'Across the board' doesn't always work for police

By GLENN SCHUCKERS, Freelance columnist

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

I don't think anyone would argue the fact that one of government's most basic, fundamental and necessary functions is to protect its citizens. Protection is something we can do for ourselves only on a limited scale and protecting our neighbors or community gets pretty dicey.
We have police for that and one other reason. Many police departments go by the motto, "To Protect and Serve." Even if they don't have that painted on the sides of patrol cars or on badges they wear, most police agencies serve those two functions.
First, they protect. Having police visible without a doubt deters some crime. How many of us have not either slowed down or at least checked our speedometers when we pass by a state police car along the road? If we were driving above the limit, even if only slightly, how many of us don't slow down? That demonstrates the deterrent value of police. Whether it is a patrolman on foot in a business district or a patrol car along the highway, some crimes that may have been planned don't get carried out because the perpetrator saw a police officer.
Then there is the serving element. No matter how many officers are on the streets some crimes will still get carried out. Whether it is a minor offense like parking in a "No Parking" zone or as major as a murder, someone needs to investigate the crime and try to find the parties who are responsible. That is the "serve" part of the job.
People in Pennsylvania have been learning that their state government has been taking an increasingly lax view of this duty. As it stands now we are told that the Pennsylvania State Police have about 200 fewer officers than would be considered a full force. And unless things change, with no new recruits being trained, that number may more than double. Neither of those numbers is acceptable.
This fall I had the occasion to drive to southern Virginia. About 125 miles of that trip were down an interstate in Virginia. Both traveling south and then on the trip north back home I counted some 20 Virginia State Police cars along the road each way. That comes to about one patrol car every six miles. And they were not just parked, many of them were "parked" behind another car with their lights blinking while the officers made arrests.
When was the last time any of us saw Pennsylvania State Police officers every six miles on any of our interstate highways? I am sure they care about safety and driving by the rules as much as their brothers in Virginia, but I am also very sure they simply do not have enough troopers to man that kind of enforcement. The force, I believe, has been stretched so thin that it can no longer perform as it did, say, 20 years ago.
I thought it interesting that a few months ago when there was a major crime in the area, a murder, all the pictures showed Pennsylvania State Police vehicles around the scene. The crime took place in a township that does not have its own police force, as is the case with a lot of townships.
Very simply, those townships say they cannot afford their own police force, and based on the taxes they levy, that is the case. Also, based on the crime rates in those communities, they would be hard pressed to justify paying for their own police force. One suggestion has been to assign members of the county sheriff's departments police duties. Then where would the counties get the money to pay for full-time deputies? In the end someone always has to pay. In the meantime, it looks as though we will have to rely on the State Police to both protect and serve in the rural areas.
Around here even the small towns have their own police force and that is to their credit. They may not have officers on duty seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but they do have police officers. They are paying their own way and pulling their own weight.
What about the rest of us?
We elected a governor who made a foolish pledge not to raise taxes. Now we are seeing that an "across the board" reduction in expenses will be necessary to carry out that pledge. What happens as a result?
Two things. "Across the board" may sound good, but in actual practice it breaks down. Does that mean that people who audit the expenses in a school are just as important as the people who inspect the food we eat? Does it mean that cutting the budget of the State Department (yes we do have a State Department) makes the same sense as cutting the budget of the state police?
And second, does that "across the board" include all the expenses of the legislators and their staffs as well as the executive salaries? Has everyone been subject to the same cuts?
"Across the board" might sound fine on paper and in theory, as does "No tax increase," but campaign slogans are one thing, patrolling the streets, arresting murderers and keeping things under control on interstates is another. If we have to pay for necessary services we will. Not paying for them is way too expensive.
q q q
Glenn Schuckers was the proprietor of Schuckers Orchard from 1970 -1992, and was in education for 35 years as a teacher, administrator and bus driver. He has also been a bartender, steelworker, farmer and school board member. He decided to retire in 2009 and start another career. He and his wife Ann have lived in Brady Township, Clearfield County, since 1971. They have two sons, Erik and Nathan. His opinions are strictly his own. E-mail:curmud1@yahoo.com