The Kansas City Patrol Experiment resulted in opening new doors for law enforcement agencies to determine what strategies and tactics could be implemented, through studies, and find resolutions in deterring crime. We know that crimes and criminals in some areas or regions are of a different caliber and have to be dealt with accordingly and differently in other areas. Even though evidence exists that random police patrol has little or no effect upon crime, I believe there is substantial evidence that conflicts this theory. According to Police Crime Control Strategies, a random routine preventive patrol is defined as "unstructured, unguided cruising of a patrol beat", (Hoover, 2014). Preventive is the word that stands out in the phrase and coincides with the …show more content…
Officers were engaged with proactive patrol and ascertaining intelligence by simply asking questions while conducting community policing. Again, a strong presence of law enforcement was shown and resulted in lowering crime.
As with the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, law enforcement officers had quicker response times to calls for service, particularly domestic assault cases, and made arrests based on the evidence that was fresh at the crime scene (Hoover, 2014). If the officers had been on another call and working with a skeleton crew, the quick response would not have been likely.
Compstat gives justifiable reasons for strategically scheduling a certain amount of officers in an area based on historical data collected (Hoover, 2014). Based on historical data, it is only the right thing to do in scheduling enough officers to cover an area if calls for service arise and having a fluent amount of personnel to handle the not-so-important calls and having other officers, that seem to be just riding around, to handle more serious