Content deleted Content added
Line 72:
Case study 2 Another case study that used SARA for tackling hot spots and crime using Mutualism is Mobile County. For example, in Mobile County in the state of Alabama, methamphetamine was on the rise. Mobile Counties narcotics unit seized 29 pounds 12 ounces of methamphetamine and more than 1 gallon of methamphetamine (Bettner n.d). The investigators used traditional drug enforcement techniques but were unsuccessful. The second approach was the availability and precursors needed to manufacture Methamphetamine. For example, the MCSO Narcotics Unit concentrated on state laws such as (20-2-190) that focused and managed reporting/tracking requirements on medication containing Pseudophedrine as a precursor.
When discussing Mutualism, the main component that facilitates Meth enterprises is the chemical. Mobile Counties Narcotics focused on Pseudoephedrine sales of 88 pharmacies located in Mobile County and 47 pharmacies located in Baldwin County. In addition, MCSO focused on 135 pharmacies located in Mobile and Baldwin County, they identified 435 non-pharmacy type stores who were licensed by the Alabama ABC Board to sale Pseudoephedrine products (Bettner n.d). Profoundly with diligent compliance and enforcement initiatives by the MCSO of the non-pharmacy type stores was reduced to 50 non-pharmacy type stores by 2009. According to Marcus Felson author of Crime and Nature “obligate mutualisms are essential for survival. Apples are in trouble without honeybees” (Felson 2006). Using SARA or obligate mutualism can be assessed by Taking away the main ingredient that creates theobligatee mutualism between the operator and cook, which serves as a deterrent for meth labs and drug manufacturing.
According to the Department of Justice Clandestine methamphetamine labs cause three main types of harm: (1) physical injury from explosions, fires, chemical burns, and toxic fumes; (2) environmental hazards; and (3) child endangerment (Scott 2006). The offenders in operations were tricky because the majority of laboratory owners set up the labs in their own premises, a family member, or co-offender in to have better access for manufacturing purposes (Chiu 2011). The offender would storage equipment in a families members name who was law abiding. Most of the equipment was quite easy to purchase and storage. For example, “glassware was found in bedrooms, kitchens, sheds, and cupboards or chemical precursors stockpiled in drawers” (Bettner n.d.). Cooking the product was done by either experienced or non-experienced cooks. For example, in some of the more strategic offender foraging, chemistry experts were brought in to help in with the cooking process. This part of the process is very crucial because lots of money is being invested into each batch. For example, it was estimated one patch cost $70,000 and can be turned for $200,000 to $400,000. Profits of the
=== Relationships between officers ===
Complications can arise if police managers are unschooled in the proper implementation of POP strategies. For example, certain officers in each department are designated as community problem solvers or if a few enthusiastic officers earnestly commit themselves to the POP process, as this leaves the others on the same shift to pick up the slack in responding to calls for service. This can lead to tension and resentment, which in turn can diminish morale and adversely affect the ability of the officers to function as a team and be productive{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
Of course the bigger question is "productive for what?". POP argues that traditionally police were productive in handing out tickets and making arrests. However, these tactics did not ensure crime decreased. In fact, numerous criminological studies showed they made no impact whatsoever on the greater sense of public safety as first reported in the famous study by George Kelling and others (The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, Police Foundation, 1974). POP creates specific goals in tackling tangible problems. Productivity is determined by resolving problems. If tickets and arrests help do that, they are employed. If they don't help that, then other more creative strategies are employed. Consequently, the actual reason tension and resentment arises is because officers are ill-trained in creative problem-solving and feel they do not get adequate supervision or time to do POP.
Contrary to the tension and resentment issue in some agencies, in other more successful agencies, proper implementation of POP is established so that sophisticated problem-solving is part of the promotional process and officers come to see involvement in POP as a career path to more advanced ranks.
=== Abuse of authority or heightened conservatism ===
Line 88:
Although there is no evidence to suggest it is actually happening, there is a possibility that increased discretion coupled with the possibility of larger social consequences could make officers more conservative in their approach; perhaps too conservative to fully achieve POP goals{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
In summary, POP represents one of the more lasting and successful components of the community policing movement. It has stood the test of time thus far and delivered a plethora of successful projects in resolving community crime and disorder. Michael Scott's 20
=== Evaluations ===
| |||