Serious Crime Directorate - Essay Example

?Serious Crime Directorate: Collaboration or Politicization? Introduction On 2007, two forces from the United Kingdom police dome joined together, namely the Kent Police and the Essex Police. They corroborated each other to form what is now known as the Kent/Essex Collaboration team. These two Police forces were from the United Kingdom States of England and Wales. I find the word collaboration used by the two different states to be interesting because it may have a juxtapose meaning wherein we can perceive it to be as a strategy of either England or Wales to the Force of the opposing country to gain more by giving less (game theory). We can also look at it in the way that the two countries established collaboration or mutual benefits, thus, accepting their statements in their reports to be true. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, collaboration is the condition of having common interests in either social or business affairs. It is an interconnection of two or more states, a liaison, and reciprocity. Relying on this definition alone, we can assume that the word used can be more appropriately defined to be an interconnection of the two states having common interest in business affairs. In the official website of the Kent/Essex police, it is explicitly mentioned that their primary goal in doing such action (collaboration) is to strengthen their police forces and to earn money as well. We can just simply say that the social aspects will be a side effect of the business strategy made by the two different countries. In a more political sense, we can see this as a political strategy by England and most especially Wales to compete in the global political as well as economic power. A Polarization is the fusion of two or more states to create a stronger entity in the international arena. In a broader sense, we can explain this phenomenon using different types of theories like realism, liberalism and complex interdependence. Using the information I have gathered, leaning to the facts stated in the Kent/Essex official web site, we can use the liberalism approach to have a deeper understanding on the collaboration of England and Wales. In a liberalist perspective, it implies that states are rational thinkers who can think of ways and solution of peaceful co-existence in the international arena. This mainly contradicts the realist perspective that believes that every state has a different interest and that it depicts other states to be a threat of their existence. We can assume that liberalist approach to be true by looking at the different international organization established now today. We have there the United Nations as an organization of almost all countries of the world, the European Union (UN) in Western Region, the Association of South East Asian Nation and other related organization. These are deemed to be a helping hand of the different countries in terms of conflicts and other problems of either economic, security, political, etc. Looking now at state level, we can also say that the Serious Crime directorate, being a product of the Kent/Essex police of England’s and Wales’ rational ability to think of ways and to find solution to have a better and stronger police force “Since then, the collaboration program has achieved a number of success, including the sharing of air support and marine services and the formation of a pioneering joint IT Directorate – the first of its kind in England and Wales – and joint procurement unit – which had increased the two forces’ buying power and helped to save money.” – Kent/Essex Collaboration Team Serious Crime Directorate (SCD) The SCD was established just last year (2010) by the Kent police and Essex policy to protect their people from any danger in a more efficient and effective way. The Kent/Essex collaboration team started in 2007 and had already implemented several policies, specifically police policies to ensure and uphold the security of their people. These would include the joint Operation Forefront which includes: the joint marine unit, the joint air support, the joint operation of professional ANPR teams (automatic plate recognition team); the project Athena that provides IT information in the areas of intelligence, managing offenders, preparing files for court and crime investigation; the kestrel program; and the Joint Procurement Services department that has the duty to draw the attention of police forces who are interested of the success of the operation across United Kingdom. In their official website we can see that the main objectives of the police collaboration and that is to benefit mutually from developed policing services via obtaining a more efficient and effective utilization of resources (Human resources in particular) including staff and officers and the assets of structures and vehicles as well. Also, they believe that through their partnership, they can have a better way of saving their finances. According to Robert Chambers, chairman of Essex police authority “we are proving by our actions, that a large saving can be made, but more importantly, our service to the public is being improved.” Rationale of the SCD The Serious Crime Directorate focuses mainly on crimes of theft, robbery (burglary) and drug trafficking cases. According to the article made by Christopher Hope entitled England has worst crime rate than US, says Civitas study (2010, August). He mentioned that England and Wales ranked sixth in the crime of theft and placed seventh in robbery, they are even worst than several countries thought to be crime-prone like Turkey, Chile and Italy. Even the Civita’s director, David had said that England as well as Wales has a high crime rates compared to other developed countries. This just implies that these two countries are really in-need of preventive measures to solve their crime-related predicaments. As a result the SCD was established to strengthen their police to fight against growing number of criminals in their countries. As of 2009, the spokesman of the ministry of justice explains that during the years of 2005 to 2009 the persons imprisoned grew by up to 66% (32,500). This is good news for the Kent/Essex collaboration team because they are effective in their jobs as a civilian protector of the state, although, fifty percent (50%) is known to be delinquents who are reconvicted of the same crime committed within the year of their release. Although these were actually happening in both England and Wales, we cannot blame the Kent/Essex police as a lacking factor that causes these criminals to redo the crimes they committed. As what is provided by the law and our system as well is to simply arrest those who violates any law that disturbed the peace of the community. What seems to be lacking here now is the government itself – Their insufficient or maybe their ineffective policies for the law offenders. The spokesman of Ministry of Justice even admits the plans of the government to review and study their punitive laws and makes a plan to have a more efficient and effective rehabilitation programs for the habitual delinquents as well as the recidivists in their country. Pros and Cons On of the strength of this police collaboration is the sufficing effect in policing for both parties involved, what might be lacking in England police force will somehow supplemented by the Wales. The Kent/Essex collaboration team can also be regarded as a reason of intimacy. It can be a factor that will bind the two countries together more closely. They are upholding this feature because of the fact that they are tackling their flaws to strengthen their ties and mutual understanding in policing. Also in their Agenda meeting they have regarded and identified their shortcomings in the policies and projects that they have established. An example of which is the KE001/04 – “the inability to recruit sufficient staff or within a timescale to deliver the complexity and scale of the collaboration programme.” And below of that identified deficiency is an explanation why they are fallible to such occurrence. They stated below the word mitigation and explain beside the tough requirement or the possibility of its inaccessibility to the desired result. And example of will be the mitigation of the shortcomings mentioned above: In order to deliver the full Collaboration Programme, both forces need to remain focused and committed to providing sufficient staff, especially during periods of peak demand. The step of admitting the faults done would be a factor for the two countries collaborated to avoid misunderstanding and charging of faults to the latter. The weakness that I can see in this policy of Kent/Essex collaboration team would be the policy itself. The government assumes that they need to increase their police power to fight and lower their countries crime rate. They overlooked the fact, that their people need something more relevant than police force. As one of the current issues that this policy on collaboration is facing is the cost-cutting of its budget. Although in their meeting on performance committee last December 2010, they reported that they earned a total of 6.1 million pounds during the period of April 2008 up to the year where the meeting had occurred. Looking at the figures alone, we can say that these are great savings done but let us not forget the fact that these earnings are just a portion of the greater money spent by the government of both England and Wales to operate their police partnership. Even though they are telling to the people that they are not that extravagant because they can save out of the budget allotted by them, still the collaboration is still funded by the government and out of the 6.1 million pounds they have earned within a period of more or less two years, did they mention or even gave an idea regarding the huge amount that they have already spend? Well I am not against the Serious Crime Directorate by the Kent/Essex collaboration team because no doubt that they have done their part in policing in an effective manner – caught a lot of delinquents in jail. But as an analyst of this policy, I must consider the question of ‘for what or for who would be the policy?’ If when both England and Wales primary goal is for better policing, then as mentioned earlier, those who are caught are the ones who redo the crimes first committed. There are rumors that the government is planning to cut the budget of the mentioned policy by 25% and allocate the same in the area of health, education and overseas development. If this will occur, Paul McKeever, the chairman of the federation said that the government will just open a door to more crimes to happen as he threatens them by saying the creation of “Christmas for criminals.” What is wrong with this statement by Mr. Mckeever is his perception on things that he purely thought that police handles matters of crime more correctly. He miss out that there is already lacking in their system which makes the offenders to commit the same felony as often. What these two governments do is to find alternative methods to deal with these crime offenders. Sensibility of the Policy Talking now of how practical or realistic the policy is on a school level, I could say that it is not. Though we are taught that police officers have the right to arrest us when we are violating the laws set by our government, still it is not sufficient to make it sensible. On school level, what the government must do is to make policies that would ensure the development of the education and should uphold the highest degree of it. Instead of giving more attention on how to catch a criminal, why shouldn’t think of ways on how to prevent people in doing crimes because it makes a difference. Well the government is doing now some partial actions to deal on this matter as Mr. David Green said “The Government will tackle this by conducting a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and cutting re-offending.” This would be a great start for the improvements of crime and penal cases. This is more practical than the upgrading police forces to prevent crimes. Moreover, having a better education will surely have a better and healthier effect on our society. Because simply incarcerating the criminals would rarely make a difference especially for those closed minded and uneducated. They do not need disciplinary action that would simply quarantine them from the rest of the people. They need something that will drastically change their lives, a punitive action that would implant their minds of what is good or bad. They need something to tell them that what they did is wrong and that there is something that they are better capable of than simply being lacked in the corners of jail. That they are also competent to make their lives more colorful and wonderful and not just stealing something that others worked for in support for their living. Difference of England and Wales We must also look at the difference of the two parties involve to have a better knowledge of how the policy favors most. Though it can be possible that they are equally benefited by the said policy but somehow, their status can also be a factor that draw the policy and construct it into reality. In our geography, Wales is strategically located just beside England. The location of the two countries makes the police collaboration possible because of its accessible locality. As we have seen in their performance committee report, there are plenty of joint projects that they (Wales and England) have successfully created and implemented because of the ease of access to their ports like the joint marine force, air force and alike. Another aspect that we must also take into consideration is the economy of the two countries. As of 2009, England is hast the highest rate in terms of economic condition in entire of United Kingdom according to the office of the national statistics office. London being the center of England remains to be the Europe’s top financial center and even to the rest of the world having 500 large corporations (City of London policy and Resource Committee). Wales on the other hand, is advancing in their economy. From their 250 years of existence, we have noticed the significant change of their economy from agriculture to industrial. As of 2010, their employment rate rise up to 67% from the age brackets of working adults according to the Welsh Assembly Government. What this means is the connection that at least the more powerless state wants or even needs. We could also this indication in their committee report, wherein we can see that Wales, in some financial matters, save more money than England. Are Interests Mutually Catered? Based on the facts that the Serious Crime Directorate by the Essex/Kent collaboration team had gained a lot of success, and also had imprisoned a plenty of lawbreakers then their interests regarding handling crime matters are mutually catered. Also, what would prove that they are mutually benefited from the policy of collaboration created are the measures and ways which they have created like their committee reports as well as the federations they have established. We can primarily see effective policing as the main interest of both parties involved. And in this manner, they did their jobs as to what is expected for them to do. Also, the continuous interactions between the two and their openness from each other also implies that they are showing honesty and they do not have any intention to out-power the latter. Moreover, there are no other intentions that these policies would lead like domination of England to Wales or to vice-versa. The only intention that we can clearly see in this policy (Serious Crime Directorate) is to effectively deal crimes regarding theft, robbery/burglary and crimes related to drugs. And to the evidences found and shown in this paper. They are in no hesitation good for the jobs assigned by them. Another factor that we can see which will disregard selfish motives are the explanations on every thing that the organization do whether it is successful or not and another broader details why it resulted in that manner. Conclusion Serious Crime Directorate somehow can be seen as a good policy because it can primarily wedged lawbreakers. But what give me doubt is the policy makers who creates this policy – is it really for collaboration or for politicization? Though there are already confessions that these policy is somehow insufficient to deal on offenders, still the government does not act on this problems. When we say collaboration, in a real sense, it means partnership or cooperation. What England and Wales did can be often seen as collaboration but in some part, I can also see that is just a strategy to create a “great image” in the international arena or to other countries. This would somehow prove by one of their built-up committee known as the Joint Procurement Services department who as the duty to draw the attention of police forces who are interested of the success of the operation across United Kingdom. As what we used in this paper as a meaning of collaboration - a polarization to make their states a stronger entity which means that they are helping one another because they know that they will be more effective if they have partners. They are catering an idea that they depict to be substantial but in some ways are not. As I have mentioned a while back, I do not against the SCD or the Kent/Essex collaboration team, it is just that they are misguide by a wrong principle. If they say that the collaborated and when it is proven that their goal is can hardly be achieved, and then they must find another ways to deal on the matter – meaning there is no need for the Serious Crime directorate to fully work. I somehow disagree in what Paul McKeever said that when their number is decreased then the result will be an increase in crime rates because there are evidences which states that fifty percent (50%) is known to be delinquents who are reconvicted of the same crime committed within the year of their release. I would like to agree on Mr. David Green who said that the Government will tackle this by conducting a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and cutting re-offending. In line with this, there is this American policy on drugs called “alternative-to-incarceration policy which subjects drug related crime, so as long as it is not violent and has a light degree of offense, then it is deemed for seminars, programs and schools. I for one am with this policy. The government must not focus on sentencing the lawbreakers but must find a more useful way to lessen the crimes and the re-offenders of the crime. We must take note that the SCD primary role is for crimes relating to theft, robbery and drugs. In regards with these problems, the state definitely does not need a punitive punishment that will just lead to “useful results.” If for example, the delinquent robs someone or commits the crime of theft because he does not have any money or any means of livelihood for his survival. If the system will just put that person to jail, then definitely the person convicted will do the same if the same scenario happens to him. What the government must create are programs, seminars or other related method to effectively help the convicted to start a life of their own without depending on unlawful means to live in this world. As the saying goes “ if you give person a bunch of fishes, after weeks or month that food will be gone, and will always seek for you for your mercy; but if you give a person a lesson on how to catch a fish then definitely he will live forever even without ones help because he already knows how to fish for himself for food and for living. If the government would want to decrease the number of their crime rates, knowing that most of their lawbreaker are habitual delinquents or recidivists, then definitely what they need is not an improved police policies to upgrade their power and capability but a policy that will teach the offender a real lesson by making them realize that what they did is really indemnifying and that they (convicts) are also capable of lots of things and that they are really like those successful persons that they have robbed. What would be appropriate is a revised system of punitive. References Hope, C. (2010, August). England has worst crime rate than US, say Civitas study. Whitehall Editor. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html. These are website references, I’ll just send the sites thank you. Pls. delete this bold and underlined part. http://www.essex.police.uk/authority/pdf/EPA3510.pdf http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=874476&show=abstract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Federation_of_England_and_Wales http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/collaboration http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/economy/index.html http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/what-we-do/corporate-information/resource-accounts/resource-accounts-09-10.pdf Read More