NYPD, LAPD Policing Styles

I was surprised to see The Times asking if the LAPD can learn anything from the NYPD’s efforts to reduce crime through a shift in philosophy toward a more proactive style of policing (Dec. 24).

It would appear that New York has copied the former LAPD method of policing a major city. That is, provide an enforcement-oriented, paramilitary approach. Under the leadership of William H. Parker, the LAPD developed this model to provide a cost-effective method of policing in a city that has historically been underpoliced. The difference is that in New York they are implementing a more aggressive style of policing while getting an increasing share of the city budget and a larger police force. The LAPD has little to learn from what is occurring in New York.

The LAPD is making a shift away from a strictly enforcement-oriented department to one that embraces community policing. Criminologists, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, agree that community policing is the trend that law enforcement is headed toward, and nearly all mid- to large-size departments are implementing it in some form. What is occurring in New York is not innovative, it’s just old-fashioned proactive police work. This article is in contrast to the editorial position The Times has taken for several years that the LAPD should shift from a paramilitary approach to community policing.

There is more than one way to police a community. The LAPD is responding to the wishes of this community by shifting to a community-oriented approach. However, that does not mean that the LAPD has forsaken aggressive enforcement. It is merely trying to find a balance between enforcement-oriented and community policing. The key to effective policing is a combination of the two styles.

DANIEL B. WATSON, Commander

Assistant Commanding Officer

Operations-Central Bureau, LAPD

*

* Law enforcement executives in Southern California are betting on community-based policing as the answer to their perceived image problem. The law enforcement community has become nonconfrontational and respect for the beat officer has eroded to a dangerous point.

No one is accountable for his or her actions except the law enforcement officer, called in to clean up the mess. The time and resources devoted to justifying the officer’s every move are staggering and wasteful. Our law enforcement officers are discouraged and frustrated.

PATRICK B. HUNTER

Palmdale