Free Essay about Intergovernmental Relationships and Policing

Governmental relations in the 1970’s

Governmental relations in the 1970’s pursued agenda that would bring the federal and the state governments together with the aim of solving various intergovernmental problems. There exists a wide range of reasons suggesting why restoring the intergovernmental network would be a success which once earlier failed. Unquestionably, the most significant consideration is the fiscal stringency continuation both at the federal and state levels. Reagan leadership took into account the public position reassess the network efficiency, and the most surprising thing is that majority of the Democrats became sympathetic with the idea (Conser, 2005).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

President Nixon is an exception who tried to achieve the same objective, but Regan oxymoronically got a boost from the high-level public cynicism. The latter was ready to support him since in his fiscal affairs conservatism handled public authority from a constitutional ideological point of view (Conser, 2005). The strong distaste of federal regulations has reinforced this ideology that matched his governor experience. As a result, whether the two succeeded or not, the most important thing is to keep the momentum that they generated high towards increased sensitivity of national governments in the international government network (Marion & Oliver, 2012).

The U.S Constitution

The U.S Constitution outlines and governs the kind of intergovernmental relationships that should exist between the federal, state and local governments. The constitution sticks to the federalist's system if governance where the national government has specific roles that it ought to play to the state governments. The main reason behind having a constitution was to strengthen the federal system that in turn would promote the national power (Conser, 2005). It is worth noting that the current regime of government used by the US was at first deployed as a test in matters of liberty and democracy in 1776 (Conser, 2005). The positive thing about it is that it turned out to be a success due to its super adaptability and resistance. Therefore, the US can be referred to a federal constitutional public instead of categorizing it as a democratic country.

The U.S is a nation of laws with strong national and global uniqueness that demonstrates its capabilities of protecting citizen rights and representing the vast diversity of various solid systems and making the US the country in which their founders struggled to achieve. Nevertheless, power division between the federal and state governments provides Americans with an opportunity of reaping the benefits accrued through an organized diversity (Marion & Oliver, 2012).

A federalist system

Having a federalist system enables each and every state to have its way of doing things though they are all parts of the nation. There exist various powers about the federal government as recognized by the constitution. The central powers revolve around the issuance of currency, immigration laws, military control, trade regulation, international relations and other notable powers (Conser, 2005).

Having a strong intergovernmental relationship is essential to the current law enforcement agencies due to the smooth power transition in most of the nation activities. Laws can be easily enforced related to their implementation, strategies for the fight off unemployment, tax collection, road construction and expenditures on political scrutiny. States can freely exercise their powers as outlined in the U.S constitution provided they are keen not to intervene with those of the federal government. For instance, criminal law, maintenance of tunnels, property ownership, health care, education institutions, police stations, and marriage laws can conflict the two governments if they aren’t keen for each to maintain its powers.

Question 2

Forms of Policing

Problem-oriented policing refers to the strategies that police officers use to investigate problems and other types of crimes within the society before they come up with the most appropriate plan for providing a response or handling the problem (Braga, 2008). The policy advocates for crime investigation before drawing a conclusion to the nature of the crime (Marion & Oliver, 2012).

Community policing refers to the cooperation of the local community members and the police to develop the best strategy for responding to various problems and crimes occurring at the community level (Braga, 2008). According to Marion & Oliver (2012), community policing is a mechanism addressing issues that commonly arise at the community level that is developed through the appointed community leaders.

Comparison and Contrast between Problem-Oriented Policing and Community Policing

A community oriented policing brings together officers, regarded as part of the community police to involve them in the ideology fully (Oliver, 2001). They are encouraged to hold discussions with the community members to advise them on the processes and procedures that should be followed in settling their disputes (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The policing prevents the rise of disputes amongst the members of the community. It worth to note the similarity between the community oriented policing and problem-oriented policing. In the two cases, officers handle reported problems at the community level. Officers have a responsibility of evaluation and investigation of the problems reported before they make a decision on the most suitable manner of solving the problem.

The community policing takes a structure that allows officers to collectively work with the neighborhood programs in which they participate in discussions initiated by the local churches or authorities in efforts of understanding their neighborhoods better (Marion, & Oliver. 201 2). Such an approach is similar to that used by the problem-oriented approach where it is important for the officers to comprehensively understand their assigned territories as well as the creation of healthy relationships with the members of the community. The two methods aim at preventing crime at the society level.

The most notable difference between problem oriented and community policing concerns the manner in which the two approaches of policing are administered. In a problem-oriented policing, officers have to familiarize themselves with the regions that they are required to guard. They are expected to create good relationships. In a community policing, officers have to be familiar with the designated area though they have the freedom of interacting with the local people to understand them better (Oliver, 2001).

Another difference occurs in the manner in which the two types of policing carry out a dispute resolution. The problem-oriented policing advocates for the scanning that entails problem identification, closer examination, and analysis of where the problem arose and scrutiny for a comprehensive understanding. Where there is problem identification, a response is essential as a means of providing alternative interventions for settling the dispute. The alternative interventions are assessed before they are implemented.

Contrary, the community policing takes the dispute identified on various departments with the roles of handling particular disputes. For instance, in case it is an issue related to the land dispute, surveyors may be called on boards to help solve the dispute, and in case they are family issues, the parties involved in the dispute may be advised to seek advice from the division that deals with family issues.

References

Braga, A. A. (2008). Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention (pp. 3-4). Monsey: Willow Tree Press.

Conser, J. A. (2005). Law Enforcement in the United States. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Marion, N. E.. & Oliver. W. M. (201 2). The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oliver, W. M. (2001). Community-Oriented Policing: A Systemic Approach to Policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.