February 7, 2012
Soul training is a concept by Foucault (post structuralist/post modern) and it is used to draw a contrast between old styles of punish-
ment focusing on the body. He says, in the past, punishment was focused on punishing the body and making punishment a specta-
cle and that the state can do anything to your body. he contrasts that with what happens today, which he says is a more disciplinary
type of punishment. He says now it is this soul train concept where it isn’t about punishing the body but training the soul. So it is
about training people into the right way of acting. This happens in school, and also prisons. So it is a different way to think about
20 MC, 5-6 Short answer where you get a bit of choice.
-He will ask us to identify or explain a concept. He may say what are the two concepts associated with this, as discussed in class.
Or identify this concept and give an example.
-The more specific info he asks about will likely be about lecture stuff. The more broad stuff may likely be from the text
Police vs. Policing
Police vs. Policing
The idea is that the police are a specific type of organization, but policing is an activity that can be done by
people other than the police. An example is private policing (security guards, etc). They are in the business of
policing, but they aren’t the police. The fact that this is changing is important. Before there was a time where the
police were the soul organization involved in policing, but this is not the case as much anymore.
Police: “The police is a specific, modern organization, endowed with the states legal authority to use physical
coercion or the threat of it, to enforce the law in pursuance of the maintenance of social order” (Innes 2003: 64)
Actual role: One of the things to think about in terms of the police as a specific organization are the law and or-
der, cops and robbers notions of police solving or preventing crimes. However, the reality is that police do a lot
of other things that aren’t really as crime related.
Crime management- This is one of their roles. However, the ugly truth is that the police aren’t that ef-
fective when it comes to crime management. For example police are largely reactive and only get
called by the public after the crime has happened. So the idea that they are crime preventing isn’t
really the reality.
Order management- This is something they are more involved in. An example of order management
may be them being active at the Pride parade.
Security management- This is something they also do. They are there to provide security, monitor,
and make sure nothing is going wrong at a particular event or scenario. However, they aren’t actively
managing crime. Example: police at construction sites.
Transition away from standard policing
Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment
Increasingly, the police are moving away from the standard policing model. The standard policing model is
based on the assumption that generic strategies of crime reduction can be applied throughout a jurisdiction re-
gardless of the level of crime, the nature of crime, or other variations.
So it is this one size fits all approach to dealing with crime. This generic approach he is talking about are what’s
called ransom patrols. They get in their cars and cruise around for trouble and this is the idea we associate with
the police in a traditional way. The idea of rapid response to 911 calls is another general approach to crime. Also
generally applied follow up investigations. You call the police, they get there fast to get the bad guy, if not, they
take a report, and then go through standard methods of following through on crime. So this is an example of the
general type approach. There isn’t much contact with other agencies. The police are this unit or organization
and there isn’t much communication with other organizations. It is also focused on law and order enforcement.
Recently, in the 1970’s we began to move away from this standard model and there have been different policing
schemes implemented. Thus, the general trend is away from this standard model. Studies identified that the
standard model wasn’t effective. One of the studies was this Kansas City one.
In Kansas city, they has 15 police beats, divided into 3 groups or 5 people, and each group had a condition.
One was this routine preventative approach where they cruise around the beat looking for trouble. So this is the control group where they do things in a business as usual way to see if there is a change in the other groups.
The other group was where preventative patrol was eliminated so it was solely reactive. They only went in to the
neighborhood if there was trouble. Then there were proactive beats where patrolling was intensified 2-3 times.
The idea was to test how useful this preventative patrol business was with one normal group, one group where
it;s gone, and one group where it is beefed up. They were interested in whether citizens would notice and such.
Generally they didn’t notice a change. They did victimization surveys and such and saw that there was very little
effect. There was very little effect in terms of crime rates, fear of crime, police satisfaction (public’s view of the
police), etc. and there was no effect.
-This study was cited as evidence as to why the standard model of policing isn’t really effective.
-The text focuses on 3 types of policing.
Return to older style
• This is where officers go into a neighborhood and try to interact more with the public. They get out of their cars
and such. So it isn’t really preventative. It is a return to an older style, where people knew their neighborhood
police who kept an eye on them.
• The emphasis is on order management, and security management, making sure there aren’t disturbances and
making sure there aren’t issues. They aren’t really out looking for crime.
• Serve the community
They are to serve the community. So instead of focusing on crime statistics, they focus on other
measures of success like how close the relationships are between the police and the community, etc.
• Develop closer relations
The idea is that if they have these better relationships established by serving the community, it will
help you solve crime. Not being involved in the community is seen as the problem in that people won’t
cooperate, they won’t bother to call the police, etc. TAVIS is the Toronto Anti-Violence Strategy. This is
an example of community policing.
• Improved public relations help with crime control
• There are two take-away’s from this. They are trying to seem friendly and approachable, and they hope that this
approachability will smooth over tensions and make it easier to get information. What we see also see speaks
to some criticisms of community policing:
in that it often doesn’t seem to be terribly effective. There are problems with implementation. There is
a nice sentiment, but crossing these divides is hard to do and the police won’t always hit the mark.
Often the reasons behind strained public-police relationships aren’t about getting to know police of-
ficers, but are long-standing. If the community is economically poor and depressed, it may have a
whole other dimension in terms of relationships with police. So what they are trying to deal with may
not be something that can easily be dealt with by community policing. However, CP may be a move in
the right direction, but the issues tend to be more in terms of its implementation.
Associated with New York in mid-1990s (Bratton and Giuliani)
• Zero tolerance is a popular term now and it has gotten a lot of attention recently. It is associated with New York
in the 1990’s with Bratton and Guiliani. They started with a zero tolerance policing in the subway where they
tried to get rid of graffiti, cutting out stall-jumping, etc. It was seen as effective for the subway and got expanded
out into the city as a whole.
Influenced by Broken Windows Theory
• The reason they believed in all of this connects to the Broken Window’s Theory, written by Wilson and Kellings.
The idea was that these guys saw community suffering in kind of spirals of disorder. They used the analogy of
an abandoned building, where as soon as one window breaks, others think no one cares about it and they think it is okay to break more windows. They saw that as being analogous to what happens in these communities,
where once you let these petty crimes happen, it will spiral.
• When people look out their window and see disorder, they stop feeling invested in their neighborhood. They
stop taking ownership and if they see something happening, they may not do anything about it.
• What is unique about broken windows is that its solution to the problem is policing.
• The other risk of seeing disorder out of your window is that you won’t want to go outside anymore. Once people
don’t go out on the street anymore, you lose that natural surveillance and control that you would get from having
people on the streets.
• So the principle is that once you get disorder, it leads to a downward spiral. After broken windows, communities
lose mechanisms of informal social control. Their view was to advocate for foot patrols wherever possible and
go back this more beat style.
• So their work, though associated with zero tolerance, has a community policing aspect as well. Where it lines
up with zero tolerance is the focus on disorder. They are looking for outsiders, trouble makers, drunk people,
etc. So this type of policing is called quality of life policing where the goal is to improve people’s quality of life.
• Another interesting thing about BW is that they talk about police discretion. Some of the things that BW talks
about gives it a bad rap while being associated with ZT. In BW, they talk about discretion and want police to en-
force community norm and understand what is tolerated in the community, and let those minor types of tolera-
tions slide. So this is something that isn’t associated with ZT because ZT has no discretion and focuses on even
application even for petty crimes. So it is interesting that BW got associated with ZT.
Reported significant drops in crime rate
• Between 1993-1997 there was a drop in felony complaints, murders, robbery, burglary, etc. as a result of these