarter has to accept local law enforcement agents and agencies (patrolmen and thanas) as full partners in the national security intelligence infrastructure. Local agents and agencies have to receive proper training and analytical resources and be able to disseminate information with others in a way that will allow for the intervention of any future terrorist acts. Police personnel also have to be familiar with geographic integrating strategy or GIS mapping technology into problem solving methodology. It allows law enforcement agencies to plot crime data against a digitized map of a community, city, or region.
(x) Community Partnership:
Homeland security can best be accomplished through the joining of the citizens, businesses, emergency management, public health and public and private organizations with police. Partnership gathers many skills necessary to plan for, mobilize, and respond to terrorist acts. In community-oriented policing, police is only one of many governmental agencies responsible for responding to community problems. Encouraging citizen involvement in programs such as ‘neighborhood watch’, ‘youth education’ and other activities with law enforcement has been found to increase social cohesion among citizens and decrease the amount of fear of crime. Citizen awareness programs to inform public in general about what police and government are doing to prepare for and prevent a future attack of the terrorists.
Media should define the nature, scope, and level of threat in critical situations, in disseminating information, and in calming the people. It should deliver accurate and relevant information to the public, avoiding any paranoia or causing any confusion.
Recognizing that the detection and prosecution of criminal activity is not a job that law enforcement can do alone, neighborhood watch serves extra eyes and ears in the community to report suspicious activity or crimes in progress to police. Through the neighborhood watch program, police can:
Act as a liaison with each neighborhood watch group, including the development of more efficient methods of communication between the police and these groups to provide a better exchange of up-to-date crime prevention and homeland security, increasing the level of trust in each-other;
By comparison of the crime rate among the areas that have neighborhood programs and those that are without them, recruit new neighborhood groups;
Review daily crime-related calls for service records in their assignment area. Prevention efforts can enhance police search to identify problem area. Involve crime analysts and district enforcement personnel seeking unified approaches in reducing crime;
Meet with crime victims to offer services to reduce their potential of becoming a victim in future, by conducting surveys among the residents of the area; and
Encourage residents to be observant and watchful by reporting things that seem unusual or out of place.
Similarly, the business watch program establishes a formal communication network between the police and the business community. Law enforcement personnel can train business owners, managers, and employees to be able to recognize suspicious criminal activities to prevent shoplifting, robberies and will also learn how to become an effective witness to a criminal activity. Religious facilities can also benefit from police activities about the homeland security programs, such as personal safety, home security, drug awareness, auto theft, and many subjects of interest to the participants.
Community-oriented policing is based on the premise that citizens should be empowered to enhance their quality of life and prevent crime and the problems that can lead to crime. Citizen academies have been useful places to educate members of the community to understand the role and function of their police, and to grasp the mission, goals, objectives and programs of the police department. Police officers should hold talks about the prevention of terrorist threats and what a community can do to prevent such threats.
The modern police force in Pakistan is the direct descendent of the British-India police based on its use against the sub-continents’ population to suppress social unrest and disorder. As a virtue of its existence, the police in Pakistan are basically charged with the maintenance of law and order, keeping peace, and performing arbitration-mediation tasks related to local conflicts stimulated by changing social relationships and status. Events of police control of social unrest evidently has shown that the police cannot discharge their duties to maintain law and order without the backing, goodwill, and cooperation of the public. To achieve such goals, every police officer, regardless of rank and file, should be regarded by every law abiding citizen as a wise and impartial friend and protector against injury to his person and property. This confidence begets police the necessary cooperation for successfully combating crime. Non-regulatory functions of Police and small courtesies rendered to individual citizens would go long way in building up goodwill for the police. “A measurement of success in the development of positive relationship between police and the public is the amount of help the public asks the police for and the more cordial their relations are with public the greater becomes the number of extraneous demands made upon them by private citizens which could build a nation with a unitary identity (Bayley, 1979).”
In view that the police in Pakistan have been mistrusted and alienated from the general public for one reason or the other, they are identified with oppression and repression. Old memories have left deeper scars on the minds of the second and third Pakistani generation, affecting relations between the two. To public police are brutal and venal, yet police are asked to provide assistance in times of personal trouble. Research needs pertaining to the role of the police, to the structuring of police organization, to patterns of operations, or to functional decentralization, police link with other areas of criminal justice and modified training material might help police see themselves as partners of the people. Police need to develop a cooperative relationship with the pubic as well as with other components of criminal justice funnel. To this end, European and Western countries including Japan, Singapore and China have had tried numerous strategies to develop police-community relations programs to fight crime with the assistance of the very public, the police are assigned to serve. Some of these programs have met with little or no success, yet the struggle continues to find more and more avenues to develop trust between the police and the public. Pakistan police are trying to experiment some of the programs that have been tried and discontinued for their failure or ineffectiveness. Because of the differing socio-political situation and economical pulls and pushes, those programs failed in the United States or other European countries, may succeed in Pakistan. One has to try and see.
(P) NEED FOR MUTUAL RESPECT
Mutual respect between the police and the people is an important factor for successful police-community relations. The police and the processes of criminal justice are the vital parts of the main body of orderly society – the community.
The history of the modern day municipal police force can be traced back to 1829 in which Sir Robert Peel managed to secure approval by the English Parliament of his bill for a metropolitan police (Melville Lee, 1901). Since its inception, the British police had been called “pigs” in reference to their popularity among citizens. In fact, most people try to void police contact if possible at all, and the outright hostility of some groups toward the police is a well-established reality that necessitated the introduction of police-community relations as a subject that came to the forefront of social concern during the post World War II era. The idea of equal protection under the law for all citizens in the United States of America advocated in the civil rights movement and the recognition of the uniformed police officer as the most visible symbol representing the establishment became the target of citizen’s hate and disrespect in the American society. Not only that “successful police work depends on the cooperation of the public with the police”, but also in a democratic society, every citizen has a serious obligation to do the police work and the existence of paid police force does not alter this duty.
We had experienced Medieval Police Service of the Anglo-Saxon England in which every able-bodied male from fifteen to sixty years of age was to act as police officer to chase the transgressor when the hue and cry was raised. AS towns developed, watchmen were employed for full time police work, but ordinary citizens retained a solemn duty to perform police functions.
During the seventeenth century, many abuses had appeared in the medieval system of policing when “watch and ward” system was strained and thugs became the terror of the community. Finally, Sir John Fielding, in the early eighteenth century had organized the Bow Street Runners”, a small corpse of paid police officers to apprehend hoodlums. Since the Peel Reform in 1829, the English declared that “a police is someone who is paid to do what it is a citizen’s duty to do without pay.” Professor Jerome Hall of the Indiana University Law School, in his paper entitled “Police and Law in Democratic Society” published in Indiana Law Journal 28, no. 2 (1953); 33 ff. had been quoted in the “The Country Justice by Michael Dalton” as “The Sherife, Bailifes (Old English), Constables and other of the King’s Officers may arrest and imprison offenders in all cases where a private person may.” This use of every citizen’s right to arrest as the standard by which the right of officers to arrest is measured is significant when compared with modern concept of posse commitatus.
Every society recognizes that the police function is essential to its survival and in democratic societies, order is not an end in itself; rather it is a means to the end of justice and the sanctity of individual liberty. In addition, Police officers tend to mirror the socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic, occupational, and educational characteristics of the strata in which they are reared. Secondly, the police function is rooted in personal responsibility and self-policing by every citizen. Ideally, it is a matter of organic union, with the police as part of, rather than apart from, the community they serve. Finally, if a democratic law is to be credible and ethical to ordinary citizen, with standards of fairness, reasonableness, and human decency, it will be so to the extent that police behavior reflects such qualities. Criticism on police performance should be grounded in an understanding of the meaning of police service in a democratic society rather calling an officer of the law a “pig” or “dirty worker”. Police methods that preserve human dignity rather than undue force must be the principle of law enforcement. Honorable Justice Louise Brandies (274 U.S. 357 (1927) had once said, “ … order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its fraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope, imagination; that fear breads repression, that repression breads hate, that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and the fitting remedy for evil counsels I good ones.”
Because of urbanization, the police today are more in the public eye than ever before. Order is more apt to be disrupted, crime more likely to be committed, a variety of social services more needed, and civil rights and civil liberties more often championed and contested.
Presidential Order 2002 And Crime Prevention Strategies:
Presidential Amended Order of 2002 and the Community Policing
It is extremely difficult if not impossible for a police officer maintain his or her composure in all street situations even though it is expected and demanded of him/her in all police departments in Pakistan. Although Police Ethics requires the following:
“I will … maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and constantly mindful of the welfare of others. I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendship to influence my decisions … I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence …(Cromwell Jr., Killinger et. al, 1977).
But police an officer working in crime prone area (slum neighborhood) faces countless pressures which increase the difficulty of performing police work calmly and without restraint. An officer is expected to maintain order on the street to keep a “clean beat” and to disperse mobs, to remove ‘undesirables’ with or without legal tools are available. In dangerous neighborhoods, he may be mocked, threatened or even spat upon. Police officers see the tragedy of victimized citizens and sordid lives of the reprehensible and unfortunate elements of the community. A police officer must always live with the prospect that he or she may be subject to attack without warning.
The problems of police-citizen contacts are multiplied and exacerbated when the citizens involved are juveniles. Youths are out and around, noticeable to the patrolling officer, they travel in groups and spend time in neighboring gathering places or recreational facilities, shops or street corners. The antipathy toward police is heightened by youth’s natural dislike for authority. Demeanor appears to affect police disposition after arrest as well as arrest in the first instance. Citizen involvement in crime prevention efforts is not desirable but necessary. Police and other specialists alone cannot control crime; they need all the help the community can give them. Most citizens agree that crime prevention is everybody’s business, but too many fail to accept crime prevention as every body’s duty. Law enforcement evolved into a multifaceted specialty as citizens relinquished more of their crime prevention activities. Despite police professionalism, crime is souring to its new heights, resulting to realize the hypothetical situation that “history repeats itself”, Chief Executive (President) of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has introduced and promulgated the amended Order No. 36 of 2002 as Police Order 2002, expressing his concern in Article 4 (c), encouraging police-public cooperation and 168 (a),(b) and (c), emphasizing the development of liaison between aggrieved citizens and police for providing relief by rendering assistance to Public Safety Commissions, Police Complaint Authority and the police for the expeditious and judicious discharge of their duties. Article 169 of the Amended Order No. 36 had made provisions to set Public Safety Funds at the Provincial Government(s) and the District Governments levels to the police for the improvement of police service delivery. Article 169 (7) (a), (b), and (c) provide that The Public Safety Funds shall be applied exclusively for the purpose of:
improving facilities for public and service delivery at police stations;
improving traffic police; and
rewarding police officers for good performance.
In the absence of police-public cooperation, government programs for the control of crime are unlikely to succeed. Informed citizens can make a decisive difference in the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime (Staff Report of the U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969).
In light of Police Order 2002, the Province of Punjab has, through the provincial Inspector General of Police, already launched programs such as Police-Community Relations, or Community Policing approach to crime prevention and crime detection through police and the community participation. Heads of the police stations or the police posts, SHOs and alike have half heartedly accepted the notion. The direct result of community policing introduction at all levels of the police order and police hierarchy is being noticed in terms of “Assalam-u-alecum”, replacing the good old stereotyped slogans of “what”?, “kaun”, “kiyae”. “haanjee” and alike as a response to incoming calls, making the caller feel that police is not interested in listening to you, the citizen. Although, the cops above forty and those who have joined police at low rank level with village background give community policing no importance rather calling it ‘beggars slot’ against police professionalism. Most of the police SHOs in the city are seen receptive to the concept and have started inviting irate public to engage in a dialogue of mutual respect and mutual assistance in the face of increasing crime rate and civil unrest. Some police stations have erected bill-boards of friendship and have distributed flyers of one sort or the other expressing the need of communication between the police and policed. It is all due to the direct involvement and personal interest of police echelons to engage in the friendly dialogue between police and the community.
Traffic police and its activities do have obvious negative impact on community-policing. Up until recently, vehicle driving, in Pakistan, has not been regularized as for obtaining driver’s license and actual driving test of the vehicle are concerned. In the past, people would pay few extra rupees to the license issuing authorities and felt no difficulty in obtaining driver’s license without taking driving test. As a result most of the drivers on the roads are neither educated about the street signs or the traffic rules, nor they are trained for safe driving. Such anomalies are causing traffic accidents which are turning into personal abuses as well as property damages. Insurance like disease has not been accustomed in Pakistan, leaving the aggrieved parties to suffer financial hardship for repairs. Roads are not made to accommodate the overflow of new and old vehicles, particularly in the old Lahore area. People are suffering in the hands of private transporters for local transportation. Huge busses are hindering the smooth flow of traffic and causing small vehicles or pedestrians to face danger of accidents. Traffic police officers’ attitude after the first “asslamu-alecum” becomes corruptive. Educated ones are quick to receive citations without arguments and provisions of settling disputes in court. A driver who is stopped by a traffic cop gets citation of the choice of the cop not the violation. He or she is not told about the relief remedies or contesting the citation in court. He/she must pay what has been ticked (x) on the back of the citation. Some traffic law violators are old players in corrupting the cop. They hang around the cop’s station to make a cash deal instead of receiving ticket (citation). Small may be but sure corruption is still obvious. As a result the traffic police officer’s attitude toward the educated traffic law violator is still noticed anti-community policing. Until and unless, every police personnel accepts community policing notion, public cooperation with police to fight crime and criminals will be seen a long way. Again, strong, assertive and effective practices of policing the police or strict supervision are dire needs of the day. Traffic police and investigators have to be a part of the community policing for the concept’s practical success. We still can dream to have “kabana” like police services.
It is, however, too early to notice the impact of newly introduced community policing efforts, because there has been very little or no systematic research done in this regard. But, the reported incidences of communities getting “together” suggest that active “community involvement” in fighting crime may well be an effective way to prevent and reduce crime and delinquency. The fundamental truth is that citizens can prevent crime by focusing their attention on the social factors that lead to crime and delinquency, such as un-employability and unemployment, lack of or poor education and insufficient recreational opportunities.
ADD CM’S SLOGANS ABOUT CRIME FREE PUNJAB HERE
“Keep a Child in School” and Chief Minister of Punjab Mr. Zahoor Elahi’s programs to build a literate Punjab etc…. Many booklets put up by the Honorable Chief Minister also support and encourage uneducated or the dropouts to go back to school with free education and material supplied by the government. Double shifts in schools and introduction of technological or vocational education for all, establishment of scholarship funds, tangible incentives for higher education and step-increments with promotions for doctors of science and doctors of philosophy degree-holders are emphasizing on having a “literate Punjab”. We still need individuals who can assist schools in counseling youths on drug abuse, pregnancy, family breakdowns, employment and various types of anti-social behavior modification.
Government and government agencies like probation and parole and other social welfare agencies are placing unskilled ex-cons and disadvantaged youths in full-time or part-time jobs. We still need citizen organizations and private companies to create and offer new jobs for the unemployed disadvantaged. The provision of job opportunities counseling to recruit fresh but helpless graduates, and citizen group participation in promoting “hire first, train later” type of programs are to be introduced in our society. We need volunteers to train and educate ex-addicts, ex-cons, and unskilled citizens to participate in work force and an active group in disseminating job information to those who do not have excess to media or community information centers.
Some social and philanthropic organizations are engaged in financing and arranging activities like summer camps, summer hiking and boy-scout activities. We still need newspaper and electronic-media participation to solicit funds for police to provide reproachable and disadvantaged kids with summer and out of school activities with new experiences and recreational opportunities. Citizen groups to organize sport activities and tournaments for the kids who could not otherwise afford to participate in are needed. Need individuals to act as “big brother” or “big sister” to lead needy ones and helpless children. Activities as “talent shows”, “arts and craft classes”, and “special interest” programs are direly need to bring the disadvantaged out of the closets.
Counseling and Treatment:
There may be numerous counsel and advise youths and adults with a wide array of problems programs but we still need in the context of “hotline” established to concentrate on those with drug-related and family problems through which people with problems could seek anonymous assistance without the fear of involvement with law. Volunteers at the centers could try to create a warm environment where youngsters will find acceptance and to provide constructive alternatives for people in trouble. Police need to sponsor counseling centers designed to develop better and secure relationships between police and the youths, between troubled youths and parents, and maintain clinics and treatment centers where police-sponsored volunteers could assist professionals in treating drug and alcoholic related problems. These volunteer could offer telephone counseling and crisis intervention services, anti-drug abuse and educational campaigns to create good police-community atmosphere.
Police-Related Activities may include “crime reporting” by the public, campaigns to educate and motivate people to report:
crimes in progress;
information that would help police to solve crime;
point out persons and events considered suspicious, such “crime check”, “crime alert”, chec-mate, crime stop and “project home alert”, “operation identification”, “safety decals” to display on doors and windows.
PC-R Programs of the Future:
Some tentative recommendations and guiding principles for future programs in Police-Community Relations or Human Relations are:
The practical-political factors bearing on the problems and possibilities of resolution will need greater emphasis;
Police image and popularity of the police officers should be listed as secondary rather than primary concern of PC-R programs;
Future PC-R programs must be geared to hear the un-heard who have not joined an organization or attended meetings;
Public must assume an active role of demanding police services and such associated considerations as police policy delineation, structural and functional organization of police agencies, citizen complaint procedures, police recruitment standards, training contents and methods, and the like;
Community must be quick enough to commend police action when it deserves commendation as to citizen where it deserves criticism. If the community-sensitive police behavior helps to fortify credibility and trust in “the system,” then by the same token citizen assistance to a police officer helps to strengthen his or her belief in the integrity of civic responsibility;
Community forces should influence police organizations to confine the functions of PC-R units to identification of conflict, planning for conflict control and public information;
Police and community relations as a discipline should be thought of in broader terms;
The “package” programs should be befitting each community according to its characteristics and problems;
Community leaders should recognize the important difference between an advisory body of citizens for a police department and civilian review board. A citizen advisory committee is set up mainly to provide a police agency with information and recommendations reflecting as wide a spectrum of community opinion as possible, whereas, a civilian review board is an adjudicatory body dealing with complaints against police personnel;
All community organizations should consider inviting police participation in their activities;
Education of school children in matters of law enforcement, legal institutions, social control, and the police part in it, and problems of criminal justice system is a very significant aspect of the total community task;
Certain crimes have to be decriminalized to avoid public-police conflict. The future of criminal justice goals demands the law makers to strike some of the less important offenses, off the penal code. Most of the victimless crimes can be scrutinized to weed out the unnecessary legislation;
Use of deadly force by the police officer in so called police encounters should be eliminated and or a bipartisan inquiry should be set aside to conclude the necessity of such use of force and public as well as the police must be made aware of civil suits against individual police officer and the department or employing agency for monetary damages. Similarly, the police must also be made aware of their right to sue civilians against any personal injury received by the police officer during the tour of his/her duty;
Petty offenses should be settled through community justice to compensate (dyat) and retaliation through paying back what some one had taken out (Qisas) to discourage the future petty thieves, pickpockets, and the like;
Proper use of police discretion should allow the arresting officer to decide whether the offender should be arrested or released if the offense was of negligible nature;
Future of the PC-R programs will have to involve all criminal justice agencies through cooperation, collaboration, and team-work;
The recognition that criminal justice public policy formulators might learn much from their counterparts in other realm, such as police, prosecution, probation, judiciary, parole, prison and the juvenile justice system;
According to theory “X” and theory “Y”, the process is vital to the product, similarly in police work, solving community problems is important in community action and if the problem is too complex, it will be essential to team-up of the various community forces to solve such problems rather than police alone; and
Based upon the past and the present experience, the list for future suggestions can go on and on, but each PC-R program will have to b tailor made to meet the needs of the residents.