With many recent attacks on the police and an unprecedented amount of police officers being charged criminally for use of force incidents, the current divide between the public and the police has become the largest in history. Intense scrutiny has been directed at almost every aspect of police actions. No other position in the Criminal Justice system has faced more scrutiny than the police but no other position has as much power. The police have the power to detain, arrest, use force, and use justified deadly force. If this power is used corruptly then our protectors become our oppressors. The crime fighter approach to policing sends an aggressive message to the public that crime will not be tolerated and if the suspect(s) are injured in the process then it is accepted as a normal means of doing business. This approach can seem harsh to some, while others will appreciate the aggressive stand against crime.
The public servant approach focuses on serving the community and providing assistance. Some will argue that it is too soft on crime while others will view it as getting to the root causes of crime and then offering solutions. This approach takes more time, effort, and resources than the crime fighter approach but it dives deeper into the social issues in the community. Explain your choices in this scenario by addressing the following in a two page essay: All questions must be answered within the body of the essay. Not Question/Answer! Discuss the pros and cons of both the crime fighter approach and the public servant approach. Which do you think is the best approach? Why? Do you think larger urban police departments and smaller rural police departments would do best following the same type of approach, or does one work better than the other in each situation? Explain your reasoning.