Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Policing the Police: Knowledge Management in Law Enforcement -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- Complaints and Crime -- Police Complaints -- Police Crime -- Crime Attractiveness -- Rethinking Police Complaints -- The Case of Unauthorized Disclosure -- Police Crime Classification -- Police Crime Continuum -- Theories of Police Crime -- Criminology Theories -- Management Theories -- Organizational Culture -- Organizational Structure -- The Case of Police Corruption -- Corruption and Crime Reporting -- Corruption and Poverty -- Economic Models of Corruption -- Patterns of Police Corruption -- EPAC - European Partners Against Corruption -- Organized Crime Corruption -- Corruption as Business Practice -- Knowledge Management -- Knowledge Categories -- Knowledge Management Systems -- Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom -- Classification of Information Sources -- Crime Analysis -- Law Enforcement -- Laws and Regulations -- Police Accountability -- The Belgian Registration System -- Police Management -- Police Leadership -- Police Integrity -- Ten Police Principles -- Entrepreneurial Management -- Role-Based Policing -- New Public Management -- Global Knowledge Exchange -- The Need for Research -- Police Investigations -- How Investigations Work -- The Case of IPCC Investigations -- Knowledge Works in Investigations -- How Detectives Work -- Detective Thinking Styles -- Characteristics of Effective Detectives -- Profiling Police Complaints Detectives -- Knowledge Management Technology -- Stages of Growth Model -- The KMT Stage Model -- Unified Communication in Knowledge Management -- The Case of Geographic Information Systems -- Police Performance Management -- An Empirical Study of Police Investigations -- An Empirical Study of Intelligence Work -- Other Performance Indicators -- Performance Leadership -- The Case of Norwegian Bureau.

Today's society is often characterized as a knowledge society, in contrast to the earlier industrial society. Historians however know that all societies are and have been knowledge societies. Without the ability to create, transfer, and use knowledge, between individuals and groups, power areas would neither have been built nor maintained. This edited volume reflects how historical actors, both those in power as well as laymen and officials, have produced and utilised information and knowledge from the Middle Ages until today. It acommodates research into census, urbanisation, history of kings and queens, exercise of public authority, social and political movements, disciplining and formation of opinion.
In Kunskapens tider. Historiska perspektiv på kunskapssamhället ("The knowledge society. A historical perspective") nine researchers from the Department of History at Stockholm University contribute with examples of the need for and use of knowledge, in different historical situations and periods. - Dagens samhälle karaktäriseras ofta som kunskapssamhället, till skillnad från det tidigare industrisamhället. Historiker vet dock att alla samhällen är och har varit kunskapssamhällen: Utan möjligheter att skapa, överföra och använda kunskap, såväl individer som grupper emellan, hade maktområden varken kunnat byggas eller vidmakthållas. Antologin speglar hur historiska aktörer, såväl makthavare som lekmän och tjänstemän, har producerat och utnyttjat information och kunskap från medeltiden till idag. Här ryms forskning om folkräkning, urbanisering, kungars historieskrivning, myndighetsutövning, sociala och politiska rörelser, disciplinering och opinionsbildning.
I Kunskapens tider bidrar nio medarbetare från Historiska institutionen vid Stockholms universitet med exempel på hur behovet och användandet av kunskap sett ut i olika historiska situationer och tidsperioder.

Achieving the goals of law, the most important of which is ensuring justice, depends on the competence of law enforcement officers, their knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge in the course of professional activity. The article substantiates the assumption that one of the reasons for the low efficiency of law enforcement is the epistemological illiteracy of its subjects. It consists in the fact that they consider law enforcement as an action based on ready-made, template knowledge, into which they squeeze the object in question, which is always different from this template. The author sees the way out in giving the subject the authority to create relevant knowledge, which, while preserving the essential features of law, would be proportionate to the situation "here" and "now". This requires him to have a high level of philosophical culture and epistemological competence as its component.

Scholars debating the relative merits of public and private enforcement have long trained their attention on the federal courts. For some, laws giving private litigants rights to vindicate important policies generate unaccountable private attorneys general" who interfere with public enforcement goals. For others, private lawsuits save cash-strapped government lawyers money, time, and resources by encouraging private parties to police misconduct on their own. Yet largely overlooked in the debate is enforcement inside agency adjudication, which often is depicted as just another form of public enforcement, only in a friendlier forum. This Article challenges the prevailing conception of administrative enforcement. Based on a comprehensive examination of over eighty administrative courts, I find that agencies rarely enforce on their own. Among other things, private parties may have procedural rights to file regulatory complaints, trigger agency investigations, demand evidentiary hearings, join public enforcement actions as parties, and even pursue claims without the involvement of the agency's enforcement arm. Although some administrative enforcement is virtually indistinguishable from either public or private enforcement in federal court, more often administrative schemes employ attributes of both. Combining public and private enforcement furthers the goals of agency adjudication while mitigating some of the dangers posed by transferring cases from generalist courts to specialized policymaking bodies with less formal procedures. Public enforcement offers greater political accountability and more coherent implementation of policy. Private enforcement supplements agency expertise with the situated knowledge of regulatory beneficiaries and enhances their access to legal remedies. And diversifying enforcement inputs reduces the risk of political or interest group capture of administrative schemes. These tools are especially valuable today, as presidential administrations increasingly use control over public enforcement ...

Background: With increasing demand for red meat in Tanzania comes heightened potential for zoonotic infections in animals and humans that disproportionately affect poor communities. A range of frontline government employees work to protect public health, providing services for people engaged in animal-based livelihoods (livestock owners and butchers), and enforcing meat safety and food premises standards. In contrast to literature which emphasises the inadequacy of extension support and food safety policy implementation in low- and middle-income countries, this paper foregrounds the 'street-level diplomacy' deployed by frontline actors operating in challenging contexts. Methods: This research is based on semi-structured interviews with 61 government employees, including livestock extension officers/meat inspectors and health officers, across 10 randomly-selected rural and urban wards. Results: Frontline actors combined formal and informal strategies including the leveraging of formal policy texts and relationships with other state employees, remaining flexible and recognising that poverty constrained people's ability to comply with health regulations. They emphasised the need to work with livestock keepers and butchers to build their knowledge to self-regulate and to work collaboratively to ensure meat safety. Remaining adaptive and being hesitant to act punitively unless absolutely necessary cultivated trust and positive relations, making those engaged in animal-based livelihoods more open to learning from and cooperating with extension officers and inspectors. This may result in higher levels of meat safety than might be the case if frontline actors stringently enforced regulations. Conclusion: The current tendency to view frontline actors' partial enforcement of meat safety regulations as a failure obscures the creative and proactive ways in which they seek to ensure meat safety in a context of limited resources. Their application of 'street-level diplomacy' enables them to be sensitive to local socio-economic realities, to respect local social norms and expectations and to build support for health safety interventions when necessary. More explicitly acknowledging the role of trust and positive state-society relations and the diplomatic skills deployed by frontline actors as a formal part of their inspection duties offers new perspectives and enhanced understandings on the complicated nature of their work and what might be done to support them.