Compare And Contrast Sherman And Weisburd

Introduction

Two professors, Dr. Lawrence Sherman and Dr. David Weisburd, were both doing their own studies before doing a trial on randomized hot spots, as they wanted to accomplish some methodological objections on previous studies. Dr. Sherman was finishing a study in Minneapolis that crime was intensive in small hot spots, which included that an address or collect of various addresses was the concentrated area to be known for crimes to occur. As for Dr. Weirburd, had just finished a study in New York, which suggested that police intervening was more focused on the “small worlds” for certain problems.

Both of their studies collided, the randomized experiment design was to help finding out that to reduce crimes is to focus on major hot spots in the city for police to keep an eye out and adding more patrol would be effective. The professors wanted to make sure this was a smooth research as numerous steps were taken before taking their plan into action just in case if it does not fall through like previous

Sherman points out how in America that it rather put more money on prisons than officers. As he states how England and Wales the spending is more towards the officers than the prisons, and how in America is one of the least compared to various countries. He also mentions how in the past 2 decades the population in the U.S. has doubled in its numbers and how the incarceration has been as well increasing, but because of lack of number of officers and patrolling has been the reasoning for the rise of both numbers. Dr. Weisburd makes a point on how not only we need to fix crimes that are lurking in the streets, but also how money and time needs to be spent on training these officers. In order to have a successful team is to have a strong army, which is done with the right amount of training done. As Dr. Weisburd believes this can be another key factor in benefiting for the community to know officers are highly trained and not having poorly skilled