Explain how collective efficacy might affect formal law and or polices in addressing criminal behavior?
920597
Collective efficacy is an empty theory like community policing.  Criminal behavior is normal when people have addictions and are driven most consistently by a "need" not being fulfilled.  Couple this with messages in media about all we don't have (and don't need) and cherishing the self above all others - you have a deluded population seeking only immediate gratification and intolerance for going without.  This creates an incessant drive to acquire by any means all the material things that can not ever fully satisfy us.
222461
I wish I knew just what you are referring to as I may be able to give you a better answer. But police officers, Minsters, school teachers, laywers and groups of people have bad apples. One bad apple can make the rest look bad. But believe me, Officers get caught. I know from experience where I have arrested my own or fired them or took what ever action needed to be taken. True: Some get away. Just the same as others. But some get caught.
699760
You mean the effects a group has being "for" or "against" an organization or individual effectiveness?\n\nThe are many impacts:\nSocial, economical, political, physical injury, mental injury.\nIs the "group" peaceful or antisocial?\nIs the organization or individual -  "good or "bad"?\nIf a group does not like something they can boycott it and sales drop, or like it and sales rise. \nTo raise or lower morale of a group - an organization or individual has great influence, by its actions or inaction's.\nPeople live in,  or move from a town by it's perceived or actual morale being good or bad.\nThere are too many impacts a group can have for me to list.
321755
he means one action can turn something around and make it the opposite of what it is. Like when they made it legal in some areas to carried guns,that was meant so that people can protect themselves that just make crime increase.
435232
Most simply, it will be policed by others, at least in a bureaucratic society.  Look at what happened with corporate governance and the Sarbanes-Oxley law(s).  They brought it on themselves.
119718
I'd have to say extremely widespread. Not just in the workplace or politics, either, but also in the school systems here where I live. Also on the local police force. It's a real problem because NO ONE will acknowledge that such a thing exists.
1187338
here is an idea, how about you organize the people in your city to police themselves.\n\nIf you can stop the "blackmen" from doing things that make the police come to their area, then there could be no police "abuse"\n\nI live in a very diverse part of town, the only time I see a police officer is when I am driving past the police station, this is due to the fact that everybody in this area works, we pay our bills and raise our children, nobody beats their wives or children, nobody robs other people or steals from others, and nobody murders another.\nThere is no reason for the police to come to our area.\n\nThis may seem like a pollyanna sort of answer but it does work, life CAN be that easy. The only problem is, you have to get everybody on the same page, everybody has to want a better life for their family.
897961
Plot device.  It creates a nice little sub-plot if you can provide a mean old arrogant g-man as a foil to your hard-working, down-home beat cop.\n\nFrom what (admittedly little) I've read about the interaction of law enforcement agency, there really isn't a lot of competition between state and local law enforcement.  Usually, when the FBI is called in, both the police and the agents want as much cooperation between the two as possible, because bickering slows down the investigation.  Part of "getting along" requires good diplomacy, and everyone gets proper credit in the news.
1105916
It is accurate to say that fewer cops would lower the crime rate, but not because people would be protecting themselves more.  The crime rate would be lowered because there would be fewer cops to bust crimes, and therefore the number of cases that they could handle will be lowered, hence a lower crime rate.\n\nThis exact principle has been proven in cities where the number of cops have been increased... contrary to what people would assume, the crime rate increased.  Crime itself didn't increase, but the number of cases they were able to handle did.
1083056
Interesting you should ask that.There was a study not too long ago that determined that if a person 'had orders' from a person perceived as a higher up, they would inflict a substantial amount of pain on another human being.It's also human nature to want to remove those that are perceived as different.Culling the herd, as it were.Modern technology just enables us to 'cull the herd' more efficiently.I think that one way towards regaining some semblance of sanity is to educate a person as thoroughly as possible, and teach them that what works for 1 person might not work for another, but they are entitled to a basic level of respect by virtue of being a human.
699159
Believe it or not, education is the best way.  I was a part of a "neighborhood watch" program.  This is where Police come into a neighborhood and train the citizens what to watch for (in the way of crime reporting).  It's much easier for a group to stand up together against something, rather than an individual.  \n\nI would teach people safety lessons, how to contact the Police and all sorts of other things.  After the group is trained and everyone "signed up" to participate, then I would go back each month to see how things are going, keep the members updated as to crimes in their area and tell about arrests that had been made by the Police and those that were made due to the groups involvement.  We would place a Neighborhood Watch sign to let everyone know that the area works with the Police and will call.  People used to ask me "Do those signs really help."  My answer was usually, "They can't hurt."  Then I arrested a guy for burglary and was able to get a confession.  He took us around to show us places that he had burglarized.  He would show us a house and then go to the next.  He skipped around and so I asked him, "why didn't you hit the other areas."  He told me "Because I saw the Neighborhood Watch signs in the other areas.  It may not mean much, but it told me people are watching and would call the Police.  Why take the chance - the risk is too high, when I can go into another area and no one calls the Police."  Made me realize that being a part of a group that WILL call the Police and work with them can really make a difference.\n\nI was the contact Officer for the group and by knowing me personally, the group felt that they could call me about anything (which they could - even problems with another Officer) and know that I would handle the situation.  This give and take trust put power in the groups hands and word got out to the theives and thugs to STAY AWAY.  It works!
54748
Studies show that the threat of capital punishment has no deterrent effect at all. This has to do with the peculiar way in which human beings think: the perpetrator of a violent crime is deathly afraid of being caught (which is often why victims of violent crimes who see the perpetrator's indentifying characteristics are killed.) However, perpetrators rarely, if ever, extend their fears far out enough to consider any possible sentence they face from the legal system.\n\nJurisdictions without the death penalty, in fact, consistently show lower violent crime rates than those with...
37380
Ancient governments (I forget if it was Babylonian or Mesopotamian) were fairly successful with their "eye for an eye" approach. People would be less likely to commit murder and such if they knew they were going to be killed once they got caught. Kinda tyranical, but it is the most effective way to prevent crime. Also would really cut down on the overcrowding in prisons.
839511
The Supreme Court held that "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ****except**** where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is ***likely*** to incite or produce such action. "\n\nThat means that the law is only operative where the criminal conduct is likely to succeed.  This stands in stark contrast to crimes of Attempt, which can be prosecuted even when the act attempted is impossible; for example, attempted Murder against a dead body that the Defendant does not know is dead. \n\nThis requirement that the violence be likely may well nullify the entire statute under the Void for Vagueness doctrine.  How are police supposed to know when it is likely to succeed?
95087
Community relations allows local law enforcement officers to gain the respect of the community by interacting with the public.  This helps build trust and personality between citizens and police.
77315
A lot of it is "division of responsibility".  If something happens and one person witnesses it, that person realizes that he or she is the only person that has responsibility for subsequent events.  When you start adding people to this scenario, each person mentally reduces their own responsibility for events, so with 10 people, most people will only feel 10% responsibility.\n\nIt is (sadly) not really irrational for what happens in mobs - often it is the removal of responsibility that allows people to act on their selfish impulses.
1077824
Yes, police are given a certain amount of discretion in circumstances where it benefits the "greater good" to do so. Sometimes it just isn't worth it to use time and energy to enforce laws that are relatively less important than other, more pressing ones. For example, police in areas with high rates of violent and drug-related crimes will not waste their time arresting someone for littering.  \n\nThis is used by other members of law enforcement such as Distirict Attorneys and prosecutors, who use their discretion to "grease" the wheels of justice and reduce court costs for taxpayers. For example, prosecutors are allowed to give passes to certain criminals in exchange for information and testimony leading to the conviction of larger, more dangerous criminals.