ABSTRACT
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 127 Background ......................................................................................................... 129 Community Characteristics .............................................................................. 130 Police Legitimacy ................................................................................................ 132 Summary of Hypotheses ................................................................................... 133 Methods ............................................................................................................... 133 Dependent Variables .......................................................................................... 134 Independent Variables ....................................................................................... 135
Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, Police Effectiveness .......... 135 Community Crime Prevention ......................................................................... 136 Additional Variables ........................................................................................... 137
Police Visibility .............................................................................................. 137 Neighborhood Disorder ............................................................................... 137 Crime Victims ................................................................................................ 138 Demographics ................................................................................................ 138
Results .................................................................................................................. 138 Support for Aggressive Policing ....................................................................... 138 Comparing Police Typologies ........................................................................... 140 Discussion ............................................................................................................141 References ............................................................................................................ 144
connected to a style of policing that has been termed proactive (e.g., Shaw, 1995; Sherman & Rogan, 1995), aggressive (e.g., Fritsch, Caeti, & Taylor, 1999; Rosenbaum, 2007), suppression-based (e.g., Decker & Curry, 2003), or intensive (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Terminology aside, this style of policing is characterized by police-initiated behaviors intended to reduce crime through deterrence and incapacitation. Police strategies consistent with this style of policing are varied, but may include search and frisk policies, traffic enforcement, geo-based saturation patrol, and crackdowns. Scholars have connected aggressive policing to broken windows (e.g., Bowling, 1999; Cordner 1998; Davis, Mateu-Gelabert, & Miller, 2005), CompStat (Weisburd, Mastrofski, Willis, & Greenspan, 2006), hotspots policing (Rosenbaum, 2006, 2007), and gang suppression strategies (Bynum & Varano, 2003), including enforcement of civil injunctions (Allen 2004; Stewart, 1998). Even problem-oriented policing, which possesses some theoretical overlap with “gentler” community policing approaches (Greene, 2000, p. 315), does not preclude the use of aggressive policing (see Goldstein, 1990, pp. 127-141).
