Which Crimes? The first problem with this characterization of police objectives arises in deciding which crimes should be controlled and which laws enforced. Police resources are not infinite; police skills are not entirely versatile. Thus, choices must be made about which crimes to tackle and what operational capabilities to develop. The police are currently organized to deal principally with what might be called "street crimes"-assaults, robberies, and burglaries that occur in public locations. That is the type of crime to which patrol operations, rapid response to calls for service, and retrospective investigations of crimes are particularly well suited.
However, a great many other kinds of criminal activity are less suited to such operations. Organized crime, arson, terrorism, serial murderers, and electronic theft pose different kinds of challenges. To deal with these crimes, the police must be prepared not only to patrol the streets and respond to calls but also to develop intelligence networks, analyze crime patterns, conduct undercover operations, and form partnerships with business entities. In short, there is an enormous variety within the basic mission of crime control and law enforcement, and that variety prescribes a need to decide what kinds of crimes pose the greatest threats to community welfare.
Setting priorities on which crimes to control and investing in the complete range of operational capabilities the police need seem to be "impossible" tasks. Analytical methods for estimating the relative seriousness of different crimes are in their infancy. Any implicit political agreement about which crimes to emphasize can come apart as a result of events in the world or changing political priorities. When such concurrence is not explicit, it can be disavowed, leaving the police vulnerable to anyone who believes their "favorite" crime is not being adequately addressed.
Law Enforcement or Peace-keeping? A second problem with the characterization of the police mission as crime control and law enforcement is a result of an important but subtle tension between the two concepts themselves. Most people, most of the time, see little incompatibility between these broad purposes: In their view, the best way to control crime is to enforce the criminal law. They are often right.
Sometimes, however, these different objectives come into conflict. For example, in riot situations, the police may often choose not to enforce the law in the interests of restoring order more quickly. They may allow some limited looting to occur, knowing that an aggressive, ill-considered response by the police might well inflame the crowd and lead to more widespread and destructive rioting. Or, the police may choose not to file charges against a teenager who is breaking school windows, turning the youth instead over to the justice meted out in the more intimate settings of family and school.
In these cases, the police face a conflict between enforcing the law or adjusting their response to one that they judge may be more effective in controlling future crime. They must decide which is their more fundamental purpose: law enforcement or order maintenance. Whatever decision they make, they will be vulnerable. If they stand back in the riot, they can be sued by the owner of a looted store. If they return the juvenile to his or her parents, they can be attacked for their lenient or unequal response to juvenile crimes. On the other hand, if they step into the riot situation, arrest the looters, and fan the anger of the mob, they may well be criticized by a subsequent commission for failing to show "sensitivity" to the community's mood or for making a foolish tactical judgment. Or, if they bring a vandalism case against the youth, they may be criticized for branding a child as a criminal or for wasting the criminal justice system's time with trivial cases. In short, there are principled and pragmatic justifications for both purposes.
Crime Control or Crime Prevention? A third tension arises when there are actions the police could take to control crime that are not, strictly speaking, law enforcement. For example, a great deal of domestic violence might be prevented if the police mobilize social service agencies to assist struggling marriages at their first summons to noisy arguments-before the beating, stabbing, or shooting starts. Similarly, the police might help forestall burglaries by offering advice on security arrangements to residents and shop owners. Or, the police might be able to reduce juvenile delinquency by establishing after-hours recreational programs.
Although such activities are entirely consistent with their crime control responsibilities, they are inconsistent with an exclusive reliance on the enforcement of laws to accomplish police purposes. The activities fall into the domain of organizing or directly providing social services designed to prevent crime.
Reducing Victimization or Fear. A fourth difficulty for police priorities results from the fact that controlling crime is not quite the same as controlling fear. For many years, both police managers and those who reviewed their activities believed that the single most important problem to solve was actual criminal victimization. They judged fear to be a lesser concern, but they also assumed that the most direct, rational way to control fear was to reduce actual victimization.
However, recent research has shown that fear is a major problem in its own right. For victims, it is one of the worst consequences of crime. Long after the bruises have faded, the memories and the anxieties they trigger remain. Moreover, fear is far more widespread than actual criminal victimization, since many more people are afraid of being victimized than actually are. Their anxiety must be counted as a loss to society. Finally, in many areas, the combined fears of those who have been victimized and those who dread the possibility have prompted citizens to take defensive actions which may enhance their own protection but also weaken the social bonds that in ideal circumstances help protect everyone. They stay inside and buy guard dogs, stronger locks, and guns. Such reactions turn communities that once had safe public spaces into isolated armed camps.
Studies have also shown that fear is surprisingly unrelated to real levels of victimization. People who have been victimized are not necessarily more afraid of crime than people as yet untouched. Neighborhoods that are heavily hit by crime are not automatically more fearful than areas that are struck less often. Perhaps most unexpectedly, fear turns out to be associated more strongly with instances of disorder than with real victimization. It is noisy youth, graffiti, vandalism, and general rowdiness that creates fear in communities much more than serious crime.
Finally, it is now established that fear can be alleviated without necessarily reducing real victimization. When the police ring doorbells, walk foot patrols, and know the names of citizens, it controls fear but does not guarantee control of victimization. Thus, fear reduction and order maintenance emerge as new police functions that are different from either crime control or law enforcement. Where fear reduction should fit in the overall scheme of police priorities is still uncertain.
Crime Control or Emergency Services? A fifth problem emerges when there are useful things the police could do that seem unrelated to both crime control and law enforcement. For example, the police are often involved in emergency medical services because they are typically the first at the scene of an auto accident, heart attack, or drowning. They are also often the first to encounter social emergencies.
They find the inebriates and the homeless who are about to freeze to death in a back alley. They are called to the scene of an ugly quarrel between two brothers. They see the child sitting in the bus terminal at 4:00 A.M., hoping to escape an abusive parent before the parent wakes up.
These actions occur not because the police take these tasks as important purposes; rather, they are largely by-products of police omnipresence and accessibility-characteristics that are crucial to their crime control role. Their twenty-four-hour duties, their proximity to the streets, their responsiveness to telephone calls, and their general value to citizens in trouble mean that they will be contacted by citizens for many reasons other than actual victimization. As a result, the police find themselves involved in these matters even though they and the general populace do not necessarily think they should be. The issue is whether these activities should be considered valuable and thus incorporated into police operations, or whether they should be viewed as distractions from the basic police mission and their role in police operations minimized.
