Topic Five: Mobilizing the Community for Improved Criminal Justice Administration
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Topic Five: Mobilizing the Community for Improved Criminal Justice Administration Paper – Ms. Menez-Zafra, Chairperson, Community Pillar, NAPOLCOM Technical Committee on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, the Philippines Paper – Ms. M. Kakihara, Professor, UNAFEI Paper – Mr. K. Aizawa, Deputy Director, UNAFEI Reaction – Mr. F. Seril, Chairman, Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities Reaction – Mr. R. Salvosa, President, Child and Family Service Philippines, Inc. Please note that the following papers have not been edited for publication. The opinions expressed therein are those of the author’s. They do not necessarily reflect the position of the departments or agencies that they represent. MOBILIZING THE COMMUNITY FOR AN IMPROVED CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION By Ms. Mia MENEZ-ZAFRA Attorney, Chairperson, Community Pillar NAPOLCOM Technical Committee on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice I. COMMUNITIES AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE — A POWERFUL ALIGNMENT More than fifty years ago, author Alinsky made the observation that, “it is impossible to overemphasize the enormous importance of people’s doing things themselves.” The community mobilization he wrote about is evident today particularly in the responses people are making in major cities and towns in the USA, Europe, Australia and, in recent years, here in the Philippines, and other parts of Asia. These responses have attracted a great deal of interest in what the fully realized potential of community involvement – of people doing things themselves – to fight crime, might be. The potential within communities is seen in the many groups of people, who, through concerted efforts/action, march, collect signatures on petitions, pressure public officials, organize neighborhood street watches, open youth recreation centers, start street children’s tutorial programs, establish shelters for battered women, and most importantly, call the attention of the public to the very real toll that crime exacts on the quality of both personal and community life … becoming thus, as organized communities, powerful, constructive forces for public safety. In recent years, Criminal Justice Systems in many parts of the world, have begun to recognize this power, and to discover the potential for working with these communities and organized groups. (Although it is only in the Philippines I understand, that has included officially the Community Pillar, as a Pillar of the Criminal Justice System) The philosophy of community policing which envisions the community as a partner in problem solving (and crime prevention) has led not only to reinventing this core government function, but has also led the way for other criminal justice pillars or agencies to follow suit. Prosecution in the USA, for example, are assigning prosecutors to neighborhood-based offices and police precincts, to bring legal expertise closer to community residents. Public defenders are exploring the potential of offering more direct community access to legal representation. Courts are opening up their processes, creating a new legal culture that sees crime as eroding the quality of life of the communities where it is committed. Correctional agencies are now studying the consequences of viewing communities as partners in the imposition of criminal sanctions. The private sector has weighed in on a number of fronts, particularly with foundation support for anti-violence programs. The National Institute of Justice Journal took note in several issues, of the emerging, sustained alliances that communities are forging with the various components of the criminal justice system as partners in responding to crime and disorder. II. RE-ENGINEERING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM In their article on Re-Engineering the Criminal Justice System, authors Woods and Vogl pointed out that despite the best efforts of criminal justice agencies, society remains concerned about crime, due to what critics emphasize as ineffective policing, slow wheels of justice, failures of rehabilitation, and high recidivism. Woods and Vogl, further pointed out that the traditional concept of criminal justice system is an inadequate model of crime suppression, and, the police, prosecution, courts and corrections, do not interact in a manner conducive to efficient social control. Agencies, even within each pillar, engage in competitive and sometimes irrelevant practices. They further lament that this leaves the system lacking in — 125 — coordination, with the agencies’ actions unrelated and independent, thus having little effect on social control. (It was to prevent such from happening, and to ensure high level of trust and cooperation among the various CJS pillars, that the Technical Committee on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice System was organized by Napolcom) A critical re-examination of the criminal justice system is suggested, starting with the premise that the traditional criminal justice system can be made more effective, though an expansion of a more comprehensive social control model, towards more effective mechanisms of social regulation. The present concept in many parts of the world, of the criminal justice system with its narrow scope, specialization, competitiveness, and piece-meal strategies, burdens individual agencies with neither the skills nor resources, unprepared, to address larger issues, thus ensuring ineffectiveness in solving social problems. To make the criminal justice system more effective, alternative means of social control must be engaged in, including addressing criminogenic conditions, along with correcting expensive, counterproductive practices. The 1992 NIJ Journal states that the key to achieving success is early intervention. Most criminal justice efforts begin, after an individual has committed a crime or has been arrested for violent activity. By that time, he or she, has learned anti-social behaviors that are difficult to unlearn. Working with the community, to help high- risk individuals before they turn to crime, will give them a smoother start in life, reduce the number of crimes committed, and save money, effort and personnel that would be spent in pursuing, prosecuting and jailing offenders. The police, as the principal gatekeeper of the justice system, are central to any criminal justice model. Towards the end of the 1970s, an association between community participation and crime reduction was acknowledged in various researches, and apparent to many social scientists. The police were no longer seen as the sole agent of crime control, and the importance of community bonding and the deleterious effects of physical and social disorder were being recognized. Moore and Torjanowicz in their 1988 study, stated that problem-oriented policing which recognized the limits of incident-based policing, emphasizes, addressing the underlying causes of crime, wherein it is not naturally assumed that crimes are caused by predatory offenders, but rather, could be caused by particular, continuing problems in a community, such as frustrating relationships, or a disorderly milieu. They aver therefore, that crimes might be controlled, or even prevented, by actions other than the arrest of particular individuals. Spelman and Eck earlier, in 1987, wrote that there would be increased police effectiveness by attacking underlying problems that give rise to incidents that consume patrol and detective time, relying more on the expertise and creativity of line officers to study the problems and develop innovative solutions, including closer involvement with the public in ensuring that the needs of the citizens are addressed. Trojanowicz, then Director of the US National Center for Community Policing, stated in 1982, that as problem-solving policing was being developed, community policing was being implemented, an interactive process between the police and the community to mutually identify and resolve community problems, emphasizing the creation of an effective working partnership, whereby the police not only depends on the development of their own skills, but also in the creation of competent communities. This means, expanding the focus of policing to include the social conditions that generate crime, particularly quality of life issues, thus presenting a more accurate picture of the cost of crime. The need to help people feel comfortable in their communities is one legitimate and important goal which must be recognized and constantly worked for. The defensive measures in terms of time and money invested by citizens, turn from personal costs to social costs as they are aggregated. Besides, when individuals retreat behind high walls, closed doors, shuttered windows, in homes with burglar alarms or armed security guards, they make the streets and other areas more dangerous, and other people worse off, because, crime is deflected to others. Societies built on communal crime control efforts have more order, justice and freedom, than those based on individualistic responses. It is for these reasons, among others, that social control and the administration of justice becomes public rather than private functions. — 126 — III. COMMUNITY POLICING At the center of community policing are three essential and complementary core components: a) Community Partnership which recognizes the value of bringing the people back into the policing process. Thus, all elements of society must pull together as never before, if the unacceptable levels of crime claiming our neighborhoods, are to be dealt with; b) Problem Solving identifies the specific concerns that community