Some observers say that police officers should be recruited from the communities where they work, so that they have local knowledge. Other people say that this is unnecessary, or even undesirable. Where do you stand on this debate? Is local knowledge essential in modern policing?
There is a widely discussed debate that police officers need to be hired from their local societies. Therefore, they can be more productive because of the regional knowledge hegemony. However, some might argue that it is not essential, and organisations which are responsible for employing police officers can ignore this property. To a certain point of view, it appears to me that choosing officers from their local communities might have countable benefits; even though the other statement may seem more plausible in the modern world where everyone has multiple abilities. This essay deals with the argument of both sides of this polemical issue and answers the questions.
On the one hand, those who are in favour of this topic express their reasons cogently. First of all, they believe that residents probably are aware of the variety of crimes in that area, especially minutiae ones, and since they feel more sensitive toward their surroundings, if officers are employed from that locations, they tend to be more deterrent than others. This can be done through sentencing, imprisonment, fines, and even rehabilitation of the offenders. Moreover, in this case, informants, who are local dwellers, can help them to do their bests.
On the other hand, in today’s developed world, due to the wide range of technology, criminals in comparison to the past are more devious and deceive their victims by means of various methods. So, only the local information is not sufficient to overcome wrongdoing. Hence, it is logical to declare that police officers need to have transferable skills like lateral thinking, and also they should be connoisseur while doing their duties. Furthermore, choosing officers from different points of the country diminishes the issue of over-familiarity and corruption which are widespread issues and real impediments in dealing with errors
In conclusion, while local individuals appear to be felicitous options for a policeman in domestic situations, I would like to assert that it is not the only requirement for volunteers. They have to contain other essential skills like critical thinking to conquer the hardships of the modern world.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, while, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 24.0651302605 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1837.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 344.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34011627907 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90396209964 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 176.041082164 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578488372093 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 570.6 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.0295926588 49.4020404114 178% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.214285714 106.682146367 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5714285714 20.7667163134 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.64285714286 7.06120827912 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31756287073 0.244688304435 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105201402853 0.084324248473 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0437322055289 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182176683224 0.151304729494 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.073319548457 0.056905535591 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.0946893788 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.