The Organization of the Police
I see no ground to consolidate our jurisprudence enforcement. I can see where others might see the virtue in consolidation but I say if it is non broken why repair it? I believe a National Police Force is a bad thought because it can merely be necessary if the intent is to enforce general Police Power at the Federal degree, nationally ; otherwise, there is no other ground for such an entity. The fundamental law of the United States does non include constabulary protection as a power of the federal Government. The Tenth Amendment grants all powers non given to the federal Government to the provinces, the powers non given to the United States by the Constitution, nor banned by it to the States, are held in modesty to the States correspondingly, or to the people. The people of the Constitution did non desire a federal Government to be stronger than the provinces. There was much argument at the clip between Federalists and Republicans. The Constitution draws a just understanding between those two schools of idea. It protects us from holding absolute regulation in many ways. Commonwealths ( Pennsylvania, Virgina, Massachusetts and Kentucky ) were organized so that the strength of authorities is concentrated at the smallest, local degree. To alter these things would intend far more than the consolidation of constabulary services. It would besides name for a re-writing of the US Constitution. The criminalisation of terrorist act by legislative act has non changed anything in patroling. Terrorist Acts of the Apostless have ever been offenses. Congress does hold the power to make a National Police Force. However, Congress does non hold the power to get rid of province and local constabulary forces. Local and State constabularies are specifically for that province. In the event of an exigency the National Guard and province constabularies would be in charge of supporting the citizens of that province. Although due to Mutual Aid, constabulary officers all over the state could react to necessary exigencies.
The thought of losing local control over the constabulary map does non set good with most Americans who live outside of our big metropoliss. Most Americans populating in rural countries like the thought of cognizing some of the single officers and the head of constabulary. They believe, justly or wrongly, that by cognizing these persons they might be able to carry them to their benefit in minor instances. Outside the countries of suburban area in America, many people like as small authorities intervention in their lives as possible. Giving up local control of a little constabulary section would be the same as releasing portion of their independency and individuality to a distant government organic structure unmindful to their demands and demands. In some of our more comfortable suburban counties there are a disproportional figure of constabulary bureaus. In these countries where a regional force makes the most economic sense, the strong political ambiance of little towns and the insular pride of the occupants does non let for a serious treatment of the issue ( Tully, 2002 ) .
Most leaders of little sections in the United States are satisfied with the operation of the section, the services provided, and the quality of the people they employ. The same is true of the constabulary officers employed with smaller sections. From their point of position there is no ground to consolidate their section into a regional force. Consolidation would convey uncertainness to the position of their employment and the nature of their occupations. Intelligibly, many of these officers and functionaries would reason against any attempt to consolidate their section with others in the part. While these statements are self-seeking, and possibly non in the involvement of a more professional constabulary service, they are a valid representation of the fright of alteration and the demand to keep the current state of affairs ( Tully, 2002 ) .
Most little constabulary sections in the United States are making a reasonably just occupation of keeping the degree of jurisprudence enforcement that the community wants. Granted they may hold to inquire a larger bureau for aid on some instances, but in general, the work they do is rather satisfactory in the judgement of the populace they serve ( Tully, 2002 ) .
There would be less positive community contact with the constabulary section. Smaller countries with less offense, in all chance, will non see a constabulary auto thrust around every bit much as when that town used to hold a constabulary section. Law enforcement bureaus should make one thing and make it good. Not consolidating reduces uncertainness. Not consolidating makes bureaus easier to pull off. Not consolidating makes the bureaus really flexible. If one bureau needs to increase in size, lessening in size, or separate, none of the other bureaus are affected. Not consolidating makes placing fault for errors much easier.
Each province has its ain Torahs. It would get the better of the intent of State Police/Highway Patrol, and do it really hard for officers to cognize every province ‘s Torahs since they would hold unrestricted geographical and legal legal power.
Mishandled consolidation and unreasonable ends could undersell the full cost-driven consolidation focal point. Smaller sections may non hold as strong a voice as larger sections, and single forces will lose some independency. Additionally, constabularies forces may routinely concentrate on high offense countries in a legal power, while low population countries are all but forgotten ( Burney ) .
Reasons for consolidation province that consolidating sections is cost effectual, gives smaller sections entree to once unaccessible resources, and could cut down repetition attempts made by different sections. A larger pool of officers can supply dependable enforcement, better-quality preparation and wider distribution. Unified record maintaining, research labs and services are all possible through consolidation. Liability and direction could besides better through effectual consolidation ( Burney ) .
Those recommending the consolidation of constabulary forces into regional or metropolitan bureaus normally mention budget shortages as the best ground for shuting down local forces and uniting resources to organize a amalgamate force. Normally, the economic system statement goes like this: If Town A spends $ 1 million on constabulary services, Town B spends $ 1 million, and Town C spends $ 2 million, wouldn’t it do more sense to reconstitute those services by set uping a combined force that is smaller and costs less? The consolidation math doesn’t add up, but the rough economic truths don’t appear until old ages after the consolidation is bought and paid for — literally ( Wolverton II, 2012 ) .
I agree with Roger Myers of The Capital Journal when he said “ We have a system that works and which we can all be proud. Why alteration it? ” ( MYERS, 1999 ) Which merely reiterates my ideas at the beginning of this paper, if it is non broken why repair it?
Burney, J. ( n.d. ) . Pros & A ; Cons of Police Departments Consolidating. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from ww.ehow.com/facts_7374488_pros-cons-police-departments-consolidating.html
Myers, R. ( 1999, August 19 ) . KBI manager speaks out against consolidation Committee surveies public safety amalgamation.The Capital-Journal. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //cjonline.com/stories/081999/kan_kbi.shtml
Tully, E. J. ( 2002, January ) . Regionalization or Consolidation of Law Enforcement Services in the United States.The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.neiassociates.org/-consolidation-law-enforcement/
Wolverton II, J. ( 2012 ) . Police Consolidation: The End of Local Law Enforcement?New American, 28 ( 19 ), 27-30. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=9c7ca7c6-e864-49a0-a859-d2ee6b7f2181 @ sessionmgr4004 & A ; vid=27 & A ; hid=4202