Late 1960s and early 1970s radicalism, liberalism, and rights litigation

Decentralization and Policing

Define decentralization. Explain the ties between this movement and labeling theory. What is, in your informed opinion, the single most important practice to emerge from the decentralization movement? Why do you think that this is the case? The idea behind this movement is captured by the phrase "less not more"; however, Blomberg and Lucken contend that "not less -- more" was the result. How was this possible?

Decentralization refers to the dispersion of power by the central authority to the existing local and regional authorities. The central authority decides to delegate its functions and power to the authorities. Labeling theory helps in illustrating the reason to why people may engage in defiant behaviors. For instance, an individual associating with thieve might receive the label of being one of the thieves. The individual getting the label may start incorporating the behavior into his daily activities. Blomberg states that label theory helps in justifying decentralization in its concepts. The social domestic ills that the government could not accommodate made them start distributing the natural resources (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). In this case, the distribution of natural resources is another meaning of decentralization while the definition of the domestic ills is in the context of labeling theory. This implies that the contexts of labeling theory that helps in illustrating the meaning of crimes in the society triggered the government into adopting decentralization. Blomberg asserts that the government stuck up in the "war of mentality" against the domestic social ills. The only weapon that the government could use as a remedy was the massive mobilization of national resources to the local authorities. The local authorities are able to deal with any youth labeled since there is a need to divert the latter from the system. The federal government cannot deal directly with the offenders at the localities as they can only take them to the prisons and reformatories. The local authorities work towards keeping these offenders out from the reformatories and prisons (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010).

The single most important practice to emerge from decentralization is improved quality of decision in an organization. The decentralization process helps in relieving the burden, from the top officials, of making decisions on their own. Further, the relief helps in saving the valuable time that the top officials can use in other activities that have long-term benefits. This means that the top officials will solve more problems, than before, with the help of their subordinates at all the levels thereby helping in improving the level of decision-making. In the context of the federal government, the decentralization helps in setting enough security and rehabilitation activities in the domestic settings. Otherwise, without decentralization, the government would have little contact with the people. The government has to delegate some power to the local authorities in order to counteract crimes.

The "less not more" which is the idea behind the decentralized is different from "more not less" in the context of the considered results. While the former deals with the need to realize to reduce the negative effects in the community, Blomberg deals with the need to increase the level of positive effect in the society. For the former, the results represents the reduction in the negative effect hence less from more while, for Blomberg, the results represent the increase in positive effects hence more from less. Blomberg deals with the need for the government to assert less effort towards realizing more security to the society. The other idea, for instance, may deal with the input of more accountability to realize less corruption.

Please discuss how order-maintenance policing is thought to impact crime. Please be detailed and site specific evidence in your post. Your response post should discuss what the authors in this week's reading found regarding its effectiveness and how it was effective (if it was).

The issue of relationship between the order maintenance policing and effects of crime has become a hot issue in the security field. While some researchers argue that there is a negative relationship existing between the two, others support the view that the two have a positive relationship. This brings the need to discuss on ways that order maintenance policing impacts on crime in the society. Kelling and Souca (2001) assert that there is strong negative relationship between the changes occurring in violent crime rates and the order maintenance policing (Rosenfeld et al., 2011). They state that the prevalence of order maintenance policing have contributed to the reduction in the number of violent crimes in the New York City. However, Harcourt and Ludwig set in with their argument that the Order maintenance policing does not relate to the number of violent crimes (Rosenfeld, et al., 2011). They contributed the use of crack-cocaine as the main factor, which accelerates the rate of violent crimes.

However, the two groups of writers seem to be wrong considering that order maintenance policing always has some considerable effect in reducing the rates of violent crimes. One of the limitations to the studies is that they consider violent crime index as the outcome measure. This should not be the case since there consideration does not allow for the study of differences across the crimes in relation to the impact of OMP. This removes the view by the studies that OMP does not have effect on violent crime since the consideration of the different crimes will show that it (OMP) really has an impact. For instance, the consideration of instances of underreported rates supports the view that the presence OMP may affect the level of crime rates. The underreported number of a rape case has led to the acceleration of these cases because of the less involvement of the police in this issue. Further, the police have also changed in the way they record assaults thereby leading to the increase in the occurrence of many felonies, which are considered as independent of victimization rates (Rosenfeld, et al., 2011). This means that OMP have an impact on crime rates provided there is equal consideration of the crimes under the changes in the victimization rates.

Further, the studies may support their view by considering that ordinance-violation arrests are different from the measure of OMP (Rosenfeld, et al., 2011). The police has always omitted some of the crimes especially the breaches of public order (for instance littering). This has led to the increase in occurrence of these crimes since the police do not consider them as criminal misdemeanors. Even though the breaches of public disorder may act as a violation of the ordinance codes in the city, the police have always demeaned their effects. This means that the increases in these cases are the result of presence of OMP since stepping up enforcement will act in reducing the minor offending. The beefing of order on these breaches of public order would serve in decreasing the rate of the crimes.

Further, the omission of complaints of disorder by the residents has also led to the disregard of OMP effect on violent crimes. The disregard of the volume of disorders normally results to the occurrence of serious crimes thereby bringing the view that OMP does not have an impact of the crimes. However, this should not occur since the consideration of the citizens' complaints acts as a reflection of counteracting the prevalence of disorder in the community. Consequently, the absence of OMP has always led to the increase in crime caused disorders. The writer asserts that the citizen complaints of disorder determine the demands for OMP and should be included in the analyses of the effects of order-maintenance arrest on crime (Rosenfeld, et al., 2011). This means that the OMP have an impact on reducing the violent crimes in the society.