Crime prevention and police in Pakistan Do we know

							  Crime Prevention and Police in Pakistan : Do we know this?
Crime prevention‟s unanimous definition is as difficult as that of a universal definition of
crime; however, barring philosophical discussions, the simplest description is: “Any
action or technique employed by private individuals or public agencies aimed at the
reduction of damage that crimes are events proscribed only by legal statute, it is not
surprising that there is a great plethora of activities and initiatives associated with the
term crime prevention”. (Gordon Hughues in Eugene Mc Laughlin and John Muncie: The
Sage Dictionary of Criminology, 2006). Crime prevention, crime reduction, crime
fighting or crime management – all have the same features, and the minute distinctions,
to my mind, are just no more than academic sophistication. The prevention versus
investigation has also been a debate with no clear-cut final decision. It is like the old
debate where a political scientist can‟t say with authority that whether a unitary or federal
form of government is the best representation of a democratic system. I have dealt,
though briefly, with this issue in my article on investigation management challenges and
drugs offences given in my book Expanding Criminology to Pakistan. The kinds of crime
prevention and the approaches to prevention of a variety of crimes are now the subject of
detailed discussions and researches. If there are a number of advocates for a certain
method or theory, e.g, the situational crime prevention or crime prevention through
environmental design (CPTED), there is also not a dearth of critics against the same
phenomenon.
„As with the rest of life, crime prevention can be seen to be both disarmingly simple and
bewilderingly complex‟, says Nick Tilley (2005). He further explains the later portion as:
“the bewilderingly complex side relates to the definition and prioritization of crime for
preventive; the prediction of future crime problems; the choice between differing means
of control; the language used to discuss and describe prevention:, the processes involved
in the implementation of preventive measures; the ethics and aesthetics of differing
preventive activities; the politics of agency and organization competency, responsibility
and involvement; the measurement of crime patterns and of the intended consequences
of preventive interventions; estimating the costs and benefits of using resources for crime
prevention as against other issues; and estimating the costs and benefits of different




                               D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\9578d5eb-9eee-41e0-99e5-a1eacf53c2c4.doc
methods of crime prevention”. (Nick Tilley, Handbook of Crime Prevention and
Community Safety, Willan Publishing, 2005)
According to some writers the simple side of the discussion is only seemingly simple.
But it is not any thing else rather than the technological complexity which has put
substantial challenge to the modern day crime prevention policies. What could be easily
adopted, modified, utilized and put to practice for the success of crime control policies,
rather have become a threat, a challenge and nuisance due to a failure to respond to
change and a failure of reconciling change with stability. The academic failure for the
police in Pakistan comes from an indifference or capacity problem on part of the officers,
who badly failed to (re) interpret the fundamental principles of crime control in light of
the new pattern of crimes and modern technological advancements. A police officer
complained of the Police Rules 1934 as having no mention of fax machines and wireless
(?), so according to him, they should be repealed and discarded. If this is the criteria, then
we may reject and discard almost all old laws and rules, which are even older than the
Police Rules. Basically, the Police Rules describe the utilization of the “quickest means
of communication” and this includes all forms of communication facilities of the day,
right from fax to SMS, courier service or email. The problem of this interpretation is a
challenge for the present police leadership.
       There are many simple and pragmatic provisions of Police Rules, 1934 and other
laws, which can be re-discovered, re-oriented and re-implemented with the modern tools
of knowledge and understanding. Reinterpretation and explanation in light of the modern
day realities will need a little of acumen and commitment. If the amazingly useful
intelligence-collecting system of the CIA in the Police Rules is to be re-vitalized with
computer accessibility and somewhat changes, I am confident that it is no less than the
masterly organized intelligence-led profiling system of any developed country. We have
to rethink and divert our focus from new adventures to a practically possible
modernization and feasible interpretation of the existing laws and rules. The thinking
officers of the police in Pakistan are invited to find more and more ways in the existing
provisions of the Police Rules (PR) 1934 and other relevant laws. This is an open
question for discussion. Some of the useful and relevant links (laws) are given below for
further deliberation and re-interpretation (a kind of ijtihad in Policing laws):-



                               D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\9578d5eb-9eee-41e0-99e5-a1eacf53c2c4.doc
A.      ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES FOR CRIME PREVENTION

    Patrolling (PR 23.1)
    Patrolling by villagers (Tikri Phera) (PR 23.3)
    Beat-duty. (PR 28.14-20)
    Rescue -15 (A practice for damage containment and early prevention)
    Naka Bandi (Picketing) --- Special, General (do)
    Random and Planned Checking---Computer Checking. (do)
    Surveillance ------Direct, Indirect. (PR 23.4)
    Personal Files and History-Sheets (PR 23.8, 23.12)
    Bad Character Rolls (PR 23.16).
    Information-Sheets (PR 23.17)
    Village Crime and Conviction Registers (PR 22.59, 22.60)
    Hue and Cry Notices (PR 23.18)
    Raids. (Practical or tactical prevention)
    Publication of Criminal Intelligence Gazette. (PR 21.24)
    Criminal Investigation Department (CID) (PR 21.25).
    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (PR 21.35).
    Supervision and preventive measures against criminal tribes. (PR Appendix: 23.42)




B.      LEGAL MEASURES FOR CRIME PREVENTION

    Security for keeping peace on conviction (S.106 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898)
    Security for keeping peace in other cases and security for good behaviour (S.107,
     S.108, S.109, S.110 Cr.PC)
    Habitual Offender Act, 1918
    Goonda Ordinance, 1959
    Proclamation of Absconders (S. 87 CrPC.)




                                D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\9578d5eb-9eee-41e0-99e5-a1eacf53c2c4.doc
     Attachment of property of Proclaimed Offenders (S. 88 CrPC.) [A kind of social
    pressure and accountability but seldom practiced].
     Power of police to prevent a cognizable crime (S.149 CrPC.)
     Police officer to give information about design to commit such crimes (S.150 CrPC.)
     Police to make arrest to prevent such crimes (S.151 CrPC.)
     Preventive provisions in various Local and Special laws.

C.       CONSTRAINTS IN CRIME PREVENTION

       Like administrative measures, these powers of the police and other provisions
have always been under-utilized due to certain constraints and reasons like:

             Allegations of infringement of human rights, violation of privacy, freedom of
              movement and expression.
             Absence of any organized system for trust-worthy and verifiable record of
              crime and criminal history.
             Absence of exchange of information amongst various components of law-
              enforcement agencies, esp. between District Police and Special Branch and
              Intelligence Bureau (IB).
             Burden of prevention of crime lies only on the Police Department.
             Low level of understanding of crime causation and the sound means for
              transforming that data/knowledge into a program of action through research
              and analysis.
             Absence of error and trial principle and reluctance to change or adaptability
              to other models.
             No departmental accountability of police-officers for not following these
              rules. [The accountability of police officers under Police Order 2002 is a
              different phenomenon].
             Judiciary esp; lower-courts do not ask the police for proper documentation.
             Shifting or pushing of crimes to other areas. (crime displacement)
             Ignorance of certain given methods due to long non-utilization of these
              provisions.
             Absence of Training, Knowledge, Skills and Attitude (TASK).


                                 D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\9578d5eb-9eee-41e0-99e5-a1eacf53c2c4.doc
           Lack of resources.
           Utter and irrational disregard of Police Rules 1934.
           The bad image of the police is at times attributed to colonial laws.



[This is a part of an article by Fasihuddin, President of Pakistan Society of
Criminology. He can be reached at pscatpeshawar@yahoo.com]




                              D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\9578d5eb-9eee-41e0-99e5-a1eacf53c2c4.doc