International experience of public involvement in the prevention of crimes against property
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The right of property ownership belongs to one of the fundamental cornerstones of socio-economic rights of each individual. Owning property, using it legally, protecting ownership, a person plays its natural social nature. The presence of undoubted right of ownership and its legal protection, regardless of racial, ethnic, social, age, religious and ideological affiliation of a person is a sign of civil society and the rule of law. The right to property ownership, as well as other socio-economic inalienable human rights require constant and effective protection by law enforcement and others, including civil society mechanisms and institutions. Today, there are two General approaches to law enforcement and fight against crime, including against property. The first approach, which, in our opinion, can provide so called “approach of autonomy/professionalization of law enforcement” or “conservative” or “institutional-centric approach” based on the concentration of all functions to combat various types of crime purely within the powers and expertise of most law enforcement agencies, creating a certain condition of social alienation between the latter and the public sector. The second new approach, which is largely derived from long experience of law enforcement of European and North American countries and is considered more efficient and justified, could be called “dual” (double) or so, “which involves the cooperation of the public with law enforcement authorities in the fight against crime.” Based on the proven links between law enforcement agencies and the population, this experience can be divided, on the one hand, on activities that establish mechanisms and opportunities for bilateral or unilateral interaction between law enforcement agencies and the public. The first examples of measures can be considered public office constables in the UK, creating mini-stations in the USA and Canada (stations for the population in the city. Victoria British Columbia, Canada), the practice of foot patrol of the streets and whole areas (m. Newark state of New Jersey City). It should be noted that experts and researchers modestly and carefully evaluate the impact of public programs or initiatives neighbor observation. However, these initiatives have contributed to the reduction of burglary, theft and damage to rolling stock (vehicles) and real estate (houses, garages) property of citizens. Among the shortcomings of such programs is considerable passivity and indifference of the population. Thus, the modern sources of international law recognize the universality and social significance of ownership and the need for its protection. However, these sources of international law do not have any special legal and regulatory provisions regarding the mechanisms of public involvement in the prevention of crimes against property; the experience of joint participation of the public and law enforcement agencies in the prevention of crimes against property are selective national experiences of law enforcement systems and the public sector of some countries in North America and Western Europe, which should be considered in the broader context of the principles, mechanisms, approaches and institutions of the interaction between law enforcement agencies and the public in preventing and addressing a broader range of socially dangerous crimes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».