1- Over the years, the idea of private sector policing has increased and is now more popular. I do truly believe that private sector policing would improve the quality of service that communities receive and it would also make citizens feel safer. According to Gilsinan et al. (2008), private security is starting to become a development industry. The improvement of mass private property, for example, shopping centers, corporate grounds, gated neighborhoods, and huge private colleges and research facilities require private security to police these huge, non-public spaces. Further, numerous neighborhoods see the quantity of open police to shield the lives and property of their inhabitants as deficient. This “vacuum hypothesis” has prodded rich neighborhoods just as the relationship of shippers to employ their own security powers. At long last, the continued development of government redistributing has quickened associations between the central government and private police agencies. As of now, for instance, 57 armed forces bases in the USA are watched by private security firms. This re-appropriating has not been without impressive discussions in regards to the sufficiency of the contracting methods, the nature of the staff, and the level of safety these private firms give to army bases (Gilsinan et al., 2008).

2- By increasing the sworn personnel in an urban zone, it will reduce crime. This is caused when officer presence deters an individual to commit a crime. The more law enforcement personnel you have in an urban zone the less crime you will have in it. I feel that even with active law enforcement in today’s society the main priority is being visible and using patrol procedures in order to reduce the risk of a criminal act being committed. For example, as a patrolman if you show high visibility at the convenience store that always gets robbed there is a higher chance because of officer presence that crime will not be committed. An example of this would be before someone who is caught shoplifting, they will determine if the cost of the illegal behavior is worth the reward in successfully achieving the crime. Additional law enforcement personnel in an urban zone will reduce the frequency of criminals acting the same way in the future for that area (Coomber, 2014).

3- Many individuals believe that hiring more law enforcement officers will decrease the crime rate. In fact, President Clinton thought the same thing in 1994 and employed 100,000 police officers under the Violent Crime Act (Worrall, 2015). After hiring all these law enforcement officers people begun to realize that 100,000 is not a lot compared to the United States population. According to Worrall (2015), hiring more patrol officers would not help in some cases because some crimes take place indoors out of the sight of law enforcement officers. Law enforcement must be notified to know about some cases, for example, crimes like burglary and domestic violence occurs at someone’s home or domain which is harder for patrol officers to detect. The variation of crime between cities is another reason why hiring more police officers might not work because several large cities across the country have approximately the same number of police officers per citizen but very different levels of crime (Worrall, 2015).

READ EACH POST AND PROVIDE A RESPONSE, CITE AND REFRENCE YOUR ANSWER WITH PROPER APA STYLE