Community Policing Community-Oriented Policing Community-Oriented

Community Policing

Community-oriented policing

Community-oriented policing can be an incredibly effective method for reducing crime in areas where mistrust of the police has hampered law-enforcement efforts in the past. For example, a community might see the police as negative authorities possessing racist or authoritarian attitudes, rather than as potentially positive social influences of control. By involving the entire neighborhood in reducing drug abuse, violence, the use of unauthorized weapons, and other such activities, crime can be reduced through community policing. But in the case of so-called victimless crimes, such as smoking in restaurants where such activities are prohibited, community policing becomes more problematic.

Imagine this scenario. You and your friends are sitting in a restaurant in New York City where the establishment officially prohibits smoking indoors, according to New York state law. ("New York State Smoking Ban Signed into Law." 2003, CNN.com) With a wink and a nod, you see someone at another table light a cigarette. When the server walks by, the person conceals the lit flame. Do you say anything to the management? Even if he or she notices, the server is in a difficult position, because if he or she informs the patron that smoking is prohibited, his or her tip may be affected, even though the waiter is simply enforcing the law. The server can discreetly inform the manager or owner that someone is smoking illicitly, but the manager or the owner may not care very much about the law, given that they do not wish to offend a regular patron. By and large, the restaurant community opposed the smoking ban. ("New York State Smoking Ban Signed into Law." 2003, CNN.com)

Now imagine that you have seen this abuse many times at this same establishment, and given the example set by others, now smokers are openly flaunting their defiance of the smoking ban. The room is filled with cigarette smoke. Do you complain? If the manager does nothing to oppose his patron's actions, do you inform the police? Some people might, but it is unlikely, certainly not on a level to be called community policing. While some health zealots might do so, it is far more common for people to simply shrug their shoulders and let their dollars to the 'talking.' They might move their business to another establishment, with the rationalization that no one is hurt, but a wide campaign to encourage the community to expose violators of the ban is unlikely to be effective on a mass scale, unlike, say, calling the police when known drug dealers are seen loitering in the community.

Cigarette smoking in non-designated places is seen as a victimless crime. Of course, the idea of a victimless crime is something of a misnomer. The law banning smoking in restaurants was passed to protect the health of food servers and other restaurant staff, so that these employees would not have to suffer the affects of second-hand smoke all day long. The law was also designed to protect the health of patrons, some of whom might not have consciously chosen to be exposed to second-hand smoke in a small, closed environment. Children, people who walked into the establishment expecting a non-smoking area, and other individuals who might be forced to dine in a smoky restaurant because of a business or social obligation are all subject to the same noxious as smokers. The law was designed to protect innocent people against such negative unexpected health influences when they go out to eat. But because such legislation prohibiting crimes related to personal habits, like smoking, and do not have a clear victim like a murder or an assault, even non-smokers are inclined to look the other way and not to bother reporting transgressions of the law. There is still the common perception that victimless crimes are an endorsement of a so-called 'nanny state,' and that it is better, when cigarettes are concerned, to mind one's own business.

Another problem with victimless crimes is that perceptions of what constitutes a crime often change over time, especially when the crime relates to personal habits. For example, once upon a time, consensual homosexual acts between adults or the use of birth control were both criminal activities, punishable by imprisonment or fines. Now these acts are not considered criminal violations, but personal behavior beyond the reach of the law. Smoking was once considered a normal social activity, especially when society was less aware of the health risks posed by smoking. Thus, there is a psychological tendency to generalize all legal constraints regarding personal behavior as trivial at best or unfair at worst.

Even though society is aware of the damage done to everybody's health by second-hand smoke, everyone must still live in a world where smoking is legal. A nonsmoker may be married to a smoker, or have an older family member who smokes. Such personal scenarios further normalize the behavior. Hence, even when someone is witnessing a crime like smoking in a non-smoking area, because they tolerate it on a personal level amongst their friends and loved ones, they may not report the crime. Someone who allows his or her child to sit on the lap of a beloved grandfather who is a smoker is unlikely to report the sight of someone smoking in his or her favorite restaurant.

Just like any other crime, smoking related deaths caused by second hand smoke are real. According to the American Heart Association, environmental tobacco smoke "increases the risk of coronary events by about 30% and results in approximately 35,000 deaths from coronary heart disease among nonsmokers every year." (Cass, 2003) But the deaths from personal habit related crimes do not occur in a flash, rather exposure to the toxins builds up over time. The perception that smoking is a victimless crime unworthy of community surveillance is further related to the fact that the victims of the crime are not always immediately aware that the fumes may have a long-term impact upon their health. Also, the fact that the fumes are being disseminated, perhaps by the behavior of friends or loved ones makes people even less likely to report the crime. In the case of restaurant smoking, even a non-smoker may know the local owner of the establishment, and not wish to get him or her trouble, as the New York state ban required every owner to pay a thousand dollar fine. ("New York State Smoking Ban Signed into Law." 2003, CNN.com)