4 ms·

Wikipedia doesn't have a page on policing models yet, but here's some more: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Strategies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol

Wikipedia doesn't have a page on policing models yet, but here's some more: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Strategies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Strategies * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence-led_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence-led_policing * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassurance_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassurance_policing And, most indexically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_law_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_law_enforcement

brutusborn 3y ago
These models seem to just be fancy labels used to rebrand the approaches of beleaguered police departments (see history of 'Intelligence-led policing'). Police departments should have aspects of all of these: they should have a good relationship with the community they police, their work should be based on good intelligence, and their efforts should reassure the community. Similar to 'evidence based medicine': the name implies evidence wasn't being used before, or is somehow being used more effectively. The truth is that it is just a nice sounding name chosen so that no-one can disagree with it on face value. This label is used to justify changes in health policy, but the policies shouldn't be questioned because they are now 'evidence based.' My local naturopath is now evidence-based too!
- hgsgm 3y ago
  It's hard to even have a discussion about something without some label to distinguish it from similar things. "Naming things" is famously one of the two hard problems of computer sxient.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I completely agree. In this case the labels are arbitrarily created so as to convince people that progress is being made. The discussion becomes vacuous because the labels aren’t well defined. This is by design. “Peelian principles” are a useful label because they mean something very concrete, they have some reasoning behind them, they have real substance. Policy discussions should always be about effectiveness of current policy and ideas for reform. To be effective, terms need to be clear and simple.

brutusborn 3y ago

These models seem to just be fancy labels used to rebrand the approaches of beleaguered police departments (see history of 'Intelligence-led policing'). Police departments should have aspects of all of these: they should have a good relationship with the community they police, their work should be based on good intelligence, and their efforts should reassure the community. Similar to 'evidence based medicine': the name implies evidence wasn't being used before, or is somehow being used more effectively. The truth is that it is just a nice sounding name chosen so that no-one can disagree with it on face value. This label is used to justify changes in health policy, but the policies shouldn't be questioned because they are now 'evidence based.' My local naturopath is now evidence-based too!

hgsgm 3y ago
It's hard to even have a discussion about something without some label to distinguish it from similar things. "Naming things" is famously one of the two hard problems of computer sxient.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I completely agree. In this case the labels are arbitrarily created so as to convince people that progress is being made. The discussion becomes vacuous because the labels aren’t well defined. This is by design. “Peelian principles” are a useful label because they mean something very concrete, they have some reasoning behind them, they have real substance. Policy discussions should always be about effectiveness of current policy and ideas for reform. To be effective, terms need to be clear and simple.