Policing Policies Zero Tolerance Policing as Opposed to Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving

0 Comment

A study of the two approaches suggests that an alternative approach which combines the best features of Zero Tolerance Policing and COPPS would be most effective in crime prevention and control.Over the centuries, methods of policing have been subject to a constant process of evolution and refinement in order to meet the needs of a changing society and the corresponding changes in the character of the crime. Police forces embody the ideology of the society they protect and it is a society that dictates the methods which the police adopt. In Democratic societies, policing policies have largely moved from the rigidity of traditional policing towards policies more attuned to the eclectic societies of today. Of these, the two policies which are popularly being adopted and subjected to debate are Zero Tolerance Policing and Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). Each of these has its’ inherent advantages and disadvantages. While these two policies vary markedly in their approaches, they also share a significant number of methods and goals. When Zero Tolerance Policing and COPPS are assessed, it is evident that the ideal approach to policing would be an approach that incorporates the best features of the two policies.Zero Tolerance Policing originated from the article ‘Broken Window,’ published in the Atlantic Monthly magazine in 1982 by the U.S. criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The broken window of their title symbolized visible tolerance of petty misdemeanors, which they theorized, would incite the commission of more serious crimes. A broken window is interpreted as showing that no one is in control, and conveys the message that wrongdoers are free from retribution. Thus, petty crimes, when left unchecked, lead to major offenses. William and Kelling differentiated between the physical and behavioral manifestation of petty crime. The formerly included graffiti, litter, and general disrepair broke windows), while public drunkenness and urination, ticketless travel on public transport, prostitution, begging, drug-taking, and uncivil behavior by street gangs came under the ambit of the latter.