- 學位論文
臺北市警察人員對犯罪預防之認知與執行經驗
Cognition and Experience of Taipei City Police Officers on Crime Prevention Practice
摘要
近年來，地方各縣市警察局為順應犯罪預防工作在地化，因時、因地制宜的趨勢，開始負起規劃轄內犯罪預防策略之責。各縣市警察局統籌分析轄內的犯罪特性，設計因應地方犯罪特性之預防工作，臺北市政府警察局亦不例外。事實上，犯罪預防策略是否能落實執行，除了組織及決策者的影響力以外，絕大部分取決於執行的警察人員本身觀念、認知及態度。警察在過去並沒有把犯罪預防視為真正的警察工作，主要原因係認為犯罪預防沒有用，此種觀念已漸受到挑戰。本研究透過受訪的警察人員闡述自身從事犯罪預防工作的經驗，並蒐集過去研究文獻的發現結果，解釋現今臺北市警察人員對犯罪預防工作的認知與經驗，比較過去研究發現有無不同，對警察從事犯罪預防工作提出新的詮釋。 本研究發現，犯罪預防在警察組織中，雖不是長官眼中最重要，但也不是全然不在乎的工作。只要刑案偵查仍是警察機關的主流文化，在必須滿足各項專案、勤業務的績效要求下，犯罪預防難有真正落實的一天。受訪的警察雖然認同警察是犯罪預防工作的核心，民眾還是需要警察的協助與指導，只是繁重的勤務導致犯罪預防不被重視。此外，警察認為干預性作為會抵銷犯罪預防提升的滿意度，也認為績效制度與犯罪預防矛盾，而如果轄區刑案降低，長官們並不會認為是犯罪預防的功效。 其次，在臺北市執行已屆10餘年的犯罪預防策略中有許多未能遵循SARA模式重新評估回應，開始產生失效的情形。在方案成效評估方面，雖近年已開始鼓勵多元宣導方式，惟因缺少經費及完整犯罪預防計畫而使成效大打折扣。犯罪預防策略發展在警察機關常規化的障礙之一為警察機關長期缺乏犯罪分析的專責單位，未能即時有效提供犯罪預防重點，於重點時段、地點展現勤務作為。 依據上述研究發現，建議應擴充員警三層級犯罪預防觀念，將犯罪預防融入勤務內容，並設置專業犯罪分析人員，成為在地的犯罪問題專家。謹遵SARA模式，適時修正犯罪預防策略，同時改變傳統重量不重質的評比方式，參考犯罪發生數、民眾滿意度、實地考核民眾接收度等重要指標，將因時、因地制宜的次級、三級犯罪預防策略納入評比。未來宜將犯罪預防工作的評核重點放在有效掌控轄區治安狀況的能力，輔以問題導向警政的檢討方式，評核各分局解決轄區問題的能力。
並列摘要
In recent years, county and city police departments have taken a greater responsibility on planning crime prevention strategy in order to implement tailor made crime prevention practices that suit local crime problems. Many police departments have dedicated on analyzing local crime incidents and designing the prevention practices. Taipei City Police Department is no exception. In fact, in addition to the characters and culture of organization and policy makers, rank and file officer’s concept, cognition, and attitude towards crime prevention are also crucial on successful crime prevention practices. In the past, the police viewed crime prevention as “not real police work” mainly because they simply doubted that crime prevention would work. However, the police skepticism on crime prevention has been challenged by new evidence. The current research aims to: interviews officers in Taipei and explain their cognition and experience of crime prevention, to compare domestic data with existing literature on the effectiveness of crime prevention, and to interpret crime prevention work by the police from a new perspective. From the interviews with police practitioners, it is found that crime prevention is neither the most important nor the dispensable work in the eyes of senior police officers. As long as criminal investigation remains the mainstream police work and current special projects and performance regime continue, the road to a more promising future for crime prevention is still long. The police interviewees also considered that the police play a crucial role in crime prevention, and that citizens do need officers’ assistance and instruction to prevent being a victim of crime. However, they expressed that the heavy workload has resulted in the overlooking of crime prevention. The police also addressed that daily intervention measures might counter-balance the good deed of crime prevention efforts in the public eye. They also mentioned the contradiction between existing performance system and crime prevention emphasis. Furthermore, senior officers would not consider the drop of criminal incidents as the effect of successfully preventing crime from happening. On the organizational level, many crime prevention measures have been carried out for more than a decade without being reviewed following the SARA model, namely scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. It is not surprising to find these measures have become less effective. As to the evaluation of crime prevention performance, it was criticized that adequate budget and integrity of crime prevention plan is lacking, in spite of the growing focuses on multi-dimensional propaganda. In the end, the absence of professional crime analysis unit has prohibited the normalization of crime prevention practices. Nevertheless, crime prevention practices should be integrated into each officers’ daily routines along with the identification of hot spot, hot product, and repeated offenders. According to the research findings, some policy suggestions are proposed. First of all, the police should have the knowledge of primary, secondary, and tertiary crime prevention in order to integrate crime prevention into their daily routines. It is necessary to recruit specialized crime analysts in police departments as the professionals on local crime problems. It is also significant to review crime prevention strategy via the SARA model, to modify the crime prevention measures constantly, and to change the traditional performance indicators that focused more on quantity than quality. The police should refer to multiple indicators which include the number of reported crimes, the public satisfaction, assessment, and acceptability. In addition, secondary and tertiary crime prevention measures, tailor made according to time and place circumstances, should be integrated into performance evaluation as well. Finally, it is proposed that the police performance on crime prevention should be evaluated according to their ability on monitoring criminal incidents in an administrative region, on implementing the examination based on problem-oriented policing, and on solving the problems that concern the public most.