Advantages And Disadvantages Of Intelligence Led Policing

Furthermore, evidence-Based Policing allows for the use of research findings to develop those strategies that are best designed to reduce crime and disorder while maintaining the trust and confidence of the public. we serve. Also, police officers should incorporate those research findings into every decision. Evidence based policing does not have all the answers; critical decision will have to be made at during certain times in a split second. Nevertheless, having a scientifically proven evidence-base to support and guide how officers operate, I believe can help reduce crime, keep officers safe and improve relations with the community. Additionally, it can encourage police officers to use proven strategies and methods to improve crime control, community relations, and internal management. Agencies also gain the knowledge and analytical skills, specifically advanced crime analytics, to generate their own

Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2014). Policing in america (8th ed.). (S. Decker-Lucke, Ed.) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America: Anderson Publishing. Retrieved January 2017

Intelligence-led policing is one of the main global issues and important factor that the police service are faced with in today’s modern society in particular the Queensland Police Service. Intelligence-led policing is explained through a various different sources in literature, which explain the definition and issues surrounding intelligence-led policing, the main fundamental structures that support and make up intelligence-led policing and the role it has played in information communication technologies, organised crime and transnational organised crime. There is also a link seen between the literature of intelligence-led policing and organisational documents such as annual reports, legislation's and strategic plans which have been put forwards

Policing is a very difficult, complex and dynamic field of endeavor that is always evolves as hard lessons teach us what we need to know about what works and what don’t work. There are three different Era’s in America’s policing: The Political Era, The Reform Era, and The Community Problem Solving Era. A lot has changed in the way that policing works over the years in the United States.

"Precognitive Police," by Henrick Karoliszyn, addresses what police are doing about violence in cities across the country. Many police departments are using precognitive policing. Precognitive policing can range from computer programs to DNA analysis. Precognitive policing is the up-and-coming method used by police departments across the country. Many are starting to believe that the this method will be the solution to many of the nation's crimes. But with many different ways of precognitive policing, who's to say what is best, or maybe all methods should be used together.

What is intelligence-led policing (ILP)? What strengths and weaknesses have been identified with this model of policing? Support your arguments with examples from police departments/forces using ILP.

Although most studies on police officer discretion is focused on racial profiling, it has also been shown that officers patrol hot spots. Hot spots are areas known to have a high rate of criminal activity. Focusing on hot spots is an officer’s discretion, because they are ignoring other areas that could potential produce criminal activities. All surveillance and enforcement efforts are focused on the “hot” area. Not only are officers ignoring other areas, but they have determined those areas are not as important as the hot spot. Hot spots can prove to be problematic if the criminal activity located in the hot spot before it was being patrolled is moved to a new location. The new location is prone to no police surveillance because all resources are focused on the old hot spot (Mastrofski, 2011).

A system called “CompStat” was used to track crime reports and other data in an effort to track areas with high crime rates and gang hot spots. Karoliszyn reports that “after patrolling these hot spots for a year, murders had dropped by 60 percent. By 2003, murders were the lowest they had been since 1964” (338). With these statistics, Karoliszyn proves the effectiveness of the system when actually used in the workforce. There is a flaw in his claim. The author only proved the system’s effectiveness in one city, and in one year. As with a great majority of statistics, these numbers could vary either towards or against the system’s value if done in different cities and in different amounts of time. With more data spread across the spectrum, a bigger picture could be seen regarding the reliability of a precognitive policing system.

In 1994, the New York City Police Department adopted a law enforcement crime fighting strategy known as COMPSTAT (COMPuter STATistics). COMPSTAT uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the locations of where crimes occur, identify “ hotspots”, and map problem areas. COMPSTAT has amassed a wealth of historical crime data. Mathematicians have designed and developed algorithms that run against the historical data to predict future crimes for police departments. This is known as predictive policing. Predictive policing has led to a drop in burglaries, automobile thefts, and other crimes in some cities.

Since the September 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies across the nation recognized the need to integrate intelligence into their current community policing approach. When intelligence is available, decision-making is more effective and efficient. Intelligence enables law enforcement agencies to implement policies and procedures necessary to combat the concerns of the community.

The journal focuses on the ethical and legal issue affecting criminal profiling. First, there not a single peer-reviewed system of measurement practices that has been developed. In addition, there is no agreed methodology of conducting criminal profiling. It means there is no scientific basis upon which profiling underlies. The media also portrays profiling as a romantic or heroic profession, hence resulting in an inappropriate perception of profiling. Criminal profiling can also be at times undesirable as it can lead to delays as it can suggest inappropriate directions or suspects in an investigation.

In preparation for my debate on the topics of intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing, I have discovered the many advantages and disadvantages of using intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing. According to Carter & Carter (2009), intelligence-led policing is the collection of and analysis of data relating to crime, used by law enforcement in “developing tactical responses to threats and/or strategic planning related to emerging changing threats” (p. 317). When applied correctly, intelligence-led policing is a tool used for information sharing in identifying threats and developing responses to prevent those threats from reaching fruition (Carter, 2011). One of the advantages of using intelligence-led policing is its incorporation of data analysts. The role of the data analyst in the context of intelligence-led policing allows them to take specially trained analysts to take raw data from information found in reports and translate it into useful information for the officers, allowing the police to deploy resources more effectively and efficiently (Griffiths, 2016). Another advantage is its application through preventative and predictive policing (proactive policing), in which law enforcement take data and identify crucial variables such as terrorism or the emergence of criminal organizations, in hopes of stopping the problem at its roots (Carter, 2011). Terrorism is especially important and emphasized after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers in

Intelligence-led policing is the new standard of information sharing among law enforcement agencies across the country at all levels. Before intelligence-led policing gained popularity most law enforcement agencies did not freely share information amongst each other, which lead to huge gaps in the functioning of law enforcement agencies. Many believe that this laps in sharing is what lead to the 9/11 disaster. All police agencies must form a cohesive approach to a central system of intelligence gathering and information dissemination. By doing so, they may better achieve a common goal for the unified approach to policing. This process of intelligence-led police may seem like a simple concept, but it involve the many departments working together which can cause confusion and angst among them.

The United States Intelligence community draws on advanced technology and analytical techniques. An intelligence process that sets objectives, collects, analyzes, and report findings, with feedback loops integrated throughout. Explicitly, the intelligence community advantages technology and tradecraft within a proscribed process. However, estimation of threats and decision-making are outcomes of human thinking. Analysts and policymakers create mental models, or short cuts to manage complex, changing environments. In other words, to make sense of ambiguous or uncertain situations, humans form cognitive biases. Informed because of personal experience, education, and specifically applied to intelligence analysis, Davis

Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement