(My discussion Answer) Peace in society has always remained a prime purpose and duty of law enforcement. This involves all the activities, initiatives and efforts input by law agencies in order to ensure smooth coexistence and crime free society. Intelligence-led policing is an evolution in law enforcement methodologies since it involves the use of technology and proper data analysis in order to spot-check and avert crime in hot spot areas. Hot spot areas are where law enforcement agencies suspect crime could be on the high and its prevalence is almost frequent. In simple terms, ILP is the use of technologically advanced methods and personalities who use their expertise in data collection and analysis and uses these set of data, to predict crime occurrences in certain areas and thereby avert the anticipated crimes. It is not a replacement of the usual policing methods; rather it is an enhancement of the same. There are so many advantages and disadvantages associated with this method of policing. The pros are as follows; ILP is cost-effective,-since it majorly involves use of technological software’s, apparatus and devices, these are quite cheap and easy to afford since they involve devices like CCTV cameras, and surveillance systems to collect intelligence, it saves on the initial baggage of using a lot of resources to implement a certain procedure to acquire intelligence. Another advantage is it keeps police officers safer. This is simply due to the fact that police officers do not have to accost potentially life-threatening risky situations head-on, without having proper intelligence; rather officers are well prepared due to big brother intelligence effect and prepare themselves well before zeroing in on potential criminals. It works by preparing officers better. Intelligence-led policing has lowered crime rates; this is due to a myriad of factors. The predictive aspect of ILP has enabled law enforcement officers to actually predict a potential crime that is bound to happen and arrive at the scene of the crime and thereby prevent the crimes from happening. The aspect of predictive policing is based on surveillance and monitoring people’s behavior without their knowledge. This helps to overlap and foil any form of crime as effectively as a person that has been studying another individual. This gives law enforcement an advantage over the rest. The disadvantages of ILP, is quite on the minimal, as it involves issues of privacy. Most people have argued that this method of policing is based on the aspect of breach of privacy and use of one’s information without their consent, but one would look at the long term benefits over the issues of privacy, and conclude that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages…Another disadvantage would be on the government departments as they are forced to ensure that they do not suffer losses in their respective regions. That the use of such data would turn out beneficial rather than a liability. Sometimes predictive policing has not always been successful. Sometimes the events have turned out ugly than expected. In conclusion, intelligence-led policing are a great advantage and a blessing to both the implementers and the benefactors of those who use this system, in terms of safety and resources. State and law enforcement should adopt this program. My assessment on the current capability of state agencies and societies to share information and the ability to connect the dots by agencies of both state offices and law enforcement can be summarised into the following ways; The world has evolved security wise and information nowadays is in everyone’s hands. Law enforcement has incorporated the aspect of community policing and intelligence policing to achieve a safer and more secure society. For example, when members of the public suspect a certain fishy happening around them or suspicious persons amidst them, technology has enabled them to make calls immediately without charges and notify the police, who will, in turn, use their intelligence and arrive at a certain conclusion regarding the matter, and act appropriately. Information sharing has become almost a worldly trend. Nowadays social media has enabled people all over the globe to be able to report certain crimes, and law enforcers subsequently work effectively on the provided information. Most state agencies have invested in information sharing and nowadays share information as quickly as they come. When certain individuals are suspected to be wanted, information sharing has worked effectively to ensure that cross border intelligence is shared and such individuals nabbed in time. Information sharing is nowadays easier than it was in the past.ReferencesSister, J. (n.d.). intelligence-led policing review. Retrieved from the anactors academy: https://www.academia.edu/6766433/Intelligence-led_…Why would police departments want to adopt an intelligence-led policing model?(n.d.). Retrieved from yo experts: http://crime-punishment.yoexpert.com/crime-prevent…(Peer response to my Post ) Hi Michael,I thought you made a lot of bold statements and I struggled to find supporting citations or data that supported your findings and positions. Some examples of this are how intelligent led policing (ILP) keeps police safer and that ILP has lowered crime rates. Since only one reading this week really dealt with ILP (Emperor is Still Naked: How Intelligence-Led Policing has Repackaged Common Sense as Transcendental Truth) I feel fairly confident saying that I can’t find your statements either directly stated or supported by inference from the readings. In fact, the article actually seems to imply the process of traditional policing and ILP is the same when the author states, “…[ILP] do[es] not seem to be greatly different to what police have done for a long time (Guidetti & Martinelli, 2010). (Alach, 2011). I have a hard time believing ILP keeps police safer and lowers crime rates and could not find a single longitudinal quantitative study to support either claim. I also reviewed the references you provided and couldn’t find a credible statement supporting your claims. One article cited is written by an undergraduate student who cites an article whose underlying conclusions and data are not cited nor supported. The other is a blog post on “yoexpert.com” by a woman who is not an expert and who does not cite any of her claims. I wanted to track down to see the study, data, or expert opinion supporting these statements that ILP is proven safer and more effective but I still can’t find it.What worries me is how quickly you dismiss the negatives as either unsubstantiated or actually benefits. You balance ILP’s issue of potential privacy violations as worth the cost since the benefits of ILP outweigh the negatives (even though we still can’t confirm the positives are true). You also acknowledge that predictive policing hasn’t always been successful but then dismiss it as not a huge issue. Unfortunately, I think there are serious downsides, a number of which Alach highlights. While I think you’re right that a solidly developed ILP system can positively correct a current system of policing that is filled with injustice and is far from perfect, the ACLU recently wrote an excellent article that discusses how the “devil is in the data.” Poor inputs (even well-intentioned but skewed inputs) into computer algorithms produce terrible results. (https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/ai-and-criminal-justice-devil-data).Please assume for the sake of argument that ILP is not meaningfully any safer for officers and crime reduction via ILP isn’t statistically significant. What civil rights violations and privacy issues would you think are acceptable under such an ILP system? Would you be ok operating an ILP system with privacy and civil right violations even if it did reduce crime by 10%? Who should determine the acceptable tradeoff between these two issues when implementing ILP? Respectfully,Matthew(Need a 500 word repose to his posed questions based on my stance above.)
