Problem-oriented policing

Problem-oriented policing

Problem-oriented policing (POP), coined by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Herman Goldstein, is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of specific crime and disorder problems, in order to develop effective response strategies in conjunction with ongoing assessment[1]. This strategy places more emphasis on research and analysis as well as crime prevention and the engagement of public and private organizations in the reduction of community problems[1].


POP policy in a nutshell

Problem-oriented policing relies on the identification of problems by rank-and-file officers. Not all departments will define problems the same way, but a typical definition is:

• Repeated incidents
  

• Occurring in a community
  

• With related characteristics (e.g., behavior, location, people, time)
  

• That concern both the community and the police

Where, under a traditional system, a patrol officer might answer repeated calls to a certain problem area or "hot spot" and deal only with each individual incident, that officer is encouraged under POP to discover the root cause of the problem and come up with ways of solving it. The goal is to find a cure for the ailment instead of merely treating the symptoms.

The exploration of possible responses to a problem is handled by patrol officers. Once a problem is identified, officers are expected to work closely with community members to develop a solution, which can include a wide range of alternatives to arrest. These may focus on the offender, the community, the environment, outside agencies, or the need for some kind of mediation. Situations often demand that police and citizens fashion tailor-made responses to problems, so a high degree of importance is placed on creativity and discretion.


Political issues and conflicts between actors

In the last decade the problem-oriented approach has become a popular one among police administrators and high-ranking city officials. There are two main reasons for this: First, it is an innovation readily accepted and approved by the public, which by and large welcomes the opportunity to be heard and to become more involved. Public favor translates into job security for administrators and elected officials. The second reason is the opportunity to collect substantial sums of money through federal grants. In 1995, a federal grant of $327 million from the U.S. Department of Justice was divided up among police departments implementing POP programs in the state of Arizona. The availability of federal grant money creates a real incentive for police agencies to use POP. Because POP policy may require considerable organizational restructuring, administrators can justify applications for inordinately large funds. A possible third reason is that POP usually represents a revolutionary change in procedures, and this can provide those who implement it with provocative material for books and speaking engagements.

The rank-and-file officers, however, often do not share their administrators' enthusiasm. One of the reasons for this may be a lack of clarity with respect to organizational goals. Poorly defined or ambiguous goals can lead to stress and frustration. Another possible source of rank-and-file discontent is the conflict between the administration's community policing mandate and the continuing need to respond to calls for service.


Significant impacts of POP policy

Problem-oriented policing often has a number of effects and some unintended consequences that flow from them.


Increased communication with the public

Under POP, the public has a much more direct hand in defining the goals of the police and influencing what issues the police will focus on. This can cause a conflict between what is traditionally of high importance to the police, such as robberies, burglaries and violent crime, and what is a priority to community members – which may be things as mundane as loitering crowds or acts of graffiti. This mismatch of priorities can hinder the relationship between the police and the community. It can also make the officer’s job more difficult and stressful as he or she is presented with conflicting mandates, one set coming from within and the other from without (the community).


Proactive vs. reactive

Another possible conflict may exist between the proactive implementation of POP and the need for traditional “incident-driven” policing. In large metropolitan areas, dispatchers receive a high volume of 911 emergencies and calls for service around the clock. Some areas of the city may be quieter than others, and these are typically the areas that don’t have many problems. Ironically, in these quieter and more peaceful areas, where officers have abundant time to pursue genuine problem-solving, it isn’t particularly needed. In the areas that could benefit most from POP, patrol officers may not have time to exercise it.


Relationships between officers

Complications can arise if certain officers in each department are designated as community problem solvers or if a few enthusiastic officers earnestly commit themselves to the POP process, as this leaves the others on the same shift to pick up the slack in responding to calls for service. This can lead to tension and resentment, which in turn can diminish morale and adversely affect the ability of the officers to function as a team and be productive.


Abuse of authority or heightened conservatism

Increased discretion creates a risk for abuses of authority. POP encourages police to actively intervene in situations they had previously left alone, which presents more opportunities for abuse and a “net-widening” effect.

By the same token, increased discretion coupled with the possibility of larger social consequences could make officers more conservative in their approach; perhaps too conservative to fully achieve POP goals.


See also

Community oriented policing

Fixing Broken Windows

Intelligence-led policing



External links

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

Herman Goldstein, Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach, Crime & Delinquency (April 1979):236-243.

Violent crime

Violent crime

A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with and without weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime. [1]

The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than half between the years 1994 and 2001. [10]

Extortion

Extortion

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical or reputational harm unless he is paid money or property.

Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. The four simple words "pay up or else" are sufficient to constitute the crime of extortion. An extortionate threat made to another in jest is still extortion. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, additionally, exact in its formal definition means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.

In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce". Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

Extortion is distinguished from blackmail. In blackmail, the blackmailer threatens to do something which would be legal or normally allowed.

Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In strong arm robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force. In "robbery" goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of another—with or without force. A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller. In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur. Under federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat (refer to U.S.C. 875 and U.S.C. 876).

The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and even taxation, have all been labeled "extortion" by people with various social or political beliefs.

Extortion currently carries up to a maximum prison sentence of 20 years in most states and under Federal law.


See also

Badger game

Clip joint

Coercion

Cryptovirology: The use of public key cryptography to carry out cryptoviral extortion.

Danegeld

Lion kidnapping: the taking of an innocent hostage to make a loved one or associate of the victim do something, e.g. a child is taken hostage to force the shopkeeper to open the safe; the term originates from the usually long preceding observation, like a lion does on the prowl.

Loan sharking

Nuclear blackmail

Tallage

RIAA

Terrorism