Operational Differences in Three Policing Models

Three Fundamental Models of Policing

There are basically three core models of policing:

1. The Traditional Policing Model

This model is intimately linked to power, viewing the concept of public order as its main (almost unique) function. It is primarily concerned with maintaining order through law and reacts strongly to situations that pose a danger to the political regime.

• High Discretion: Officers possess a high level of discretion.
• Inhibition on Profit Crimes: Police may be inhibited regarding the commission of crimes looking for profit (often involving an offender-confidant relationship).
• Arrest Rationale: Arrests are made for multiple reasons, not necessarily to prosecute a crime (e.g., to punish a person or to gather information).

2. The Professional Policing Model

The Professional Model emerged in the 1970s as a reaction against the traditional style. Its basic components aim to increase efficiency and fight corruption:

• Bureaucracy: Increased formal structure.
• Anti-Corruption Measures: Strengthening judicial supervision.
• Discipline: Greater level of internal discipline.
• Organization: Hierarchical organization, vertically and centrally structured.
• Technology and Motorization: Systematic use of technology (emergency telephones, patrol cars, and motorcycles connected by radio) and computers to establish databases on detainees, prisoners, and common criminals.
• Investigation: Reliance on scientific research methods rather than confidants.

Critiques of the Professional Model

A critical drawback in this system is excessive bureaucracy. The concern for internal management often consumes more time than addressing citizens' problems.

Actions are categorized as:

• Reactive Actions: Initiated at the request of authorities or citizens.
• Proactive Actions: Initiated by the police themselves.

Response time is crucial, though not all calls are equally important. However, police often arrive seconds after a crime has been committed.

Police investigation often does not yield the greatest results. Most crimes are clarified by the identification of criminals by victims or witnesses. (In Spain, for example, two out of three authors of theft are identified by victims/witnesses, while only one in three is identified by the police, often through fingerprints.)

Discretion remains inevitable, even regarding the inhibition of police action for profit-driven crimes.

While discretion should not become arbitrary, it can lead to injustice when applied to some acts and not others. It is often applied broadly, sometimes even concerning non-serious crimes.

3. The District or Close Policing Model (Community Policing)

This model replaces the reactive “police-firefighter” approach—where officers rush to the scene—with a consistent presence. The officer acts like a mail carrier, always patrolling the same neighborhood, becoming known to everyone.

Its effectiveness relies on the relationship (or bond) between the police and the neighborhood. Officers gain greater knowledge of local facts and environments, informing their actions.

In Spain, this model was strengthened between 1997 and 1998. However, it appears to be under review due to the apparent failure of the model following increasing crime rates observed in 2001.