Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm sorry I cannot make heads or tails of what direction your reactive vs. proactive statements mean but based on what I think they mean, here's my response.
Reactive policing meaning that someone has to be there to react to the situation and then address it, meaning that someone has to be present to stop it, and have authority to stop it. What gives them the authority? Law, so there has to be some written form of what they are enforcing. So I'm completely missing what you're saying about laws impinging on freedoms. That's the points of laws is it not? To define those freedoms?
Also that means then someone has to be there... are you suggesting then more "police"?
|
I'm sorry, I'll clarify what I was trying to say for you:
Reactive policing means an incident occurs, then someone witnesses it and reacts. If they have authority, they will react on the spot, if they don't, they have to contact someone with authority.
Proactive policing means initiatives that aim to reduce crime before it happens. IE: more streetlights, cameras, police patrols, etc.
In the case of the bus, the NO FOOD law is there as a proactive measure to deter people from littering etc. on the bus. As we all know, this is not very effective.
Too many proactive laws, such as dog leash laws, no food/drink laws, no smoking laws, laws stating French signs must be twice as big as English signs in Quebec, laws about littering, are a means to control incivilities.
The broken window theory is an aim to control incivility, but it is a reactive approach in that you must have a broken window before you can control it.
So if reactive approaches such as the broken window theory and proactive laws like the no food/drink laws work at essentially the same level of effectiveness, why not just have fewer redundant laws which could be controlled instead by the temperance and mediation of a police officer or other authority figure with all factors taken into account.
If that were the case, the police officer could have simply made the boy throw out the lollipop instead of being obligated by the law that states a $300 ticket must be issued. This just adds more paperwork to our horribly bureaucratized judicial system.
Due process vs. crime control... the struggle continues.
[edit]
mal,
He has the right to go to court to appeal the ticket. Enough said.