Everyday police work tirelessly to ensure that our streets are safe from criminal offenders. Therefore, different programs are applied to ensure that law and order is upheld. Three common programs; zero tolerance policing, community policing, and problem-oriented policing have thus been applied in various occasions by the police to deal with the law breakers. Zero tolerance policing has plenty of similarities to share with COP and POP and at the same time, there are some differences.
Similarities between Zero Tolerance Policing and COP and POP
Though zero tolerance policing, POP, and COP apply different strategies in executing their services, the biggest similarity they share is that they are all directed at solving a problem (Greene, p.177). Though these policies work in different ways, they are aimed at ensuring that a problem is solved either instantly or through following certain procedures. However, in most cases, police acting under zero tolerance policy or POP will not have to wait for an arrest warrant to arrest an illegal immigrant or a cart seller who is blocking pedestrians on the streets.
During the implementation of zero tolerance policy, police have the right to make an arrest anywhere or do a body search without any arrest warrant (Greene, p.177). The same happens where POP is implemented. According to Braga (p.6) the “pulling lever” strategy suggests that to ensure that the community understands the POP better; the police must be able to enforce laws which sometimes involve making arrest anywhere. Therefore, the biggest similarity between the ZTP and POP is that they both allow for the execution of the policy wherever and whenever without necessarily following some procedures such as processing an arrest warrant.
Differences between ZTP and COP and POP
As far as all ZTP, COP and POP are used to reduce criminal activities in the community, they all have distinction. One of the major difference between Zero Tolerance Policing and COP and POP is the manner the policies are executed. According to zero tolerance policy, the police department comes up with policies which a section of the community must abide by, failure to which stern actions are taken to the offenders. In most of the circumstances, the police do not involve the community in ensuring their securities. The law enforcers only involve the community while communicating the consequences of breaking a particular law after which no more communications are made (Tita, p.140). COP and POP on the other hand apply a strategy known as “pulling levers.” The pulling levers strategy is aimed at making a potential offender believe that a crime they plan to undertake is costly and that there are immediate consequences they will face after getting involved in a crime (Braga, p.10). Therefore, there is a constant contact between the potential offenders, the community and the police which lacks in the zero tolerance policing.
Apart from the contact the police have with the community, there are other differences that can be noted between zero tolerance policing and COP and POP when it comes to the groups targeted in the community. Community policing is aimed at ensuring that the police curb the unwanted behavior that can be controlled without applying much brutal force. These criminal activities can be solved through the involvement of the members of the society. Zero tolerance policing, on the other hand, is aimed at tackling offences that are critical and does not need much attention from the community. COP and POP are mainly aimed at creating a good relationship between the police and the community (Eck, p.56). The community can feel free to communicate intelligence information to the police and be assured of their safety. Zero tolerance policy, on the other hand, keeps distance with community involvement and acts on the “last warning policy.”
The final difference between zero tolerance policing and POP is that, POP is focused on a single problem. As the name suggests, POP strategy is aimed at solving a single problem in the community. Therefore, there can be different solutions to different crimes in the community as far as POP is concerned. On the other hand, zero tolerance policy has no boundaries. A single policy can be applied on various criminal activities and success achieved.
The success of ZTP, COP and POP
The success of these programs depends on different factors. The success of COP, for instance, will depend on the cooperation from the society. Community based policing will never succeed in case the community does not understand it or lack cooperation with the police. However, in the event that the community is educated on the program, the strategy will be a success in reducing the number of criminal rates. Additionally, the community can take the advantage of their involvement into the policing process to take the law into their own hands. In such occasions, COP will have failed as the community will be acting on behalf of the police, which is illegal. An expected outcome according to Addams (48) suggests that community policing is a better way to tackle criminal activities in the society and to ensure a safer environment than when zero tolerance policing is used. The justification for this point is that ZTP only brews fear in people but does not solve the problem people face as far as crime is concerned.
POP, on the other hand, can fail in case the problem to be solved was not well identified or when it was not analyzed adequately. POP focuses on a single problem, therefore, there is need to understand the problem at hand to the fullest or else the program can fail to solve the problem identified. When crimes are viewed as pieces and solutions drafted targeting a single problem, chances are high that a high success rate will be achieved than when all criminal activities are viewed as whole.
Works cited
Adams, Richard E., William M. Rohe, and Thomas A. Arcury. 2005. “Awareness of Community Oriented Policing and Neighborhood Perceptions in Five Small to Midsize Cities.” Journal of Criminal Justice 33(1):43–54.
Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. "The Effects of'Pulling Levers' Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime." Campbell Systematic Reviews 6 (2012).
Braga, Anthony A., et al. "Problem‐oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment." Criminology 37.3 (1999): 541-580.
Eck, John E., and William Spelman. "Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News." (1987).
Greene, Judith A. "Zero tolerance: A case study of police policies and practices in New York City." Crime & Delinquency 45.2 (1999): 171-187.
Tita, George E., et al. "Reducing gun violence: Operation ceasefire in Los Angeles." Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC (2005).
