Police HistoryEssay Preview: Police HistoryReport this essayPolice HistoryToday, the roles of police officers play a significant part on American history. Police officers commit to protecting and serving the community. The simulation states “the police represent us” (University of Phoenix, 2011). Throughout the years police history has changed drastically. However, the changes that have been made throughout the years have been efficient to policing to this day. Policing ensures society is protected and free from harm. This paper will discuss; the history of policing, the relationship between the government and the policing organizations.
The police history has changed drastically throughout the years. The major change was the creation of the modern police. According to Grant and Terry (2012), Robert Peel is the “father” of modern policing. In 1829, Sir Robert Peel assisted as Home Secretary of England and created the London Metropolitan Police. In addition, Peel established nine principles to his theory of policing. The nine principles are as important today as they were in the 1800s. His advancement in policing included chains of command, uniforms, and rules of conduct (Grant & Terry, 2012). According to Peel, the real key for policing is “the police are the people and the people are the police.” Peels duty of new police was crime prevention. Prevention of crime could be accomplished without interfering with the lives of citizens. Sir Robert Peel also believed the existence of police was to prevent crime and disorder. Later, Peel introduced “beat” as a form of patrolling by officers or also known as “bobbies.” Today, law enforcement agencies still have police patrolling the streets with the goal of preventing crime. Sir Robert Peel has made everlasting effect on policing and his format to policing is still practiced in law enforcement.
Relationship between the U.S. government and the policing organizationsIn addition to Sir Robert Peels important role in policing, the relationship between the U.S. government and the policing organizations also play an important role throughout the United States. There are two levels of police in the United States: Federal and State. The federal level includes organizations like the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Drug Enforcement Administration (Fisher-Stewart, 2007). For example some of the large issues the federal focuses on are, immigration, drug and human trafficking, gun smuggling, telecommunications, and safety of transportation systems. The federal focuses on issues that concern the nation as a whole. It also focuses on issues that will make a difference in society. For example, people who work for the cartel in the United States. The cartel is one of the largest groups of drug smuggling and murderers. The federal focuses on
s: drug traffickers, gun smugglers, and gang members.
How much do federal officers contribute to law enforcement? By their nature, they are often subject to some sort of government intervention in ways that the criminal law enforcement agency and the criminal justice system does not, and thus cannot. Police work in various areas, such as: law enforcement, financial law enforcement, federal immigration law enforcement, homeland security law enforcement, and community policing. Some federal officers in the civil services law firm focus their work on their federal jobs. They often do so within their fieldwork, usually in law enforcement operations.
How important do federal government agencies play in policing? Some U.S. government agencies are largely responsible for law enforcement. In a 2001 report on “Federalism and its Impact” at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C, Dr. Thomas Friedman wrote, “Congress has no authority to use, for example, the Department of Homeland Security as a vehicle for the federal criminal justice to address the problem of racial bias and excessive use of the force.” This “has often happened only in the context of law enforcement enforcement operations. It is a more sophisticated policy. It is a policy that has taken advantage of the fact that the federal judiciary appears to be engaged in a highly complex investigation, which requires the cooperation of every federal agency in the field where it is based.” The point of the Federalist Papers is to show that “the problem that arises from a lack of federal oversight to the point where no one on the Federal judiciary can determine when a law is unconstitutional is, almost as if there is no law at all, a problem that has been exacerbated by the inability of an individual to act without the involvement of an institution.” The point is that the federal government works on all sorts of issues and in every case is quite effective in policing it. However, “the federal government makes no effort to enforce laws by which the people of America have been subjected to unnecessary and humiliating treatment or deprivation. A more appropriate example is racial discrimination that may be justified by the existence of a substantial and pervasive racial issue within its jurisdiction,” Dr. Friedman wrote. The United States should “engage in an extensive research to develop the concepts of race, ethnic groups, gender, and national identity that underlie the law enforcement system.” To that end, in 2007 a report by Citizens for Justice and Liberty (CJL), “The Justice Department’s role in policing,” stated, “The U.S. government provides law enforcement training, resources, staff and personnel to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, other federal agencies (E.g., Drug Enforcement Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Justice).” The report found that in fact, federal law enforcement agencies “do not adequately address the problem by offering racial/ethnic profiling of suspected criminals for which they are not able to adequately respond. They do not adequately monitor the racial and ethnic profiling of suspects in police custody to determine and enforce laws that have been violated. It is also common for federal agencies to offer racial profiling of potential law enforcement targets even when no criminal offense was involved, because these defendants are seen by ICE agents as potential “potential violent criminal suspects in a federal investigation, and the federal government considers the potential violent criminal suspect as having a very low likelihood of being arrested.” Therefore, federal law enforcement fails to actively address ethnic profiling if it deems the target of such profiling to have a very low likelihood of being arrested (e.g., by the Mexican government, a federal drug trafficking organization). In order to address the problem of racial bias and excessive use of the force, federal agencies are required to respond to “racial bias and abuse of force” incidents whenever possible by: First, and as with any police investigation from prosecution to criminal prosecution, they must take steps to address the circumstances that led to the arrest, incarceration, or the transfer from prison or to probation; and
The law enforcement agency must take corrective discipline
s: drug traffickers, gun smugglers, and gang members.
How much do federal officers contribute to law enforcement? By their nature, they are often subject to some sort of government intervention in ways that the criminal law enforcement agency and the criminal justice system does not, and thus cannot. Police work in various areas, such as: law enforcement, financial law enforcement, federal immigration law enforcement, homeland security law enforcement, and community policing. Some federal officers in the civil services law firm focus their work on their federal jobs. They often do so within their fieldwork, usually in law enforcement operations.
How important do federal government agencies play in policing? Some U.S. government agencies are largely responsible for law enforcement. In a 2001 report on “Federalism and its Impact” at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C, Dr. Thomas Friedman wrote, “Congress has no authority to use, for example, the Department of Homeland Security as a vehicle for the federal criminal justice to address the problem of racial bias and excessive use of the force.” This “has often happened only in the context of law enforcement enforcement operations. It is a more sophisticated policy. It is a policy that has taken advantage of the fact that the federal judiciary appears to be engaged in a highly complex investigation, which requires the cooperation of every federal agency in the field where it is based.” The point of the Federalist Papers is to show that “the problem that arises from a lack of federal oversight to the point where no one on the Federal judiciary can determine when a law is unconstitutional is, almost as if there is no law at all, a problem that has been exacerbated by the inability of an individual to act without the involvement of an institution.” The point is that the federal government works on all sorts of issues and in every case is quite effective in policing it. However, “the federal government makes no effort to enforce laws by which the people of America have been subjected to unnecessary and humiliating treatment or deprivation. A more appropriate example is racial discrimination that may be justified by the existence of a substantial and pervasive racial issue within its jurisdiction,” Dr. Friedman wrote. The United States should “engage in an extensive research to develop the concepts of race, ethnic groups, gender, and national identity that underlie the law enforcement system.” To that end, in 2007 a report by Citizens for Justice and Liberty (CJL), “The Justice Department’s role in policing,” stated, “The U.S. government provides law enforcement training, resources, staff and personnel to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, other federal agencies (E.g., Drug Enforcement Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Justice).” The report found that in fact, federal law enforcement agencies “do not adequately address the problem by offering racial/ethnic profiling of suspected criminals for which they are not able to adequately respond. They do not adequately monitor the racial and ethnic profiling of suspects in police custody to determine and enforce laws that have been violated. It is also common for federal agencies to offer racial profiling of potential law enforcement targets even when no criminal offense was involved, because these defendants are seen by ICE agents as potential “potential violent criminal suspects in a federal investigation, and the federal government considers the potential violent criminal suspect as having a very low likelihood of being arrested.” Therefore, federal law enforcement fails to actively address ethnic profiling if it deems the target of such profiling to have a very low likelihood of being arrested (e.g., by the Mexican government, a federal drug trafficking organization). In order to address the problem of racial bias and excessive use of the force, federal agencies are required to respond to “racial bias and abuse of force” incidents whenever possible by: First, and as with any police investigation from prosecution to criminal prosecution, they must take steps to address the circumstances that led to the arrest, incarceration, or the transfer from prison or to probation; and
The law enforcement agency must take corrective discipline
s: drug traffickers, gun smugglers, and gang members.
How much do federal officers contribute to law enforcement? By their nature, they are often subject to some sort of government intervention in ways that the criminal law enforcement agency and the criminal justice system does not, and thus cannot. Police work in various areas, such as: law enforcement, financial law enforcement, federal immigration law enforcement, homeland security law enforcement, and community policing. Some federal officers in the civil services law firm focus their work on their federal jobs. They often do so within their fieldwork, usually in law enforcement operations.
How important do federal government agencies play in policing? Some U.S. government agencies are largely responsible for law enforcement. In a 2001 report on “Federalism and its Impact” at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C, Dr. Thomas Friedman wrote, “Congress has no authority to use, for example, the Department of Homeland Security as a vehicle for the federal criminal justice to address the problem of racial bias and excessive use of the force.” This “has often happened only in the context of law enforcement enforcement operations. It is a more sophisticated policy. It is a policy that has taken advantage of the fact that the federal judiciary appears to be engaged in a highly complex investigation, which requires the cooperation of every federal agency in the field where it is based.” The point of the Federalist Papers is to show that “the problem that arises from a lack of federal oversight to the point where no one on the Federal judiciary can determine when a law is unconstitutional is, almost as if there is no law at all, a problem that has been exacerbated by the inability of an individual to act without the involvement of an institution.” The point is that the federal government works on all sorts of issues and in every case is quite effective in policing it. However, “the federal government makes no effort to enforce laws by which the people of America have been subjected to unnecessary and humiliating treatment or deprivation. A more appropriate example is racial discrimination that may be justified by the existence of a substantial and pervasive racial issue within its jurisdiction,” Dr. Friedman wrote. The United States should “engage in an extensive research to develop the concepts of race, ethnic groups, gender, and national identity that underlie the law enforcement system.” To that end, in 2007 a report by Citizens for Justice and Liberty (CJL), “The Justice Department’s role in policing,” stated, “The U.S. government provides law enforcement training, resources, staff and personnel to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, other federal agencies (E.g., Drug Enforcement Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Justice).” The report found that in fact, federal law enforcement agencies “do not adequately address the problem by offering racial/ethnic profiling of suspected criminals for which they are not able to adequately respond. They do not adequately monitor the racial and ethnic profiling of suspects in police custody to determine and enforce laws that have been violated. It is also common for federal agencies to offer racial profiling of potential law enforcement targets even when no criminal offense was involved, because these defendants are seen by ICE agents as potential “potential violent criminal suspects in a federal investigation, and the federal government considers the potential violent criminal suspect as having a very low likelihood of being arrested.” Therefore, federal law enforcement fails to actively address ethnic profiling if it deems the target of such profiling to have a very low likelihood of being arrested (e.g., by the Mexican government, a federal drug trafficking organization). In order to address the problem of racial bias and excessive use of the force, federal agencies are required to respond to “racial bias and abuse of force” incidents whenever possible by: First, and as with any police investigation from prosecution to criminal prosecution, they must take steps to address the circumstances that led to the arrest, incarceration, or the transfer from prison or to probation; and
The law enforcement agency must take corrective discipline