ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW
The Arizona’s immigration law is one of the stringent laws aimed at combating illegal immigration in the state. Its passing had the main objective of identifying, prosecuting and deporting individuals residing in the state individually. The passing of the Arizona’s immigration law resulted to increased protests and diverse perspectives regarding the immigration reforms in the United States (National Conference of State Legislators, 2011). An overview of the provisions of the law reveals that the Arizona’s immigration law limits the capabilities if the counties and cities to law enforcement agencies especially the police. This provision is found under the section 2 of the immigration law, which prohibits localities from deploying policies that are a barrier to full enforcement of the Federal laws on immigration by the police. The law also needs the local law enforcement authority to put more priority on immigration, which serves to divert resources activities relating to criminal investigation and law enforcement. Another provision of the Arizona immigration law is that it permits probes by the police regarding the status of immigration in cases whereby the police has a suspicion that is reasonable. Another provision of the Arizona immigration law is that it law has a room for lawsuit bonanza, activists criticizing the law have the right to take legal action against improper enforcement of the law by the police. The law also has a provision that established a new crime for instances associated with unauthorized presence, whereby illegal immigrants can be detained for a period of six months (National Conference of State Legislators, 2011).
The application of technology in law enforcement is a contentious subject that requires a critical analysis in policing scenarios that face significant budgetary constraints. Deployment of technology at the expense of hiring police officers has its own merits and disadvantages, while hiring police officers at the expense of deploying technology in law enforcement also creates a standoff in the decision. The underlying argument is that information technology offers a framework through which the local enforcement authorities can accomplish its mission that is increasingly becoming broad and complex. In making the decision, it is important to evaluate the efficiency of the police officers and technology in the context of law enforcement. However, the deployment of technology in policing faces a significant constraint associated with the technicality of its usage in law enforcement (Kent, 2001). Technology can be perceived to a driven imperative with the main objective of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement through enhancing the capacity of information storage and processing, enhancing the intelligence and investigation operations and their capabilities and offering faster access to the criminal records and important policing information. Basing on this viewpoint, deploying technology in law enforcement is considered as the right approach towards enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement. Another element that has to be considered prior to implementation of technology in policing is its acceptance, and the capabilities of the few police officers regarding the use of technology in law enforcement.
It is the responsibility of the law enforcement leaders to analyze the potential benefits in terms of efficiency that will be accrued in making the decision of deploying technology or hiring police officers. The bottom line of the matter is that the efficiency of the local enforcement should be given a priority prior to making a decision regarding the issue (Stephens, 2011). The biggest challenge that is likely to affect the policing trends in the next decade is the use of technology in policing. It is arguably evident that technology will help in transforming the policing tactics. However, the challenge is the source of funding in order to invest in technology in law enforcement. It will take a significant time for new technologies to be effectively implemented in the policing context (Stephens, 2011).
Reference
Kent, R. (2001, December). Promising approaches to addressing crime: Use of Information
Technology by Law Enforcement. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/programs/fjc/paper_dec01.pdf
National Conference of State Legislators. (2011). Analysis of Arizona's immigration law.
Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=20263
Stephens, G. (2011). Policing the future: law enforcement's new challenges. The Futurist , 56.
