Arrest crime, not just criminals

The powers that be need to arrest crime and not just the criminals by putting into operation with greater vigour the concept of “preventive” or “predictive” policing so firmly entrenched in the legal system abroad.

The theory hovering around the concept that avoidance is better than dealing with an offender, and having a victim, has been put into practice with some success for applying brakes to traffic offences and road accidents in the country; the need to implement it with even better force in other spheres of law is no more in the domain of denial. The fact that a crime, any crime, will eventually end up burdening the already overloaded justice delivery system is an actuality that is beyond the shadow of doubt.

In a democratic set-up where the accepted end product of the justice delivery system is not just punitive but reformatory as well, prevention policing is a concept that has the capacity and capability of bringing to a halt the process of a person turning into a potential offender in the very first place. Stopping a man from committing an offence once may actually prevent him from doing it ever.

The need for the preventive model’s implementation travels beyond just the need to obstruct a man’s journey on the perilous path of crime. It also stems from the fact that there can be no victim without a lawbreaker, unless unfair treatment is meted out by the nature itself.

While nothing can be said with certainty, there is ample to suggest that preventive policing could have averted the Hyderabad rape and murder case from taking place. In fact, timely action by the police on frantic call by the victim’s sister too could have stopped the tragic incident from happening that eventually led to the killing of the four accused in the case. 

The very definition of the police functioning includes in it the concept of prevention. Black’s Law Dictionary makes it clear that police is “the function of that branch of the administrative machinery of government which is charged with the preservation of public order and tranquility, the promotion of the public health, safety and morals, and the prevention, detection and punishment of crimes.

The Supreme Court, in its 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case, had issued seven commandments, six for the state governments and one for the Union of India. It included, among other things, directions for establishing a state security commission to come out with broad policies and issue directions for performance of preventive tasks and service-oriented functions of the police.

An illustration of the concept can be found in a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on arresting the flow of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu had, in May, directed the state of Haryana to invoke the provisions of a law that provide for preventive detention of persons, foreigners included, for a period ranging between one and two years.

Calling for the enforcement of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, the Bench added that it was enacted by the Parliament to provide for detention in certain cases for preventing illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It empowered the Centre and the state government or its officer to direct the detention of a person for preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, if it was found to be necessary.

In a society where crime generates abhorrence but continues unabated, the police functioning needs to widen its scope beyond the investigation of a crime. It needs to prevent transgression by including in its tasks maintenance of law and order and the element of prevention. Predictive policing demands a proactive approach by the police for averting crime before it causes damage to the society and alludes to that facet of law enforcement that comes into operation before an offence is committed. A law, almost any law, primarily comes into play in post offence scenario; and that is the gap preventive policing proposes to fill by stepping in before it is too late. It puts off a wild goose chase by not allowing the goose to budge.

It encompasses actions initiated by the police with the purpose of spotting and averting crime or types of crime. It may also absorb in its functioning extraordinary probing skills and secret surveillance. 

Effective guarding, including foot patrolling, easy access to police and police station, establishment of beat boxes at short distances, third eye vigil through CCTV cameras, analysis of crime data, identification of potential criminals and crime spots, installation of GPS systems in all public transport vehicles and sensitisation of police officials to make them respond to distress calls with alacrity are just some of fundamentals of preventive community oriented policing. 

At a more complex level, the police need to turn to the tool of “CompStat” or computer statistics to fight crime. The scheme can be traced down to the 90s, when the New York Police Department was resolute to combat crime. The realisation by the police that it was short of means to track down crime led to the development crime mapping through “CompStat”.

Information about a crime that has occurred is fed into computer for being used for future reference and police deployment. An officer apt at handling a particular crime is deployed in the area where it occurs the most — a cop good at dealing with drug cases goes to the district where drug trafficking is a menace. The police officers of the area are also trained to handle the crime peculiar to that zone. It also helps in ensuring the crime does not spill to other areas. Preventive policing in India is for the most part carried out by constables. The strategy needs to change.

Courts must ensure accused is punished

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the courts need to ensure that the accused are punished and the might or authority of the state is not used to shield them or their men. Referring to the 1972 case of Jennison versus Baker, Justice Jitendra Chauhan of the High Court has asserted that law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope.

If deficiency in investigation or prosecution was visible or could be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, the courts were required to deal with the same with an iron hand within the framework of law. “It is as much the duty of the prosecution as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice and to prevent the aspect that the faith and trust of a common citizen is not eroded,” Justice Chauhan added.