The job of the police, according to my opponent’s post, is inefficient. According to this theory, there should be faster reaction times and more proactive police officers than reactive ones. These solutions, it is also said, can contribute to creating a better environment for the community and the police. For a variety of reasons, I must, however, disagree with this assertion. The first is that the inefficiency of addressing cases is due to a large number of external procedures and institutions rather than the policy itself (Worrall, 2018). For example, a weakening of law enforcement and a parallel tightening of arrest criteria can be blamed for the drop in clearance rates.
Furthermore, the current condition of events might be argued to be influenced by previous criminal legislation tightening. As a result of this aspect, cases were processed more quickly, and prisoners were sentenced to harsher sentences (Worrall, 2018). As a result of the loosening of the legislation, the police will have to put in more effort to identify offenders. However, another issue my opponent raises is equally crucial, implying a link between the public view of the police and their efficacy. In some ways, this is correct, yet the institutional media is responsible for weakening the police in their investigation of scandals.
Any precise numbers are not ideal, and this is frequently used as a convenient pretext for a media controversy. Examining the actual reported rate versus the estimate, in my opinion, may reveal a clear link between public perception and public perception. Nevertheless, I agree that better reaction times and proactive policing are needed rather than reactive policing, according to Worrall (2018). These initiatives can potentially improve the community and the police environment.
Reference
Worrall, J. (2018). Crime control in America: What works? (what’s new in criminal justice) (4th ed.). Pearson.