Decentralization of U.S. Police and the Affects

Decentralization of U.S. Police and the Affects upon Society

Law Enforcement

The American police force is one of the strongest and most effective in the world. What makes it so? There have been recent changes to the hierarchy and structure of the police force, particularly since the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001. One such change has been increased decentralization of law enforcement. How is this shift characterized? What are the implications for law enforcement, the citizens it serves, and American society in general? The paper will address the affects of decentralization upon how investigations are conducted and affects upon society in general.

The Decentralization of U.S. Police and the Affects upon Society

Typically, when citizens consider the subject of decentralization, it is in regards to governance. The governance may be on a national level, such as a decentralized government, or the decentralization can be highly localized, such as the decentralization of government agencies that handle law enforcement. The United States of America practices a democratic society. Though the society at large is a democracy, there are many facets within that are not democratic. There have been significant changes within American culture, specifically after the attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001. Many of these hierarchal and organization changes have occurred within the field of law enforcement and terrorism prevention. This paper will examine the shift to a decentralization of the American police force and contemplate what sort of societal changes this shift affects.

Hierarchy is central to successful decentralization. The hierarchy is based on authority and an imbalance or advantage of power. In America, law enforcement at the federal level typically exerts the most power. With new centralization strategies applied to law enforcement in America, some of the lines between local or state powers and federal powers blur. Decentralization is also contingent on lateral relationships between bodies with relatively equal amounts of power. This is readily seen in the decentralization of the American police force. There is more and more sharing of information and collaboration in law enforcement in lateral ways. Federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency share more information among them then ever before in previous decades. This is thanks to the democratization and decentralization of power and information at the federal level. It is also due to advantages in digital database and wireless technology. People in democratic societies such as the one in America are also more culturally disposed to choose decentralized governances as the process of decentralization resembles the democratic process. Cheikbossian & Marceau claim that

"Under decentralization, law enforcement in each region is in accord with the preferences of regional citizens, but interjurisdictional externalities are neglected. Under centralization, law enforcement for all regions is chosen by a legislature of regional representatives which may take externalities into account. However, the majority rule applies for decisions made by the central legislature and this implies that the allocation of enforcement resources may be skewed in favour of those who belong to the required majority." (Cheikbossian & Marceau, 2007,-Page 2)

Possible affects of the decentralization of the American police force or law enforcement agencies are the sharing of information, the coordination of investigations, the more precise use of resources, and less administrative redundancy. (King, 2000,-Page 313)

Though centralization can affect the practice of law enforcement better and thereby improving the country, law enforcement agencies must be ware and be aware that

"Compared to many other countries, the structure of policing in the U.S.A. is highly diverse and decentralized (Bayley, 1985). Although this may foster innovation in law enforcement (Skolnick and Bayley, 1986), one disadvantage is that it can lead to duplication of effort and the frequent adoption and discarding of flawed strategies (Strawbridge and Strawbridge, 1990, p. 6). In an era of scarce resources, duplication of effort and the adoption of flawed strategies, tactics, or training methods is wasteful or worse potentially harmful to officers and those whose safety they are responsible for." (Kaminski & Martin, 2002,-Page 132)

This statement explains precisely why sharing of information should be effective in a society with decentralized law enforcement. Lives are at risk -- the lives of the officers and the lives of those they protect and/or apprehend. Resources and funds are limited, even at the federal level; therefore, decentralized law enforcement should serve to conserve resources when necessary and expend the most appropriate resources appropriately and not in excess (or redundancy).

The decentralization of the police force in the U.S.A. is proving more effective than those of other countries with lower instances and opportunities for corruption or system abuse, yet "Because of the decentralized structure of policing in the U.S.A., there are no nationally agreed on standards regarding: amount of training (duration and frequency) recruits and officers receive in defense and arrest and control and tactics (hereafter referred to as defense and control tactics; methods of instruction (e.g. which methods are most efficient for adequate skill acquisition and retention); nor which specific techniques are most effective for safely gaining control of subjects and officer self-defense." (Kaminski & Martin, 2002,-Page 133)