Criminal Justice. Reactive Policing. Law assignment

Reactive Policing
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Reactive Policing
Reactive policing involves police responding to certain requests from groups or persons in a society, hence offering an immediate response to calls (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Compared to proactive policing, reactive policing is not as effective in reducing crime. Reason being, the policy incorporates strategies that are meant to trigger a police reaction to a crime that is occurring rather than strategies that prevent or discourage crimes. The policy is exemplified by police responding to calls for service from ordinary citizens. This means that it relies on the citizen’s cooperation to facilitate the curbing of crimes in the country. Nevertheless, since the tactics employed in reactive policing are pointed towards trying to catch the individuals who are taking part in a crime, rather than eliminating the possibilities of a crime occurring, the policing strategy proves ineffective in reducing crime rates.
The type of policing also incorporates three strategies which include motorized patrol, rapid response to calls, and retrospective investigations (Dalgesh & Mayhill, 2004). Studies however, show that there is a lack of co-relation between crime rates and motorized patrolling. Based on research by Weisburd and Eck (2004), the tactics incorporated in reactive policing have no relation to reduced crime rates. The random patrol by the police or even the rapid response to crimes has little to no impact on crimes. Concerning the speed of response, the probability of the police preventing crime from taking place is heavily reliant on the citizens who raise the alarm rather than the amount of time taken by the police to reach the crime scene. Failure of the citizens to notice a crime or call the police soon enough offers the criminals a better chance of escaping. Although strategies such as community policing have encouraged ordinary citizens to actively participate in keeping their communities safe by reporting any crimes or suspicious activities, certain individuals find it difficult to report cases to the police because of the lack of trust (Quinton & Morris, 2008). Too much dependency on the citizens to detect crimes makes reactive policing less effective in preventing crimes. Since reactive policing relies on monitoring and reporting, it cannot apply to certain crimes. For instance, reactive policing cannot deal with consensual crimes since each of the individuals have opted to participate in the illegal activity and behind closed doors. In Newport News, youth gangs have flourished because of the high amounts of drugs and gang activities in the area. The increased violence has made it difficult for the people in the community to report any illegal activity for fear of their own lives (Bastas, 2017). The increased gang activity has also torn apart communities and built a barrier between the citizens of Newport News and the police (Bastas, 2017). Other crimes include loan sharking and extortion, whereby the participants are too afraid to report the crime and political crimes where the citizens are not aware of their victimization.
The ineffectiveness of reactive policing in preventing crimes does not mean that it does not have an impact on crime. Over the years, the act of patrolling high crime areas has been criticized as being ineffective in reducing crime rates by claims that the criminals will target other areas instead. However, evidence from Bowers, Johnson, Guerette, Summer, and Poynton (2011) indicate that the constant patrol reduces the occurrence of crimes, and the effects spread to the surrounding areas as well. The patrol also impacts the public’s perception positively by improving the public’s confidence in the police and eventually reducing crime rates. Most importantly, foot patrol initiates an informal and positive contact between the police and the public concerning local priorities. The visible presence of an officer patrolling either on foot or on a bicycle acts as a control...