Criminal Justice Trends Paper * The Policing component is only one part of the criminal justice system
Criminal Justice Trends Paper * The Policing component is only one part of the criminal justice system (triad of justice) that includes Policing, Courts, and Corrections, and it is the primary tier that generates criminal arrests, prosecutions, restraints, criminal activity, and protects the peace. * This paper will review the policing function of the criminal justice system and will identify, compare, and contrast the policing function at the local, state, and federal organizational levels of the criminal justice system. An analysis of the organizational, management, administration, and operational functions at these three organizational levels will be assessed for similarity of leadership and differences. * According to “Police Crunch” (2012), “To be an effective police/law enforcement officer, one must understand where we (law enforcement) has been, where society believes we are and what the heck is going to happen in the future” (Para. 1). For society to continue a policing effectiveness, one must also understand the leadership aspects associated with managing personnel, and equipment at all levels of law enforcement. Keeping the peace; be it local or national requires tremendous resources, and an acutely instinctive leadership base. * Police Function Comparison Defining law enforcement capability also requires identifying agencies that work in the same capacity of law enforcement; that is, protecting the pace, enforcing laws, and combating crime. In the article Trends and Practices in Law Enforcement and Private Security by the Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium (2009). The Consortium defines law enforcement as the following agencies; Public law enforcement agencies, including local, state, and tribal police departments; sheriffs’ departments, and federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many others. The purpose of identifying these agencies is to support the reader’s perspective of what law enforcement agencies are; be they local, state or federal. Policing at any level of civil capacity requires an arduous amount of time, resources, and most important; dependable personnel, and quality leadership. Technology and all its capabilities not only, but also help the law enforcement community to track and prevent possible crimes, and with the implementation of the county, state, and federal policing system, have arisen many positive attributes, one in particular is that policing agencies should model the same common goal. The prevention of crime and protection of life, to uphold and enforce the law, to combat public fear of crime, to promote community safety, to control traffic, to encourage respect for the law, and to protect the civil rights, and liberties of individuals (Heath & Terry, 2008). However; Costs associated with policing communities, educating police officers and keeping in line with the policing functions as depicted by Sir Robert Peel, are skyrocketing in the face of ever increasing criminal activity. To add to the decreasing structure of law enforcement, the lack of uniformity of leadership within these legal communities is a remarkable forfeiture in manpower development, and leadership continuity, which only serves to strengthen the criminal community. There are many varieties of police department operational functions that include: diversity in the hiring of the police officers as well as the type of training received. Many police agencies develop their own forum for training their officers in accordance with local policies. Unfortunately; not all police departments maneuver the same, and in most cases do not even operate under the same principles of policing or leadership development, thus the locale, state, and federal policing agencies have some policing similarity, but operate under completely diverse training, and operational standards, which account for operational mistakes, and unnecessary costs. One theory in relation to how some agencies are controlled is called the organizational theory, this theory argues that; a police officers’ conduct and deportment is shaped by his or her fellow officers and the culture of policing in that area. This can be true for all levels of law enforcement, and leadership at any regional setting. Some of these models are very rigid, and orderly, such as the quasi-military style model, where the organization functions much like a military unit, such as the swat teams do, where battle dress uniforms are worn and military style tactics are employed for all training, this style of policing is more widely accepted at the local and state level of policing. During the authors tenure as a United States Marine, and acting in the capacity of a Military Police Officer; training is based on military structure and much ridged, even when handling civilian personnel on or off base, the training was directive and demanded absolute aggressiveness, be it verbal or physical. There are also other less rigid programs of leadership such as the dominant style of policing model, the task force policing model, and the zero tolerance policing models (Walker ; Katz). These models gravitate to a more civil capacity in handling personnel and civil issues and are more widely used by small town police forces or federal agencies. Just as people are different; so too are supervisory roles, mission statements and leaderships. Every policing organization has its common goals to adhere to such as, crime prevention, traffic, crime control, safety, and education, to name a few examples. The values and principles of policing are largely dictated by the area’s leading director, and the types of crimes that are associated with the local precinct. This uncanny process of regional legal factors should serve to re-enforce, or to strengthen possible gaps in policing agencies, their logistics, training, and personnel issues through information sharing and innovative leadership, which is more commonly used and practiced nationwide. Organizational Similarities * With the aid of technology, and new law enforcement relationship’s established throughout the continental United States. Policing programs such as, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and several other American agencies have established joint partnering programs with local law enforcement agencies (Fact Sheet: The USA Patriot Act – A Proven Homeland Security Tool, 2005). * This new form of joint policing has been made possible in large part because of the 911 terror attacks, and the signing of the USA Patriot act, authorizing law enforcement agencies to share information across state lines. This policing program structure has brought a significant punch to the world of policing at the national and international crime fighting arenas. * Although the law enforcement community has had a financial boon with the passage of the USA Patriot act, budgetary and management issues continue to have an impact on the policing community at all levels of legal enforcements, and the other tiers of the criminal justice system are also feeling the manpower, and financial pinch. * It is for this reason that training programs like that of the Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium. (2009), have established literature to support the uniformity training standards from which all law enforcement agencies can retrieve training guides, ideas, support, and assistance in improving the programs in their community and in their fight to combat crime, and secure the peace within their region or policing level, be it local, state, or federal. This program handbook is available to every policing agency and is published by the department of justice to ensure a uniformity structure among all policing agencies. Although there is a distinct difference between the uniforms that local, state, and federal agencies wear, there is little distinction in the mission of each agency, which is to maintain civil compliance with local, state and federal laws and to ensure the safety of its citizenry, but the underlying fact is that all agencies operate differently in leadership and with different goals. * Leadership Characteristics * The federal level of law enforcement, which for the most part operates on the same level as the lower level agencies is tasked with bringing higher levels of criminals to justice such as, interstate drug traffickers, human trafficking as well as serial killers, and internationally wanted criminals. This type of program requires more funding, intelligence gathering, better equipment, and resources as well as leadership, intellect, discipline, and experience. An officer at this level should be thoroughly equipped and supported by all other agencies within the judicial system. * The state and local level leadership programs should focus on internal issues and implement programs to support the federal level agencies and to learn from the programs, and leadership characteristics that enable national and international enforcement agencies to handle such varied criminal traffic. * Close * The future of law enforcement at the local, state, and federal level will have to convert to a more strategic in environment for law enforcement organizations because of the overwhelming amount of cybercrimes, human smuggling, drug trade and increased egregious crimes against humanity that are emerging within the United States and other countries. Information sharing will becomes easier and strategic in combating all crimes for law enforcement agencies, and will be the spear head to eradicating potential crimes at local, state and federal agencies. * As law enforcement organizations at the local, state and federal level learn to compare, adjust, and recalibrate leadership responsibility, connect with information sharing programs and learn to work in unison to facilitate a uniformity style leadership programs, criminals and their factions will eventually start to follow a systematic shut down. * This study reviewed the policing functions at the local, state, and federal levels. An analysis of the organizational management, administration, and operational functions of these three regional law enforcement agencies revealed how law enforcement agencies at all levels have the same mission yet carry it out it in varied ways. * A view of the leadership characteristics and responsibilities showed how agents at the federal level require more training, funds, equipment and communication with lower level programs to adequately accomplish the mission of national and global policing. * * * * * * References Law Enforcement in the 21st Century, Second Edition, by Heath B. Grant and Karen J. Terry. Published by Allyn ; Bacon. Copyright © 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. * Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium. (2009). Trends and Practics in Law *
*
