Respond individually to each of the below three classmate disucssion post replie


Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Respond individually to each of the below three classmate disucssion post replies. For your further understanding here is the original discussion each of them were writing in reponse to. “From your analysis of the readings identify the pros and cons of ILP and your evaluation of whether state and local law enforcement should adopt such a program. Also, based on your analysis of the readings, what is your assessment of the current capability to share information and connect the dots and are there additional efforts that need to be undertaken?”
Be engaging, add additional insight and ask a question of two within each reponse to the classmates. Classmate Discussion Post #1: (Ashley):
Intelligence gathering and sharing is an important functionality of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD) and all government agencies tasked with securing our Nation. Counterterrorism efforts could not be conducted without the gathering of data and intelligence and that information distributed appropriately. Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) has gathered a greater movement since the 9/11 attacks, in that local police forces have taken a greater stance in preparing for terrorist attacks (Alach, 2011, p. 75). One con of ILP that Alach mentions is that it yet still hard to confirm what exactly Intelligence led policing actually means, and that academics has not found a conceptual framework for ILP. (2011, p.75). As we learned from week one in attempting to define Homeland Security and Defense, that lack of a definition between multiple agencies can lead to lack of understanding of roles and functionalities.
On the pro side for ILP is that it can help to establish a baseline of what information needs to be gathered and how it is shared. In that it can help sort out high level threats vs low level threats. Unfortunately, it took an act like 9/11 to bring intelligence to the forefront of each government agency’s responsibility. In the wake of 9/11 a commission was established to investigate the failures that ultimately led to that world changing day. The commission found four failures within the intelligence community: “in imagination, policy, capabilities, management” (Harknett & Stever, 2011). Again, a lack of communication both internally and externally between agencies led to these failures.
On paper, ILP seems to be a sound solution in the ability for local and state law enforcement to intelligently gather information and be able to properly report concerns as needed. To me, this could be both a pro and con in the concept of ILP. Meaning that if police forces are not properly trained or equipped for the mission then they will not be able to provide the information needed to prevent such an attack. As Alach states it “One of the most sensible definitions of police intelligence is….in simple terms as being about obtaining an understanding of the capability of one’s enemy. Limiting the focus to the enemy, crime and disorder, sharpens the definition to a useful state” (2011, p. 78). From my gatherings, I do believe that ILP is a concept that local and state forces should begin to adopt. We are in a unique era of societal reform and people need to know that they can trust their local law enforcement to protect them. ILP may be one way to positively portray how forces are diligently working to provide that protection.
In my personal experiences, the current capabilities of intelligence sharing are lacking; more so that while the actual tangible abilities are there, there is a lack of want between agencies. Beginning in the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) created Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTFs) with the purpose of bolstering communication between federal, state and local agencies (Jones, 2011, p. 183). However, Jones continues in his assessment that one shortcoming of the JTFFs is that the FBI provided agents within the local community, but they did not effectively communicate with the local forces on the information they gathered.
Additional efforts that could be taken to effectively share information throughout all intelligence communities, and without leaking unnecessary information to the public, is keeping those lines open as good as possible where it is necessary. Each department has an Intelligence branch who all work diligently to decipher the information that is coming through. However, how can the information be deciphered appropriately if they are not aware of it all?
Classmate Discussion Post #2: (Russell):
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies across local, state, and federal levels recognized a vulnerable gap in the existing approach to policing. In short, this gap was the failure to systematically collect, analyze, share, and leverage information related to possible threats. This gap was a focal point of the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission Report.
As we move farther into the 21st century, data is playing a bigger role in everyday life. The power of data and analytics has grown so much over the years and it seems as though no touch of life can escape it, so it should be no surprise that law enforcement agencies are also getting on board. Intelligence-led policing is an approach to crime prevention that leans to data to make decisions and predict criminal activity. In order to properly understand how intelligence-led policing – or ILP – works, we need to first understand the traditional model of policing.
The traditional model of policing that has been used by police for many years can be described as reactive, in that the police respond when a crime has already begun to happen or is about to happen. So, a crime occurs, a victim or a bystander calls for emergency assistance, and the police respond. This is how policing has worked for many years and in a general sense for as long as police departments have been around. The problem with reactive policing, of course, is that a crime has to occur in the first place. This approach doesn’t really improve the safety of the public because a crime has already happened. In every sense it would be better to stop a criminal activity ahead of time rather than when it has already happened. That background leads us to the definition of ILP. Rather than reacting to crimes, ILP is focused on improving public safety by using intelligence to stay ahead of the criminals. Using an intelligence-led approach allows a police force to theoretically prevent future crimes from even happening at all. This reduces the number of victims in the end, which is certainly a positive outcome ( Intelligence Led Policing…, n.d). For an ILP initiative to be successful it needs to have a strong relationship between the policing agencies and the communities that it serves. ILP relies on a steady flow of information from civilians in the area to get it to the policing agencies and that doesn’t always happen in places where there is no working relationship with the community.
In some ways, this concept is just an extension of partnering successfully with the community at large. Another key source of information is intelligence sharing between agencies and organizations that overlap in some way. There are many different types of law enforcement groups working in any one area, as various levels of government have their own departments. When these agencies work together efficiently to share information, police intelligence as a whole can be increased. There is always going to be a limit to the amount of information that a crime analyst in one department can process and put to use, but that limit is greatly expanded when the resources of various other agencies all come together (Intelligence Led Policing…, n.d).
Classmate Discussion Post #3: (Tessy):
(2019) ILP is a proactive way of thinking in law enforcement. It acts as a business process in which agencies implement policies and practices. They focus on developing priorities built on multiple factors, including intelligence analysis. With these priorities in mind, personnel develop intelligence requirements; begin collection based on these requirements; organize, process, and analyze the collected information; and disseminate the completed analytic product to the customer. I believe one of the many advantages of Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP), is that (2020) it helps to challenge the traditional style of policing, which has long been a style of work dominated by response-based policing. ILP changes this to a style of law enforcement that encourages collaboration between agencies, and proactive thinking, however, planning and prioritization in such means do not undermine the fact that police forces always need to be reactive and vigilant to security threats. In essence, ILP complements traditional and response-based policing. furthermore, Some of the disadvantages argued against using this predicative method of policing includes the argument of limited resources, political pressure, information management, data overload, data quality, and adaptation (2011). I would like to state that when it comes to intelligence, it is a fundamental factor in homeland security, furthermore, a lot of factors and elements are within the scope of the intelligence community, which are the state level law enforcement and also the federal law enforcement. This two elements has to work together in full capability and must be utilized, once this two elements are able to share date and information on all levels, the collected intelligence will support and improve homeland security in United States. (2019) The continued growth of threats and crime facing society and the limited resources available to deal with them require police agencies to develop programs focused on preventative crime measures and identification of emerging threats. For too long, American law enforcement has relied on gut intuition and reactive policing to address crime. Intelligence-led policing reverses this mind-set and provides a structured process for anticipatory crime mitigation through the collection and analysis of information. Law enforcement must do more with less. Instituting ILP will allow departments to establish a process where the end product helps inform decision-making, whether that means deciding what criminal organizations to target or how to allocate resources. Most important, ILP allows agencies to prioritize threats based upon the assessment of current and emerging concerns facing their jurisdictions.

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now


Leave a Reply