Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Intelligence-led policing (ILP) has been seen by some researchers as the next step beyond community policing, while other researchers see this no real change Custom Paper

Read and reply to the below discussion. Do you agree or disagree. Why?
1. Intelligence-led policing (ILP) has been seen by some researchers as the next step beyond
community policing, while other researchers see this no real change. From your analysis of the
readings identify the pros and cons of ILP and your evaluation of whether state and local law
enforcement should adopt such a program.
The most recent bombing in Boston and the subsequent identification of the suspects leading to
the capture of one and death of the other suspect, is the best example I can think of as a pro for
intelligence led policing (ILP). ILP requires two way communication between the police and the
community. In the case of the Boston bombing, the police, along with FBI and the intelligence
community requested help from the local community as well as those who attended the Boston
Marathon. People came through, by providing thousands of hours of video and photographs which,
when combed through and looked at by authorities for similarities, led to the identification of two
suspects. Once pictures of the suspects were identified, the police again requested assistance from
the community by asking if anyone could provide names for the suspects and additional tips.
Information from the community led to the identification of the suspects and a tip provided by a
homeowner is the information the police needed to arrest one of the suspects. In this situation,
the identification and arrest would have taken much longer without the aid of the community.
Video footage from local businesses and marathon attendees was able to capture the suspects
actually placing the bombs and will most likely be used to convict the suspect.
However, what was a pro in that situation could also be seen as con. ILP relies on two way
communication between the police and the community. There are circumstances where the
community is unable or unwilling to assist the police. In a situation where there is a lack of
communication between the police and the community, ILP would fail to work properly.
2. The ability to connect the dots was the impetus of many changes within the intelligence
community post 9/11. This has led to a number of initiatives from the creation of fusion centers,
the NCTC and the ODNI. Based on your analysis of the readings, what is your assessment of the
current capability to share information and connect the dots and are there additional efforts that
need to be undertaken?
Intelligence sharing since the 9/11 attacks have improved. The lines of communication have
increased however there is still room for improvement. There are agencies, or maybe better said,
people within agencies that still like to hang on to their information. Perhaps they do this as a
misguided sense of agency pride, because they feel another agency does not need to know, or
they feel another agency does not have the appropriate level of clearance. The creation of fusion
centers with many entities working under one roof is a step in the direction of progress toward
opening more communication lines between agencies.
As far as connecting the dots, I believe that an open communication line between agencies is just
the beginning. I think human error has to be looked at as a factor as well. Given the amount of
information that now flows into each intelligence agency it quite possible to miss a lead or overlook
an item as non-important because it may not be important to that particular person at a given time.
Until there is a way to take human error out of information sharing, there will continue to be unconnected dots.