|
Beyond Bars - Policing |
 |
 |
More police, greater powers, less paperwork?
Often we hear people in the media saying that more police on the beat will decrease crime: We need more police, We need police doing less paper work; Police need more powers.
Actually, its a bit more complicated.
Police already hold substantial powers. As the 1997 Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service found, The powers entrusted to police to carry arms, to use coercive force
and, in extreme circumstances, to take lives
to deprive citizens of their liberty
are very substantial powers.
The Royal Commission also recognised that the use of these powers was
concentrated in the hands of the youngest and least experienced
officers. What police need is not more power, but better training and
supervision.
While paperwork is often criticised, it can actually protect citizens by making police more accountable for their actions.
Does having more police reduce crime?
Crime rates are not always dependent on the number of police.
Victoria, the state with the lowest crime rates, also has the smallest
number of police per capita. On the other hand, the Northern Territory
has the largest number of police per capita more than double Victoria
and is ranked number 2 in both personal and property crimes.
The idea that More Police = Less Crime doesnt always add up.
One study found that a 10% increase in police numbers would result in a
3% decrease in burglary and that was the biggest impact across all
forms of crime. In New South Wales, 10% more police would mean about
$385 million per year. Having more police is a very expensive response
to crime prevention.
Imagine what else could be done with $385 million to prevent crime. We
could invest in community development, education, health and social
services. This kind of spending has long term implications for
reducing crime.
Spending more money on extra police might increase the numbers of
people who are caught for some sorts of crime, but it is not a long
term or cost effect crime reduction solution. Some studies indicate
that crime could actually rise with more police on the street, because
less risky crimes become more prevalent. More police may cost our
communities in more ways than one.
Do sniffer dogs and police on the streets make communities safe?
Many people do feel safer seeing police on the streets. Sniffer dogs
also sometimes make us feel safer. Again, it is important to look at
the amount that is spent on this style of policing. Each of the 30
sniffer dogs owned by the New South Wales police force cost the
taxpayers $90,000.00 the equivalent of the annual salaries for 2
teachers.
Imagine the difference that 60 extra teachers in our school system
would make. Education has the ability to combat crime more effectively
than sniffer dogs.
In a recent sting, using sniffer dogs, during which dozens of police
officers - being paid overtime - were involved, of the 500 people who
were detained needlessly, only 9 people were charged with minor
offences. It is pretty clear that dogs do not sniff out dealers. The
question is do we want 60 teachers educating our children or 30 dogs
sniffing out petty offenders?
Even though having police on the street can make us feel safer, it is
important to remember that many serious crimes like murder, attempted
murder, assault and sexual assault are usually not perpetrated by
strangers on the street, but by people we know. Feeling safe on the
street is important, and having police on the street is one way that
this can happen. However, there are a whole lot of other approaches we
can take to make our communities safer.
Does Zero Tolerance Work?
The idea that Getting criminals early stops crime later doesnt
always hold up. Involving youth and minor offenders into the criminal
justice system actually increases the likelihood of repeat offending.
So the ideas of zero tolerance (that if police crack down on minor
crimes than this will lead to an overall reduction in future crime) are
deeply flawed.
Studies have shown that the factors affecting repeat offenders are
poverty, inadequate education, intellectual disability, poor health,
negative parent-child relations, social inequality, racism,
unemployment and general lack of opportunity. Once youve been to gaol,
youre more likely to go to gaol for any future offences.
On the other hand, when people are involved in community-based
solutions, targeted not only towards crime reduction, but also skill
development, crime decreases.
Crime is a Social Problem.
Police are just a small aspect of our criminal justice system. Laying
blame on them is as unhelpful as putting them on a pedestal. As the
New South Wales Police Service Submission to the Inquiry into Crime
Prevention through Social Support 1999 says, Given that police often
only deal with one aspect of the problem, they cannot be the total
answer and can only play their part in a broader crime prevention
approach.
Our communities need real crime prevention. We need to address the
social factors that influence why some people get into crime. Police
strategies are often not very good at long term crime prevention. A
broader and long term crime prevention approach would include looking
at issues of unemployment, lack of access to health services and
educational opportunities, child neglect and poverty.
These are complex problems with multi-faceted solutions. Spending money
on extra police or sniffer dogs is not as effective in reducing crime
as investing seriously in long term crime control strategies.
|
|
Justice Action Team login
|
Police Misconduct 
