The implications of having a paramilitary structure on the community policing philosophy is greatly affected by structure of the organization itself, the culture it produces and the training it is responsible for. These are the three main tenants of policing that have the most significant impact on how the police works, and how it does what it does. Ultimately the military influence has led to a long a difficult road to change. The emphasis on military functions so close to the public service is questionable because it emphasizes complete autonomy, secrecy, solidarity and authoritarianism, the opposite of the organizations agenda for partnerships, accountability and problem-solving emphasis. The difficulty remains that with this structure
…show more content…
Breen (1997) pointed out that “the likelihood of community policing having a long-term… impact on American law enforcement is questionable” if there is not serious consideration for the determinants of structural behaviour (Williams 2003, 126). Consequently, the inability to promote and achieve effective CP is rooted in the organization itself which in turn affects the culture and the training of its employees. This is not to say that there has not been successful implementations of CP units, however, these appear to be short term solutions because it is confined to small units (ibid, 122). The effect of this seems to be simple: CP will continue to be sparsely implemented and funded short term unless serious consideration is put into function of the organization itself. The police will remain law enforcers, with a distinct identity and culture from those they serve in a reactive and autonomous manner rather than building mutually beneficial partnership with those they are there to serve. Another consideration is the cost of these short-term and sparse applications of community policing: they are a waste of funds when money is invested in these programs but they run out of resources because there is no reinforcement or backing for …show more content…
The organizational structure fosters the traditional attitudes and actions that segregate police from society, the opposite goals of community oriented policing. The structure is rigid, rule oriented, top-down and extremely autonomous from society. This organizational style enforces a distinct culture that only perpetuates the traditional model of policing. The culture has an emphasis on solidarity, secrecy, law enforcement and authoritarianism all of which current work against community initiatives. The result is a perpetuation of this culture and organization through its training techniques. Recruits go through the motions of learning the functionality of the paramilitary structure and how to function within it, not within the community which they are designated to protect. Everything about the organization screams military influence, which is most problematic when it is to protect fellow citizens, not national security. Since the 1970’s community policing has dominated policing philosophy, yet it is apparent that it is not fully enforced or respected. While the police are aware of their paramilitary-like functions, they appear to be determined to integrate community policing into their traditional model as can be seen from the last 40 years of attempts to implement it. It should be remember that
Breen (1997) pointed out that “the likelihood of community policing having a long-term… impact on American law enforcement is questionable” if there is not serious consideration for the determinants of structural behaviour (Williams 2003, 126). Consequently, the inability to promote and achieve effective CP is rooted in the organization itself which in turn affects the culture and the training of its employees. This is not to say that there has not been successful implementations of CP units, however, these appear to be short term solutions because it is confined to small units (ibid, 122). The effect of this seems to be simple: CP will continue to be sparsely implemented and funded short term unless serious consideration is put into function of the organization itself. The police will remain law enforcers, with a distinct identity and culture from those they serve in a reactive and autonomous manner rather than building mutually beneficial partnership with those they are there to serve. Another consideration is the cost of these short-term and sparse applications of community policing: they are a waste of funds when money is invested in these programs but they run out of resources because there is no reinforcement or backing for …show more content…
The organizational structure fosters the traditional attitudes and actions that segregate police from society, the opposite goals of community oriented policing. The structure is rigid, rule oriented, top-down and extremely autonomous from society. This organizational style enforces a distinct culture that only perpetuates the traditional model of policing. The culture has an emphasis on solidarity, secrecy, law enforcement and authoritarianism all of which current work against community initiatives. The result is a perpetuation of this culture and organization through its training techniques. Recruits go through the motions of learning the functionality of the paramilitary structure and how to function within it, not within the community which they are designated to protect. Everything about the organization screams military influence, which is most problematic when it is to protect fellow citizens, not national security. Since the 1970’s community policing has dominated policing philosophy, yet it is apparent that it is not fully enforced or respected. While the police are aware of their paramilitary-like functions, they appear to be determined to integrate community policing into their traditional model as can be seen from the last 40 years of attempts to implement it. It should be remember that