19 Jan Please write a book critique using the instructions and format provided. Book: ‘Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission’ by B
Please write a book critique using the instructions and format provided.
Book: "Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission" by Barry Friedman (Attached)
Content:
* At least 9-double spaced pages not including cover and citation page
* Additional 5-6 academically rigorous external sources (NO BOOKS)
* APA Style
Formatting and Details: Attached
Example of a similar work, but on a different topic/book is also provided to give an idea of what approximately is expected. No need to repeat the structure/wording in the same way.
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces
Student’s name
Instuctor’s Name
Date
References.
Balko, R. (2013). Rise of the warrior cop: The militarization of America's police forces. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Dinsmor, Alastair (2000). Glasgow Police Pioneers. Journal of the Police History Society, No. 15.
McElreath, D., Doss, D., Jensen, C., Wigginton, M., Kennedy, R., Winter, K., Mongue, R., Bounds, J., Estis-Sumerel, J. M. (2013). Introduction to Law Enforcement (1 ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 87.
Perri, F. S., Lichtenwald, T. G., (2009). When Worlds Collide: Criminal Investigative Analysis, Forensic Psychology And the Timothy Masters Case. Forensic Examiner. 18 (2).
Savelsberg, J J., Cleveland L. L., King, R. D. (June 2004). Institutional Environments and Scholarly Work: American Criminology, 1951-1993. Social Forces. 82 (4), pp. 1275–1302.
Sheptycki, J. (1995) Transnational Policing and the Makings of a Postmodern State. British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 35 No. 4. pp. 613-635.
Walker, S. (1992). Origins of the Contemporary Criminal Justice Paradigm: The American Bar Foundation Survey, 1953-1969. Justice Quarterly. 9 (1). pp. 47–76.
Introduction.
From the book, Rise of the warrior cop: the militarization of America`s police forces, the author has put across various issues of concern. Just like the title of the book goes, the author is trying to explain the changing eras and the innovations that have been given to the police forces in America. The author claims that in the past, the roles of the police force were matched with the kind of armor that they used.
However, in the recent past, the technology and tactics that have been used by the police force depict that even though the country has claimed to have worked hard to exclude the use of the military as far as the enforcement of the various laws is concerned, recent studies have proved otherwise. In his view, the author claims that the increased militarization of the police forces in the recent past has driven the police forces to view the public as just another enemy instead of viewing them as the parties to protect.
From a personal point of view, the author starts the book by saying that he is not anti-cop but the details and description that he has given is inclined towards showing the negative side of the increased militarization of the American police forces. The following section is going to address the various issues that are seen in the book while describing the entire book.
Overview and Description.
The author has dedicated his book towards ensuring that the various issues that revolve around the increased military power that has been given to the America`s police forces in the recent past. The role of the police forces in enforcing the various laws has been gradually changing. In the past, it has been established that the police forces were inclined towards safeguarding the affairs of their subjects, who are the public.
However, in the recent past, the increase in military might of the police forces has not reduced the gap between the police forces and the public as far as the security of the people is concerned but instead, it has increased the gap reducing the level of trust that once existed between the public and the police forces (Balko, 2013). In the attempt to lure the readers into understanding the thesis, the author has given a catchy title which he has used to give the various issues of concern that have been associated with the thesis. Additionally, the author has given out separate occasions and examples from the real-life world to supplement the arguments.
The author has divided the entire book into various subsections that have been placed strategically in the attempt to explain the most basic details of his thesis. The description that includes the details of the increased use of military power by the police in the name of fighting drugs among other minor issues and its effects on the public has been described. From the dominant issues that have been discussed in the book, the current state of the police forces in America cannot be associated with the effective handling of the law enforcement problems. Rather, there seems to be a bigger force driving the militarization of the police forces.
Additionally, the current militarization of the police forces has been seen to prepare the police forces for the unknown combats instead of equipping them with the skills that are inclined towards getting closer to the society with which they are to serve to build up the necessary trust (Balko, 2013). The skills to get closer to the society would be effective in law enforcement while militarization drifts the two parties away from each other. This conclusion rhymes with the other findings made by various other scholars.
Weaknesses.
The author has claimed that the increased militarization of the police forces in the country has led to increased suffering to the society. It is important to note that the police forces have the mandate to protect the society from which they have come from. Additionally, it is the role of the police to keep off the bad guys from the affairs of the public. The increased militarization has led to improved ways of handling drugs among other cases that may be witnessed in the various areas of the country. The use of new tactics and new weapons has made it easy for the police forces to enforce the respective laws and order as far as the respective issues of concern are concerned which the author has not described.
When reading through the book, there are numerous aspects that are witnessed. First, the author is taking sides as far as the explanation of the book and topics within the book is concerned. This is evident in the description given concerning only one side of the coin instead of addressing both sides. When the author claims that the increased militarization has led to increased suffering among the societies instead of handling the issues that may affect the same society is biased towards just the society.
Do the police face challenges when dealing with offenders especially the drugs-related offenders? It is evident that the current state of technology has favored even the offenders where they may have improved on their tactics as well as weapons. When the police forces have been militarized, it is a problem but from another perspective, the militarization of the police may be a means to improve and match their counters.
The author claims at first that he is not anti-cop. However, all the descriptions that have been given throughout the book depict that the author is somehow against the police forces. This is seen in the manner with which the author portrays the police forces. The descriptions that have been issued from the first chapter to the last indicate all the negative aspects of police forces being militarized. Instead of the evaluation of both the good and the bad deeds that may be associated with the militarization of the police, the author has just addressed the negative aspects of police militarization.
What decisions led to the militarization of the police force? What had happened? Did the federal bodies just wake up one day and decided to militarize the police? Unfortunately, these are some of the issues that the author has not yet brought out in the book.
The author has quickly engaged in addressing the issue of the negative side of police militarization. However, with the advancements in the drug trade and the need to be more secure, the drug lords among other criminals have invested in weapons. Some areas have reported military grade weapons as well as tactics being used by criminals in their activities. It is not in one instance when the police have been found to fall victims to criminals simply because the police could not match the weapons and the tactics being used by criminals.
While a lot of police officers have fallen victims while others being gunned down, the author does not relate these incidences with the need to upgrade the tactics and the weaponry being used by the police. The author has failed to address the benefits that the police forces may realize as far as enforcing the respective laws is concerned.
Strengths.
The author has brought out the picture of portraying the police officers who have received the military kind of training and weapons as individuals who have used the forces, and might that have been given to them negatively. The author cites that in most raids such as the one that happened in Columbia in the year 2010, the police officers who were heavily armed stormed into the residence of a suspect where they were reported to be swearing to fire their weapons (Balko, 2013).
Even though they already had gained access to the victim`s home, they shot dead a dog that belonged to the victim`s family. This has been brought out clearly by the author where the possible misuse of force by the police since they had been given military grade training as well as weapons and there seems to have no body to respond to such claims or to keep the police in line.
One of the primary roles of the America`s police forces has been portrayed to be dealing with drug cases. It has been established that such cases may require specialized training since the might of the drug dealers may not be underestimated or neglected. With this notion, the author has brought about the issue of the police having strong weapons and tactics conducting raids on various drug dealing sections that in the end don’t end up well.
The case mentioned above concerning the police forcing entry into a suspect`s home killing their family dog and not getting the evidence or the items that they were intending to find is a good example of drug raids gone bad. Should the police just storm homesteads just because they have the ‘power’? What happened to the notion that the police are supposed to protect the society (Balko, 2013)? These are some of the issues that the author has brought out clearly.
The author has invested quite a substantial amount of evidence in the attempt to show and explain the evolution of the law enforcement as well as the various issues that revolve around the law enforcement policies and bodies. The author has given the traditional setting of the law enforcement bodies and the kind of jobs that they undertook. The implications that it had on the society has been explained.
The slow but gradual change in the various police forces and the taking up of new roles have also been explained clearly. The history of the police forces in the country and the comparison between the traditional society and the current one has been explained. According to the author, the roles of the police seem to have changed with time as has been shown in the increased militarization of the various forces. It seems like the police forces are getting ready for a war that is unknown to the public (Balko, 2013).
The current militarization of the police forces has had numerous effects not only on the entire law enforcement bodies but also on the society at large. The author claims that gone are the days when the police forces perceived the society as a vulnerable party that needed their protection. Today, however, the perception has changed. The police forces view the society as just another enemy that is ready to attack (Dinsmor, 2000).
Government Role.
The inclusion of forces such as the SWAT teams to handle simple law-breaking cases has led to reduced trust from the public to the police forces (Balko, 2013). Why use excessive force to handle simple cases? Why use military grade training and weapons on the police when the country has a military force in place? are the roles of the various police forces changing with time without the knowledge of the public? How has the current militarization of the police forces affected the society at large? These are some of the issues that have been brought out clearly in the book by the author. Response planning is the most significant function in the entire and effective criminal justice system, and the most important part of the criminal justice system is the police department. (Walker, 1992)
However, it is possible only with the presence of a systematic accordance of the police departments at the local level and the federal level. It is necessary that the police department at all levels have the standard operating processes and procedures to align the criminal justice system effectively to keep the law and order situation in an orderly manner.
In this event, the evolved system of NIMS has helped the police system to better bring the procedures in line with the federal level. NIMS, the National Incident Management System has been a great tool to keep not only the check and balance but also to keep the standardized procedures at all levels in which the tribal, local and federal levels are involved. According to Sheptycki (1995), this system is a tool to have better communication strategies among all the levels of governments and respective police departments.
NIMS is an outstanding system that has been evolved strategically by the Homeland Security Department which provides the logistic support to the police department and the basic concepts of Criminal Justice System. This has helped to develop a comprehensive and in-depth understanding between the police departments at local and federal levels. The logistic and conceptual support provided by NIMS has made the police departments to come closer at various levels which allowed them to combat terrorism specifically and other crimes strategically. The most important task in this execution is the response planning and style which has been improved from the time NIMS has been incorporated (Savelsberg et al., 2004).
Criminal Justice Agencies.
Criminal justice is made up of local, state and federal agencies who work in tandem to minimize or eliminate crime in the United States (Surette, 2014). They all have the same role of processing the needs of defendants, suspects as well as the convicted offenders and they work under the framework that is provided by the legislature, judiciary and the executive branches of the United States. The legislature makes laws both at the federal and the state level while the judiciary makes sure that those laws are enforced by making judgments to those who break the rules (Surette, 2014). The local law enforcement agencies in the criminal justice comprise of the local police and the sheriffs. These agents are the ones closer to the citizens of the United States and they are aware of exactly what is going on among the citizens.
When they suspect a criminal activity that has taken place they are the first group to rush to that incident. They interrogate the suspects and other people who were there when the incident occurred and make a report of the same. When the case is simple, they arrest the suspects and take them to court for judgment. When the case becomes hard to them, they forward the written report to the state agencies who then takes over the case from them (Perri el al., 2009). The state agencies then make their own report with the information that they have, make arrests and take the suspects to the court to be charged for their mistakes.
When the incident is serious and crosses over from one state to another, they forward the case along with the written reports to the federal agencies who cut across the states to look for the suspects. They again make their own report concerning the case and the main suspects make arrests and take the suspects to the federal courts (Cole et al., 2016). The federal agencies include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the secret services such as the CIA.
The problem arises when one agency views itself as more important that the other. In this state, it will tend to remain with its own report. This will mean that other agencies will not be able to have the full report of the suspect that they are after. It will take longer to capture and bring these suspects to justice because the incomplete information that they have been provided. This will also mean that criminal acts will be taking place all over the soil of the United States. These agencies will like to attract attention from all citizens in the United States that they are the one making most of the work in the criminal justice and thus the reason why they fail to give out their information about the suspects (Perri el al., 2009). The incidents were seen between the CIA and the FBI.
Conclusion.
The book has explained the various issues that affect the society today as far as the militarization of the police forces is concerned. In an opinion, the author has brought out the issue of the militarization of the police forces and the possible erosion of the trust between the police forces and the society. It is an effective book in that the author has remained true to his thesis. Following the strengths and the weaknesses of the book, the strengths have more weight than the weaknesses, therefore, the book can be recommended to others. (McElreath et al., 2013)
Since the author claims that the current militarization of the police forces has led to increased suffering and reduced value for the society, the various pieces of evidence as portrayed in the book support the author's thesis. Additionally, the book provides supplemental information on the subject matter making it effective in responding to the author`s thesis. The book be a vital source of information with respect to the current situation in the country as far as law enforcement is concerned (Balko, 2013).
Through the book, one can predict the future of law enforcement in the country. From a personal point of view, the current militarization of the police forces has led to many factors. While combating drug and the other crimes has been effective, the way the police forces are using their power is questionable. The case where the police stormed the house of a suspect in Columbia and killed a dog is an instance of misuse of power. The police should have such power only if they portray that they can utilize it to the benefit of the society as opposed to viewing the society as the enemy.
,
Begin Reading
Table of Contents
A Note About the Author
Copyright Page
Thank you for buying this Farrar, Straus and Giroux ebook.
To receive special offers, bonus content,
and info on new releases and other great reads, sign up for our newsletters.
Or visit us online at us.macmillan.com/newslettersignup
For email updates on the author, click here.
The author and publisher have provided this e-book to you for your personal use only. You may not make this e-book publicly available in any way. Copyright infringement is against the law. If you believe the copy of this e-book you are reading infringes on the author’s copyright, please notify the publisher at: us.macmillanusa.com/piracy.
To Simon and Samara
You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
—James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
PREFACE
I resolved to write a book about policing after September 11, 2001. I live in lower Manhattan, not far from where the Twin Towers stood. I spent that day on the streets of New York, rushing to the hospital to give blood, only to learn none was needed; searching for my future father-in-law, who had been on business near the World Trade Center site, but fortunately made his way to his daughter’s place in Greenwich Village; and watching those awful and surreal events—as did so many—in a state of shock and dismay. On that day, and those that followed, I joined groups standing along the West Side Highway, choked up, offering whatever moral support we could to our early and continuing responders. They were (and remain) our heroes.
And yet, in the weeks after 9/11, something I was hearing troubled me no end. People would say we needed to relinquish our liberties in order to give the government more leeway to protect us. Even Supreme Court justices were saying it. On September 29, 2001, while the acrid and unforgettable smell of destruction still hung in the air around us, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor came to New York University School of Law, where I teach, for the groundbreaking of Furman Hall. “[W]e’re likely to experience more restriction on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in this country,” she warned the somber group gathered there. The events of September 11, she said, would “cause us to reexamine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping,
immigration and so on.” I’ve taught Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure for thirty years, so
I’m no novice to the much-discussed tension between keeping society secure and safeguarding our liberties. But having studied the law governing policing for three decades, I wondered exactly what everyone was talking about. I’d ask people what it was that they felt the government should now be allowed to do. If they could come up with any example—often they could not—I’d point out, “But the police already are allowed to do that. The Supreme Court said so ages ago.” Then it was their turn to be surprised—most of them had no idea how permissive the courts were toward policing.
As a practical matter, much of policing in this country is governed today by the Supreme Court’s (and lower courts’) pronouncements about the Constitution. Of particular importance is the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Whether it is the use of force by police on the streets, or surveillance of citizens from the air, police officials will tell you that the courts set the rules they must follow. I’d long believed the judiciary’s record on protecting our vital liberties was disappointing at best. I resolved to find a way to say so, to explain how important it was to get policing right.
But while I was searching for precisely what I wanted to say, I had a realization: Why don’t the most basic of rules that apply in the rest of government also govern the police? Why is policing treated so differently?
For the rest of government—which is to say, for environmental protection or workplace safety, or tax collection, or all the countless things that local, state, and federal governments do every day—democratic governance is paramount. Before government officials act, we require rules that are written down in advance, that are public so everyone can know what they are, and that are adopted after the public has had a chance to weigh in. That is what democracy requires.
But when it comes to policing, the ordinary rules of democratic governance seem to evaporate. Policing officials decide for themselves how to enforce the law. The rules governing policing often are not public. Even more rarely are they adopted with public input. Instead, with policing, we try to fix things after the fact, after they go wrong: with civilian review boards, inspectors general, and especially with review by the courts.
This is an enormous failure of democracy. And it’s also counterproductive. If our attention to policing is always after the fact, we’re always mopping up messes instead of figuring out how to prevent them in the first place.
At a deep level what this book is about is getting the people to take responsibility for how policing occurs in this country. By developing rules and policies that are in place before police act. And by encouraging us all to think about what the Constitution’s provisions that cover policing should mean. Because it is not and cannot be the job of the courts and the police alone to decide how we are policed as a society—it is the responsibility of all of us.
Recent events have made clear that getting policing right is one of the most pressing challenges we face as a society. Whether it is omnipresent surveillance, or the use of force on the streets, or concerns about fairness and discrimination and race, it is now apparent to many people that change is needed. The question is how we get there.
Given the nature of this book—and the unfortunate reality of twenty-first- century America—you are about to read one story after another about some way in which policing went off the rails. These stories implicate everyone from cops on the beat to the head of the National Security Agency. And you will meet many perfectly innocent people who did not deserve what happened to them. (You’ll meet plenty of guilty people, too, though we still should ask questions about the methods used to apprehend them.)
Even so, this is not a book about the failures of the police. I want to make that clear at the outset. I am going to call out two responsible parties repeatedly throughout this book, and neither are the police themselves.
The first actors responsible for the woes of policing today are the courts, which have done a perfectly appalling job of one of the chief tasks we have given them: protecting our basic liberties. I spend my life around judges, many of whom are good friends. Even so, I think the judiciary should be ashamed. Confronted with situations in which the police have done the most inappropriate and untoward things, too many judges simply cannot bring themselves to cry foul. To be fair, judging the police is tough. I’ll explain why that is, and why it is wrong to expect judges to do the job alone. One of the chief lessons here is that they should not have to. But still.
The second party is the rest of us. We have abdicated our most fundamental responsibility as citizens in a democracy: to be in charge of those who act in our name. The authority to use force on citizens and to conduct surveillance of them —the powers that define policing and set it apart—may be necessary to maintain order, but those are the most awesome powers we grant any public servants. If we should be superintending anything in our society, that is it. Instead, we’ve dropped the ball.
The real problem with policing is not the police; it is us. We need to take responsibility for what is done in our names. We need to make decisions and give guidance, even if it is—as it surely is—a difficult thing to do. We need to take an active role in governing policing.
I’ve put my time and energy (and money) where my mouth is. Besides writing this book, with the help of many individuals and groups I’ve begun the Policing Project at New York University School of Law, to try to put some of the lessons here into action. Working with the Policing Project has been one of the most personally rewarding things I’ve done.
And here’s the thing: Our constant partners in the Policing Project are law enforcement personnel. I’ve been privileged over the last couple years to meet and work with some of the most inspiring, dedicated, open-minded, innovative, committed people I’ve ever met. Some things are off the rails in law enforcement land. But they know it. They are working hard to put it right. It’s just that they can’t do it without the rest of us. Nor should they have to. They deserve—and require—our support.
That’s why I’ve written this book.
Barry Friedman June 2016
CONTENTS
Title Page Copyright Notice Dedication Epigraph Preface
Introduction: The Problems of Policing
PART I: DEMOCRATIC POLICING 1. Policing in Secret 2. Legislatures That Won’t Legislate 3. Courts That Can’t Judge 4. Fostering Democratic Policing
PART II: CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING 5. Searches Without Warrant 6. Searches Without Probable Cause 7. General Searches 8. Discriminatory Searches
PART III: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY POLICING 9. Surveillance Technology 10. Third-Party Information and the Cloud 11. Government Databases 12. Counterterrorism and National Security
Conclusion: The Challenges of Democratic Policing Epilogue
Notes Acknowledgments Index Also by Barry Friedman A Note About the Author Copyright
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEMS OF POLICING
AN ANNIVERSARY TO REMEMBER
Charles and Etta Carter celebrated their fortieth wedding anniversary with the Maryland State Patrol.
Charles, sixty-five years old, worked for twenty-nine years at the same retail store. Etta, sixty-four, spent more than twenty-three years as a kindergarten assistant, helping kids with their “reading, writing, and math.” Their pride in their only child—who earned her PhD in developmental psychology—was abundant. So when their daughter married, moved into a new house, and started working long hours as a school psychologist, the Carters, ever the loving parents, loaded up a rental van with furniture and drove to Florida to help set up her new home. When they finished the job, they loaded up another rental van full of belongings they would store for the newlyweds, and headed back to their own home, in Philadelphia.1
It was just before noon on a hot July day, as the Carters were making their way north, when Corpora
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.