Read: Bayley, D. (1998) Policing in America: Assessment and Prospects. Idea in Policing Series and answer the following questions:
1). Define the three characteristics defining American Policing?
2). Identify and define at least five (5) of the significant changes that have occurred in policing described by Bayley?
3). Do you agree with Bayley’s assessment on the future state of policing? if so, why or why not?
The three main characteristics that define American policing are: firstly a decentralized structure; secondly, the use of discretion by officers ; and thirdly, a close relationship between law enforcement and the community.
Firstly, in terms of decentralization , most police departments in America are organized on a local level meaning that all decisions about policing activities and strategies are made at the individual department or precinct level(Bayley 1998). This arrangement allows each department to tailor its operations to meet specific needs within their jurisdiction while also ensuring adequate oversight from the citizens themselves .
Secondly, American policing is based upon discretionary decision-making which gives officers wide latitude when responding to incidents (ibid.). This approach allows them to consider both situational context as well as possible outcomes thus providing flexibility during critical situations. It also helps foster trust between law enforcement agencies and members of the public since it encourages consultation on any potential action before it can be taken.
Finally, there is strong emphasis placed upon fostering relationships with communities through engagement initiatives such as neighborhood watch programmes or citizen advisory committees (ibid.). This kind of partnership approach creates an environment where both sides work together towards common goals such as reducing crime or improving quality of life (Linder & Terrill 1992 ).
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data that can be put away in prompt (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number