.........TO SERVE AND TO PROTECT WITH INTEGRITY IS OUR WATCH WORD. MEANWHILE POLICE IS YOUR FRIEND, PRAY FOR POLICE TO SERVE YOU BETTER.
Adsense
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Third Class Degree, SSCE Holders Barred From Police Recruitment
In a bid to sanitize the Nigeria Police as well as carry-out far reaching reforms in re-positioning the force to achieve its mandate of effectively securing lives and property, the Police Service Commission has said holders of Secondary School Certificate would no longer be accepted into the Nigeria Police Force as constables.
It said the minimum entry requirement now was Ordinary National Diploma.
In the same vein, Third Class degree holders would no longer be accepted as Cadet Inspectors, in line with the reform in the force.
PSC Commissioner and Chairman, Public Affairs Committee of the commission, Ms. Comfort Obi, who stated this at a news conference in Abuja on Monday, explained that the commission had reviewed the recruitment process into the police.
According to her, the PSC has over the years formulated policies aimed at the efficiency and discipline of the police force, adding that background checks are now carried out on applicants to separate bad eggs and discourage shady characters from joining the police.
To achieve some of this lofty objectives, Obi stated that polygraph tests were also carried out on applicants to determine drug users, alcoholics and liars that could tarnish the image of the force.
She said, “The mechanism put in place by the commission is in line with police regulations to ensure that bad eggs don’t find their way into the force. We are focusing on the recruitment process and have raised the minimum entry requirements.
“SSCE holders can no longer join the police as constables; even a third class degree holder cannot join the Cadet Inspector cadre. The minimum qualification for a constable is OND and it must include six credit passes in SSCE including Credit pass in English and Mathematics.”
The PSC Commissioner in charge of Strategy, Dr. Otive Igbuzor, explained that written examinations had been introduced for applicants, adding that promotions in the force were based on merit rather than Federal Character.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Police Matter
If the first thing we learned was that tactics drove strategy, the second was that police matter in crime control. It is now pretty well understood—at least by police—that the ideas promulgated by President Johnson’s 1965 Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Criminal Justice (Commission) that so dominated criminal justice thinking were seriously flawed. For the Commission, poverty, the economy, demographics, racism, and social injustice caused crime—these structural features of society were crime’s “root causes.” Logically derived from this belief, is the idea that given these circumstances police can do little about crime except respond after it occurs. Crime can be prevented only when these root causes are rectified.
For the most
part, police and local politicians succumbed to these ideas. And, if anything,
the Commission’s beliefs were strengthened by 1970s research into policing’s
law enforcement strategy. Nothing worked. Preventive patrol by
automobile didn't prevent anything, and rapid response to calls for service
made little difference. Ergo, the best police could do was respond and attempt
to arrest offenders. Police officers could and did try to arrest their way out
of the crime problem. Crime prevention in policing was most often relegated to
a small special unit (often staffed by the “empty holster crowd”—officers
deemed for one reason or another as being not real cops) who would
lecture to community groups about locks, dogs, and other security measures
individual households could implement. It is interesting to note that as the
police moved away from prevention as a goal, the public and the private
security sector increasingly embraced crime prevention strategies and tools
(locks, alarms, guards, fences, cameras) to make up for the ineffectiveness of
police strategies and tactics.
The
Commission’s ideas and policing’s inability to stem the tide of crime that
characterized this era, gave us “Community Policing I.” (Labeling the shift as
“Community Policing I” is not meant in a pejorative sense; as is seen below, it
was an important but limited development.) Initially, community policing grew
out of the recognition that the relationship between police and communities, or
neighborhoods was spotty at best. President Johnson’s Crime Commission properly
alerted police to the reality and consequences of policing’s antagonistic
relationship to African American communities and proposed the adoption of
community relations programs. While the intent and content of such programs
ranged from attempts to “sell” communities already failing and other unpopular
tactics to genuine attempts to restructure the relationship between police and
minorities, they had marginal impacts at best. They did, however, develop
within police departments’ personnel and units skill in reaching out and
working with minority groups—competence of which was to become a necessary
skill in all police departments as policing was confronted by civil rights
movements.
Moreover, by
the 1980s a new generation of police, many educated under the Law Enforcement
Education Program (LEEP), were moving into policing. This generation was both
confronted by the inability of policing to control crime through the law
enforcement strategy and was aware of policing’s uncomfortable and often
hostile relationship with minorities. Their shifts—outreach to community,
attempting to deal with community problems, and less reliance on law
enforcement—were the first tentative moves to establish community policing,
initially as a program, but increasingly as an alternative strategy to what has
been referred to in the literature as the professional, reform, or law
enforcement strategy. The inchoate community policing movement, referred to
here as Community Policing I, enjoyed broad community and political support.
As positive
as these movements were, they still largely put aside crime prevention. Most of
the early community policing advocates strongly adhered to the “root causes”
theory of crime and crime control: police could do little to prevent crime.
Consequently Community Policing I, although strongly supported by community
groups, some police leaders, and most politicians, was unacceptable to the
majority of practicing rank-and-file police officers; they wanted to fight
crime.
The breakthrough,
or at least the breakthrough that initially received the most attention, was in
the New York City subway starting in 1990. Its seemingly intractable problems
of disorderly behavior and its increasing mix of minor crime (especially
farebeating) and more serious crimes (especially robbery) gave way to problem
solving; broken windows policing; and, in general, assertive, targeted
policing. For the first time in three decades, crime went down and has gone
down every year since. With continuity of leadership, the lessons learned in
the subway were subsequently applied in New York City itself by the recently
enlarged NYPD, resulting in the now well-known crime reductions. Between these
two efforts community policing matured: good policing not only sought the
approval and cooperation of neighborhoods and communities to define and solve
problems, good policing also prevented crime by changing the behavior of a
substantial number of would-be miscreants. To be sure, partners were required.
In the subway, for example, partners included maintenance staff, station
managers, and business improvement districts (BIDS), in the last case to
reclaim Grand Central Station and its immediate environment.
Moreover it
became clear that good policing was an investment in a community. Good policing
generated wealth through improving the conditions under which other
organizations, public and private, operated. The private sector (property
values, asset protection, places of worship, conduct of commerce, etc.) and the
public sector (schools, transportation, recreation, etc.) simply cannot
function adequately without basic levels of order and safety. Even other forms
of community protection—for example, firefighting—cannot function without order
and safety. Police matter—a lot.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)