Community Policing and Police

Police: History, Structure, and Functions

The policing system's development in Britain was closely followed by a similar development in America. Policing by the initial colonizers assumed two forms: "The Big Stick" (for-profit, private agency policing) and the "Watch" (communal as well as informal) (Spitzer, 1979). Community volunteers primarily charged with warning citizens of imminent danger made up the latter system. The night watch was first implemented in the year 1636 in Boston. New York and Philadelphia implemented night watch system in the years 1658 and 1700, respectively. This system did not prove particularly successful in controlling crime. Supplementing the "watch" mode of policing was a group of official law enforcers, labeled "constables," who were often salaried by a fee system, based on number of warrants served by them. Policing's informal procedure continued for several years following the 1765-83 American Revolution. Only in the 1830s did the U.S. first introduce a municipal, centralized police department.

Widely recognized as contemporary policing's founding father, Sir Robert Peel implemented several key reforms to English criminal law when he was Home Secretary. The changes he effected to the English penal code decreased crimes whose penalty was 'death' and ensured convict education. Robert Peel instituted London's "Metropolitan Police" on the basis of nine self-formulated law enforcement principles. These contemporary police bodies had the following characteristics in common: (1) Bureaucratic and publicly supported organization; (2) Full-time police officers, rather than case-based fee retainers and community volunteers, constituting the organization; (3) Fixed, unchanging procedures and rules, and continuous employment as an official; and (4) Accountability to a main governmental organization (Lundman 1980).

Impact of Sir Robert Peel on American policing

Contemporary community policing's founder, Peel, was Home Secretary of the UK, between 1812 and 1818. He was known for his stern yet kindly personality. He aided Ireland in instituting a native police force for calming the region's conflicts that surfaced after it joined the United Kingdom. He accomplished far-reaching penal reform, going on to ensure the passing of the 1829 MPA (Metropolitan Police Act) that had a central role to play in the Met's creation. Besides the MPA, he also composed law enforcement's famous 9 "Peelian Principles," which basically maintained that policemen are the citizens and the citizens are policemen; further, crime can be prevented without closely intruding into the lives of citizens (Lewis, 2011).

Certain practices like qualitative meetings with the people rather than counting how many arrests one made and badge-number issuance for guaranteeing officer accountability were derived from Peel's model of community policing. English policemen who were taught the Peelian Principles were stationed across urban areas; society commonly called them 'Bobbies' or 'Peelers' (Lewis, 2011). Robert Peel emphasized crime prevention, and not detection, as the policemen's chief responsibility. He decided to make them directly answerable to himself at Home Office level; hence, the pejorative nicknames mentioned above. His advice to fill senior uniformed positions from below rather than from society's upper classes is still followed today. He himself claimed to accept a low salary since he didn't wish any member of the police force to feel superior to his coworkers or the job.

Relationship between the U.S. Government and the Policing Organizations in the Country

Policing organizations and the American government have a relationship that is usually intertwined, but with a potential to create conflict. Law enforcement officials need to adhere to a collection of rules, regulations, and jurisdictions. Their roles differ depending on the state and the city. American governmental bodies or law enforcement organizations at the federal level have an entirely independent role. Conflicts may arise if different crimes and jurisdictions give rise to confusion with regard to which organizational level ought to be dealing with it (Davis, 2009). Cases will normally be held at local level till they reach a point and intensity wherein federal law enforcers have to intervene. Furthermore, the nation's political parties and constitution usually influence police organizations.

The government-police relationship may be considered a love-hate one. Whilst the government believes its decisions are in the society's best interests, the police, practically on the field on a day basis, are actually able to witness what's transpiring in society and their views may differ with regard to national policy. Ultimately, however, the police have to adapt themselves and remain attentive to all procedures and policies amended by policymakers.

Effects of this Relationship on Police Practices

A healthy government-police relationship ensues when the government only intervenes in case of major issues relating to safeguarding particular key values, demand for evidence instead of suspicion, upholding privacy rights, and insuring accountability procedures are established for individuals treated wrongly by citing security reasons. Meanwhile, policemen ought to be given complete freedom to tackle the smaller problems. Conflict arises when governments do not intervene where necessary (in major matters), but butt in to micro-manage small problems. Consequently, basic civil liberties get eroded by the conduct of policemen, with governments facilitating it (Walker and Macdonald, 2009; Davis, 2009).