Preventive Patrol Efficacy Random Preventive

Preventive Patrol Efficacy

Random Preventive Patrol

Random preventive patrol has long been thought of as a fundamental and effective basis of policing -- dating way back to the 13th century when patrolling force was created in Hangchow (Caro 1976: 323). In England, the prevention of crime has been the "principal object" by police since their establishment on a permanent footing in 1829 (Gilling 1997: 1). By the 20th century in America, approximately $2 billion was spent every single year on the maintenance and operation of uniformed and well-equipped police forces (1976: 323). For hundreds and hundreds of years, people have believed that the mere presence of uniformed police officers on patrol significantly inhibits criminal activity (1976: 323). Modern day policing has long used and thought of preventive policing as an efficacious way of preventing criminal acts and disorderly conduct.

Crime control is a huge area of discussion and one that has been, as mentioned, a part of police discourse for centuries and centuries. Crime prevention brings in so many different areas of the criminal justice system, social and public policies, and the lives of citizens whom are affected by crime. Crime, in itself, is a very broad and general word and it encompasses so many different actions. Is it possible that preventive patrolling can deter so many different criminal actions in a positive way? That would seem very hard to believe. While police patrolling may stop some people some of the time, it is probably wiser to think that police patrolling will not stop most of the people most of the time. This is only said because people find a way to work around the law and the other reason is because prediction is so difficult. Random police patrolling will only have random successes and soon people who want to commit criminal acts will learn where to do it and where not to do it. Police officers cannot predict crime 100% or even 50% of the time. This is probably the most important element to consider because when one cannot predict, there is another who knows that one cannot predict, and in that space a crime will be attempted or committed.

Though preventive policing has been popular in modern times, there are also many who believe that random preventive patrol is ineffective as shown in the "Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment." While some may not be informed about this experiment, they may simply believe that preventive policing keeps police officers from other more important work that they should be doing (e.g., like crimes already happening).

One experiment, as mentioned above, and probably the most famous when it comes to preventive patrolling, the "Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment," was the first chief study carried out with the goal of looking at the efficiency of random preventive police patrol. The whole experiment had one main goal: to see if police presence prevented crime by stopping potential criminals and if individuals' worries about criminal activity and being victimized were lowered by an increase in police presence. When the study was done [in 1972], the basic conclusion was that random patrol didn't stop crime from occurring nor did it lower individuals' worries about the occurrence of crimes. Though it is important to know that when looking at the experiment more closely, there are several problems with the study -- including the methodology (Caro 1976: 323).

The late O.W. Wilson, former chief of the Chicago Police Department as well as a prominent academic theorists on police issues said: "Patrol is an indispensable service that plays a leading role in the accomplishment of the police purpose. It is the only form of police service that directly attempts to eliminate opportunity for misconduct" (Caro 1976: 323). Wilson's whole theory was that by creating an impression of police "omnipresence," police patrol can convince many -- really, most -- potential criminals that the success of any misconduct simply does not exist and therefore they should not take the risk (1976: 323).

The experiment, which was a landmark experiment, illustrated that routine police patrol did not have any significant effect on crime rates, individuals' fear of crime, or individuals' satisfaction with the police department. The Kansas City Police Chief, Joseph McNamara, said once the experiment was finished: "The results of [this experiment] repudiated a tradition prevailing in police work for almost 150 years" (Police Foundation 2010). Based on this experiment, it is sufficient to say that preventive policy, while it makes sense in theory, simply does not translate into an effective way to prevent crime and deter potential perpetrators from committing disorderly acts of misconduct.

While the idea that the mere presence of police in a community cannot deter crime from occurring may be a bit saddening or hard to believe for many, the truth is simply that the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment showed that it couldn't. While patrol may be considered the "backbone" of police work, as it has long been, the theory had not been scientifically tested until 1972 in Kansas.

One of the most significant findings of the experiment was that people -- citizens -- did not realize when there was a difference in the level of patrol deployed. Another finding, there was no change in the number of burglaries, auto thefts or vandalism when there were more or less police patrolling. These crimes were always considered "preventable" -- if only there were more police preventive patrolling going on in the community. The study proved that this just wasn't so.

While the findings could always be debated, there is a lot of work here that shows that funds may be more wisely allocated to another strategy rather than preventive patrolling when it comes to actually preventing crimes. Perhaps in another city, deploying vast amounts of preventive policing may work, but it is highly likely that any other cities would find the exact same results.

The study showed that preventive policing was ineffective when it came to preventing burglaries, robberies, auto theft, vandalism -- and other types of crimes; there is little evidence to believe that other types of crimes may be more or less prevented based on the experiment. Domestic violence, which normally takes place at a home residence, may not be affected by preventive policing, just as child abuse may not. However, crimes like prostitution or drug dealing may be prevented as the more visible police there are on the streets, the fewer places these people have to go to do what they need to do. Therefore, it seems obvious to state that preventative patrolling would be most effective with crimes such as prostitution and drug and arms dealing; however, vandalism is a crime that would seem to be preventable with random preventive policing, so it is hard to tell.

The reason that preventive policing is not effective mainly comes down to the fact that in order to prevent something, the prediction of where that something is going to occur must have taken place, and this is nearly an impossible feat.

It depends on a theory of causality, and when applied to social constructs such as crime and criminality it is very uncertain, drawing as it does upon social scientific knowledge and understanding that has historically proved to be 'more successful at predicting the experience of populations than of individuals (Freeman 1992:36; Gilling 1997:2).