Police patrolling : A comprehensive analysis
Whenever a heinous crime like rape is committed in India, the first department that bears the heat of public, media and political brass is the police department. Taking in the example of the public agitation after the 16 December 2012 gangrape case, the public questioned the efficiency and the working of the police. People took to Rajpath to protest against the establishment and the peaceful protest slowly snowballed into chaos when the protestors tried to barge into Rashtrapati Bhavan and police had to resort to lathi charge. Whenever there is a sensational case in our country, the first question public and media houses ask is “Where were the police patrolling cars when the crime was being committed ?”, emotions lead the prime time debates and criminological theories take the back seat.
This article explores the various methods of police patrolling, analyses their outcomes and tries to measure their efficiency. The article is divided into two parts, in the first part we look at prominent patrolling experiments of the past and policing methods around the world. In the second part we analyse and offer patrolling and policing solutions for India. In the end we take feedback from 5 IPS officers as to how patrolling can be improved. None of them want to be identified/named and are currently posted in various set-ups of the country (Urban,rural, Naxal and Insurgent hit areas).
Before diving-in, it’s important for the readers to know some basic information regarding the classification of crimes. There are two main classifications of crimes which are grouped according to their nature and deterrence, they are as follows -
- IMPULSIVE CRIMES — These include rape, homicide and common/aggrevated assaults. Crimes falling under this category cannot be deterred by the police department as they usually take place inside close quarters which are out of the sight of the police. In most of the above mentioned cases the perpetrator and the victim know each other. Only the judiciary can prove to be a good deterrence towards impulsive crimes, but let’s leave this discussion for some other day.
- DETERRABLE CRIMES — These include auto-thefts, street muggings, burglaries, vandalism, sale of drugs and other lancanaries. Crimes under this category are generally deemed to be deterrable by police patrollings and other initiatives. This article mainly focuses on analysing the ways these crimes can prevented.
In the following part we focus on some groundbreaking police patrol experiments of the past that helped shape the contemporary policies and procedures. We are going to analyse 5 important police patrolling experiments and policing model, and they are
- United Kingdom Beat Patrol Experiment 1965
- Kansas City Car Patrol Experiment 1972–73
- Newark Foot Patrol Experiment 1978–79
- Philadelphia Foot Patrolling Experiment 2008–09
- Koban Policing of Japan
United Kingdom Beat Patrol Experiment 1965
This experiment was carried out by J.A Bright in 1965. In the experiment, 4 cities in the UK were randomly selected and a number of beats (assigned area for patrolling) from the 4 cities were labelled as experimental beats. Over the next one month, the beat patrolling in the experimental beats varied from no officer in a beat area to a maximum of four officers patrolling one beat(0-4).
In the concluding notes, it was observed that beat areas where the beat patrolling increased from no officer to one officer (0 to 1) witnessed a significant drop in crime rates. But beats where officers were increased from one to two officers a beat did not see any change in crime, same applies for beats areas with 3 and 4 officers. The study concludes by saying that increasing the number of police personnel in a beat does not guarantee a reduction in crime rates.
In the same time period across the Atlantic, the New York Police department was also carrying out experiments to study the effects of deploying additional patrolling officers. It concluded by saying that a sudden increase in the number of beat officers would decrease the crime rate on a temporary basis as the criminals would either go low or shift their operations to another beat where there is less vigilance. They (criminals) might resurface on their regular beat areas when they get accustomed to extra beat officers. The conclusory note also highlighted the same for street lights, installing street lights decreases the crime rates for a limited period of time.
Kansas City Car Patrol Experiment 1972–73
Kansas City, Missouri Police department held an experiment from 1 October 1972 to 30 September 1973. The experiment was primarily conducted to measure the impact of random car preventive patrols on crime rates and public’s fear of crime. For the same, 15 beats were selected. Spread across 32 sq. miles consisting of commercial and residential areas. Racially the beats varied from 78% black to 99% whites. Income varied from $7,320 to $15,964. This info is being mentioned to let readers know that beats selected were not homogeneous in characteristics. The beats were randomly classified into 3 categories.
- REACTIVE — no patrolling would be done and police would only respond to emergency calls.
- PROACTIVE — police visibility was increased by 2–3 times
- CONTROL — the police patrolling remained the same as before.
The experiments concluded and showed that -
- crimes that were deemed deterreable by preventive patrols witnessed no significant impacts across the 3 zones.
- Fear of crime and satisfaction among the residents towards police services also did not change across the beats.
- 60% of the total time the police officers were spent on non-committed issues and not crime preventions
The study suggested that total complete withdrawal of police is not the answer to crime and it would be a grave error to think that the study experimented the impacts of the withdrawal of police force. Even the areas with no police patrolling (Reactive) did maintain police emergency services. It suggested that the police department should devote its resources more on crime prevention measures and other projects other than preventive patrols.
Newark Foot Patrol Experiment 1978–79
As experiments from around the world proved that car patrols were inefficient, police departments started to go back and adopt radical foot patrolling. Here we would like to add that information is the lifeblood of the police department. Without information of the population, police departments cannot become a deterrent to crime. Information collection by the police can be done by various means, most efficient of them being human intelligence (HUMINT). Citizens are the first to witness any suspicious activities in their area, know the culprit’s whereabouts and their routine. Residents are more likely to flag these issues to police officers who regularly visit them and maintain cordial relations than they are to those who just randomly “fly-past” once in a while in a police car. It is a well established fact that citizens respond to bike/bicycle/foot patrolling well than car preventive patrols.
Coming back to the experiment, the police department of Newark wanted to assess the efficiency of foot patrolling and for the same 8 randomly selected beats were classed into four sets with 2 beats each. In each set, one beat continued foot patrolling and in the other one it was stopped. The beats concluded and showed that -
- As compared to car patrols where people were modestly aware of the officers. During foot patrolling, residents became more aware of the beat officers.
- Although the crime rates did not fall in both the types of beats the severity of crime problems and the perception of likelihood of a crime decreased.
This indicated that foot patrolling instils a sense of security in the minds of people.
Philadelphia Foot Patrolling Experiment 2008- 09
This experiment was conducted by Jerry Ratcliffe who is a former metropolitan police officer. Ratcliffe after taking notes from the Newark experiment incorporated other theories to make foot patrolling work and prove to be a deterrent. The experiment combined foot patrolling with the theory of Hotspot policing. The hotspot theory came from the Minneapolis Hotspot experiment in which police presence was doubled in areas with higher crime rates, it was subsequently noted that crime rates drastically fell.
Coming back to the Philadelphia experiment, Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to map the hotspots with data from 2006,2007 and 2008. 120 hotspots were identified and 60 were randomly selected where footpatrolling would be conducted and the other 60 would receive normal police services. During the 3 months long experiment and 57,600 hours of patrolling it was found that, crime rates in beats with foot patrolling reduced by 23%.
KOBAN POLICING OF JAPAN
Kobans or police boxes/mini police stations are the backbone of the Japanese police. These small boxes are the first point of contact for the people. The idea of Koban is to mark a permanent police presence which proves to be a crime deterrent and a launch pad for foot and bicycle patrols. Kobans were first introduced in 1874 but came into light in the 1980s when crime rates increased in the US and UK and the western nations looked for alternatives in policing. These police boxes have been a symbol of citizen oriented policing. Every Koban is manned by 3–5 police personnel. Their duties involve standing outside (to mark a police presence), manning the front desk, foot/bicycle/bike patrolling and home visits.
The Kobans have yielded so compelling results that countries around the world have adopted the model, most notably Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Cambodia, the US, the UK and other South American nations. But according to us most notable changes were observed in Honduras and Brazil which were once termed as the most dangerous areas in the world by the UN. After the introduction of the Koban system in certain districts of the 2 nations crime rates decreased by 20% over the span of 10 years.
Concluding this part the experiment results proved in defiance to the public perception i.e. police patrolling (foot and car) can alone deter crimes. Talking from India’s perspective, readers may also argue that the experiments were conducted in western nations where population, ethnicity, crime demographics and set-up were different and these results won’t be applicable to the Indian environment. We would like to tell our readers, although the set-up and experimental conditions were different from what we have in India but in the field of criminology it has been observed that crimes committed across the globe have common factors and characteristics, hence the experiment results, albeit not fully but can be applied to India to a large extent.
OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR INDIAN POLICE PATROLLING
In this section we give our recommendations as to how police patrolling can be improved to deter crimes and collect information, the recommendations have been drafted after drawing in experiment results and contemporary factors that affect police like (financial resources, human resources, size of beat area and population). But before we recommend anything, it’s important for our readers to know that police in Indian are more focused on law enforcement rather than crime prevention. Police personnel in India are inherently trained to respond to post-crimes scenarios rather than take measures to stop crime from happening in the first place. Till the time training regime and fundamentals of our police department are not amended, deterrable crime rates will continue to surge.
We recommend a two pronged strategy for patrolling in the urban areas. Koban launched decentralised patrols and police station based armed patrols.
KOBAN MODEL
A Koban (police box) model can be adopted, the motive should be to mark a permanent police presence which cannot be fulfilled even by patrolling the streets constantly. Every ward should have a Koban which should be manned by 4 constables, 1 head constable and 1 sub-inspector. Taking notes from the Philadelphia experiment, GIS mapping can be done and Kobans located in hotspots can have additional 2 constables for facilitating police kiosks. Keeping in mind the geographical size that Kobans will cover, every Koban should be provided with 2 patrolling bikes. The bike should be driven by a constable and either a head constable or an SI can be the pillion rider who should be equipped with a sidearm (pistol), a lathi (baton) and a radio to report any incident back to their Koban. The bike should have enough space to store water bottles, aim should be to field a bike for 4–5 hours for one patrol. The police box should have a kiosk for general enquiry. A very important part of this is that Koban should have large windows on at least two sides, police boxes around the world either have large windows or open doors to instill trust and confidence in the public so that they don’t hesitate approaching the Koban officers. One more key to success for any Koban is visibility which marks police presence, so appropriate arrangements can be made by setting blue and red LED/Neon lights for higher visibility.
POLICE STATION PATROLS
Vehicles for patrolling as explained in the first part don’t have much impact on crime rates but over the years have proven to be an efficient tool for rapid mobilisation of police personnel. A Police station should have 2 Sumo/Gypsy with 1 driver, 1 Sub Inspector, 1 Assistant Sub-Inspector and 4 Constables in each car. The SI and ASI can be armed with a 9mm pistol and the Constables should be armed with rifles (preferably 5.56mm INSAS). The SHO and the CO can chalk out the daily patrol routes based on crime analysis, the patrolling crew should not be given any investigative duties or court visits.
These armed patrols will act as the command and coordination centre for the bike patrol and provide armed support to the Kobans or other police personnel on ground. While patrolling, the patrol parties can stop at public places and the team can fan out in buddy pairs to talk to people and gather information, after a set time they can regroup and move to their next location.
WHAT DO THE IPS OFFICERS RECOMMEND ?
This part features diverse suggestions and inputs on police patrolling from IPS officers who are posted all across India.
“ Since I am currently in a naxal affected district, foot patrolling has to be ruled out as the police also has a militaristic role to play. We patrol the streets in jeeps and bikes to cover large swathes. ” — anonymous IPS officer who is currently posted in Southern Indian State.
“ I’d prefer bike with police siren and LED lights to scare off any miscreants.” — anonymous IPS officer currently posted in an union territory.
“ Bike patrolling is good for covering large areas with medium or low density populations. Vehicle patrolling is good for covering high population density areas and foot patrolling is good for rural set-ups. In hilly areas, we take 2 hours to cover 60 kilometres while patrolling. So patrolling area needs to be fragmented and we need more police outposts and chowkis to cover them.” — anonymous IPS officer currently posted in a hilly state.
“ I am currently posted in an insurgent hit area, so can’t risk the lives of my men by sending them on bike or foot patrols. We carry out armed patrols in bulletproof gypsies and our old trusted Mahindra Rakshak. I think till the time peace prevails here full time we can let our men out on bikes. ” — anonymous IPS currently posted in an insurgent hit state.
“ I would prefer a mix of bike and foot patrolling, like two policemen on a bike, drive around, park the bike and continue their patrol on foot.” — anonymous IPS currently posted in Uttar Pradesh’s urban set-up
Concluding, the article in the first part mentioned important patrolling experiments that shaped the contemporary policies, in the second part we recommended a two pronged strategy for the Indian police force and at the end we presented views and recommendations from IPS officers. In the next article we will talk about police promotion policy and recommend how a constable can be given a chance to lead the police force. So stay tuned….!
The main authors of this article are an IPS officer, a lawyer and a student.
