Jails and Juveniles

Tennessee appeared to have an average scale of juvenile facilities within their state. In the year 2000, Tennessee reported a total of 63 total juvenile facilities where 28 of that number were public facilities and 35 of them were private. Come 2002, that number slightly decreased across the board. Overall, there were a total of 58 facilities where 26 of them were public and 32 were private. Finally in 2004, there was yet another decrease overall in the facilities, especially private facilities which faced the biggest hit. There were a total of 52 facilities where 28 of them were public and 24 of them were private. The numbers may have decreased due to the rate at which juveniles were committing crimes. Also the number may have decreased of privately owned facilities due to the court systems wanting to restrict privately owned juvenile facilities. The facilities may have decreased due to the strictness of the law, making it harder to commit crimes to be sent to one of the following facilities. These private facilities could have had any number of reasons why they closed down, even if it meant the public didn’t want the crimes committed by these juveniles kept private. (Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2004)


In the state of Tennessee in 1999 there were 108 jails and the rated capacity of the prisons was 21,572. This means there was a 91 percent occupancy rate in those jails. The number of inmates per each staff member was 3.1 and for a correctional officer it was 4.4. Even though the numbers seem pretty high and it is room to assume that Tennessee criminal population in jails was over capacity, the ratio per staff and correctional officer disproves it. First because close to 3 people per staff member is enough to keep in control and close to 5 people per correctional officer is a good amount to keep under control and know everyone’s where about. Second, that means that each officer and staff is assigned enough work on their hand but not too much where it can get out of hand. Third, Even if the jails are at a 91 percent capacity rate there is still plenty of room left for new inmates and when it reaches to about 98 percent capacity and 7 and up inmates per staff and officers that is when it would be over capacity( U.S. Department of Justice 2001)

In Tennessee, the male prison population in 2000 was 20,797. In 2006 it jumped to 23,787 and then to 24.344 in 2007. The percentage change from 2000-2006 was 2.3% and then again in 2007. The woman prison population in Tennessee was 1,369 in 2000, 1,958 in 2006, and 1,923 in 2007. From 2000 to 2006 there was a 6.1% increase in the population while it dropped by -1.8% by 2007.
Reasons why male prison populations would increase is the availability of the crime, it becomes easier to commit crimes with the advances in technology. As the Tennessee population itself grows, so would the number of criminals to reciprocate the proportions. As well as young males being desensitized to violence by public wrestling and other highly violent activity being portrayed in the media. The woman prison population can also be explained by advances in technology and increases in population. The decrease, however, may be explained by it being more socially acceptable now to be a working woman. Having a career that one values would prevent someone from committing a crime in need of money. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2007)

Sources:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile
Residential Facility Census, 2000: Selected Findings, p. 2; 2002: Selected Findings, p. 2; 2004: Selected
Findings, p. 2, Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report Series (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice). Table adapted by SOURCEBOOK staff.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Jails, 1999,
NCJ 186633 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001), pp. 14, 28. Table
adapted by SOURCEBOOK staff.
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, page 91

West, Heater C. & Sabol, William J. National Prison Statistics (2007)

Image From: http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/5066724/GoToJail-main_Full.jpg

Punishment, Probation, and Parole

Tennessee is located in the south region of the United States. The state of Tennessee agrees with the death penalty. The number of executions in Tennessee since 1976 was five and the number of deaths before 1976 was 335. The current death row population is 92. The number of women on death row is 2. The Date Death Penalty was re-enacted on February 27, 1974 and the first execution since the re-enactment was in the year 2000. The murder rate in Tennessee is 6.4 per 100,000 people. It is possible for the accused to receive life without parole as a punishment. A person can receive the death penalty for a murder he or she was not responsible for. Two people have been found innocent for the crimes they were accused of and got off death row. One clemency was granted in the state of Tennessee. The clemency process happens when the Governor has the Boards of Pardons and Paroles recommendation for clemency. . The methods the state of Tennessee uses to execute those on death row is lethal injection for those whose capital offense happened after December 31, 1998, those that occurred before this date have the option of electrocution instead of lethal injection. The sentence is determined by a jury. The location of death row is in Livingston, Tennessee. (Death Penalty 2009)

The first recorded death penalty in Tennessee was that of Allen Russell. Russell, age-unknown an African-American male who's crime was rape. He was killed by the hanging method on March 1, 1823. The latest is in 1960 on November 7. On that day African-American William Tines, age 37, was killed by electrocution. His crime was rape. (Executions 2002)

The main things that these criminals have in common is that they are both are African-American and both committed a rape. While looking through the majority of these crimes it is plain to see that most of these people on death row were charged with rape and were mostly African-American. It makes one wonder if there is some racism involved when deciding who gets the death penalty and who does not. Tennessee has also only put three women on death row from 1823-2002. So it seems women are more likely to get off of the hook because they seem more harmless than their male counterparts. Even some lesser crimes such as attempted rape, and attempted burglary warranted capital punishment; all of these intruders were black. There is obviously some underlining racism in the process, and this has not changed.
The report “Probation and Parole in the United States” indicates that in 2006, Tennessee had 4,443 entries into the parole system, and 3,232 exits from parole programs. The report also indicates that Tennessee had a parole population of 9,702 in 2006, and the number of Tennessee residents on parole (per every 100,000 adult residents) was 210. The report also indicates that Tennessee had 26,761 entries into and 21,811 exits from the probation program in 2006, with a total of 52,558 individuals in the probation program. The number of Tennessee residents on probation (per every 100,000 adult residents) was 1,136. This data shows that Tennessee has more than six times as many people on probation than on parole. When compared with Colorado, which has 9,551 people on parole and 63,032 on probation, it appears that although the number of people on parole in each state is very similar, Tennessee has a smaller population of people on probation. One possible reason for this is that Colorado offers more probation programs to offenders (“Probation and parole in the united states, 2007).
Restorative Justice – A perspective on justice that views the main goal of the criminal justice system to be a systematic response to wrongdoing that emphasizes healing victims, offenders, and communities wounded by crime. It stresses peacemaking, not punishment. Justice should involve all parties affected by crime--- victims, criminals, law enforcement, and the community. (Siegel, 2008, p.705)
The following was compiled with the help of information obtained from The Santa Barbara Independent in an article written by Nick Welsh on 11.01.2007
In 2007, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department put nine of their deputies through four days of “restorative justice” training in hopes of trying out this new approach to criminal justice with juvenile offenders. The program was lead by Allan MacRae, the man responsible for helping to bring about this particular form of justice to his native New Zealand, where he says that it has achieved “solid results.” The program focuses on various techniques that help bring juvenile offenders (and their families) together with those affected by the offenders’ crimes. The logic behind this is that it will force juvenile offenders to realize the effect of their actions on the victim(s), as well as on their community. Getting relatives involved is done in hopes that family members can do a better job keeping the offenders out of trouble than could the overworked probation system. According to MacRae, New Zealand used to have one of the highest juvenile incarceration rates in the world before techniques associated with the restorative justice method were introduced. In some of New Zealand’s cities, 66 percent of the offenders successfully completed the programs; while in others, the success rate was as high as 95 percent. He attributes the fact of New Zealand’s considerably lower juvenile crime rate to these programs. As for the high costs involved to institute these types of programs, MacRae insists that the savings over time in New Zealand have more than paid for their programs.

Sources:
Siegel, Larry J. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice
Welsh, Nick (2007, November 01). Sheriffs Train in ‘Restorative Justice’
Retrieved November 16, 2009, from the Santa Barbara Independent’s website:
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/nov/01/sheriffs-train-restorative-justice/

Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2007, November 30). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006. Retrieved November 16, 2009

Death Penalty Information Center, (2009). Retrieved November 17, 2009 from Death Penalty Information Center
Website: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

Executions is the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY File Executions by State. Website: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYstate.pdf

Image from : http://ucsbglobalvoices.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/death-penalty.jpg

Tennessee Trials and Tribulations

The Shelby County in Memphis, Tennessee uses grand jury hearings for misdemeanors and preliminary hearings when a felony is committed (Shelby County, 2007). There are several differences between the two. A preliminary hearing is carried out in front of a magistrate or a lower court judge, and it is open to the public, unless the defendant does not agree to this (Siegel, 2009, p.431). A grand jury hearing is not open to the public. Also, in a grand jury hearing, the defense attorney and the defendant are not allowed to be present, but in a preliminary hearing, they are present. In preliminary hearings, the judge decides whether the defendant should or should not be accused, as opposed to a grand jury hearing, in which the people of the jury vote whether or not the defendant should be accused. The two methods are different, but they both accomplish the same task.

In the ongoing trial in Roane County, Tennessee of Leon Huston say that he and his younger brother, Rocky Joe Houston, gunned down Deputy Bill Jones, 53, and his friend Mike Brown, 44, when Jones showed up at the Houston family farmhouse south of the Tennessee River to serve a warrant charging Rocky Houston with failure to appear in court. Witnesses confirmed that it was not self defense and later found that the deputy and his partner did not have a warrant. The first trail of the case ended in July 2008 with a hung jury. Then the trial in December with the same charges ended with a divided jury and a split verdict leaving in conclusion a new trial ordered was placed. Houston is pleading a non guilty verdict on a charger and double jeopardy. He and his brother are held in custody until the court of appeals rules on the issue. The jurors get their nights and weekends off now until this happens as well. The prosecuted would hope to have jurors would agree that he was being charged twice for the same crime and that the double jeopardy rule is effective. The defended would want a jury to see their point of view and disagree with the double jeopardy law because a sentencing has not been placed yet.

“On the sixth day of Lemaricus Davidson trial, witness tells new story. Woman says couple was begging for gas money... A two-time prosecution witness changed sides Saturday in the trial of torture slaying alleged ringleader Lemaricus Davidson and offered a never-before-heard claim.” (Satterfield, 2009)

Direct evidence presented in court is that: “Ethel Lynn Freeman contends she saw slaying victims Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom outside an Exxon station in East Knoxville begging for gas money on the night of their alleged abduction.” (Satterfield, 2009)

Circumstantial evidence presented in the trial would be that: “Christian had a debit card in her possession the night of her death and had made recent deposits of paychecks totaling more than $600. Both Christian and Newsom held jobs.” (Satterfield, 2009)

These pieces of evidence probably would support the prosecution's case as that it shows the two people murdered were dishonest and may have done something to provoke their murder.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=42467

“Tennessee gives its citizens the right to a speedy trial using either the constitution or the statutes. The statute requires that all of the criminal proceedings shall be concluded within 180 days of the date of the defendant’s indictment. However, should the case not be tried or dealt within the timeframe given, the court is required to give a certificate explaining the reasons the trial has not been brought before the court.”

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/criminal-statute-of-limitations/intro-criminal-statute-of-limitations/

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/civil-statute-of-limitations/intro-civil-statute-of-limitations/

“Statute of limitations was a law designed to prohibit prosecutors for going after someone for a crime that was committed more than “X” number of years. They put this limitation in place to prevent deterioration of evidence, however if the time limit has been exceeded, the criminal may not be prosecuted in the near future. This is a general procedure for all states to follow. As for the length of the statute, it’s dependent on how serious the criminal act is. The whole idea behind the statute of limitations is mainly one of general practicability and fairness.”

News Sentinel Staff. "Roane jury selection continues." knoxnews.com [Knoxville] 3 Nov. 2009: 1. knoxnews.com. Web. 8 Nov. 2009.

Shelby County District Attorney General. (2007). What happens when someone is arrested? Retrieved online from http://www.scdag.com/Help/Whathappenswhensomeoneisarrested/tabid/66/Default.aspx.

Siegel, L.J. (2009). Introduction to criminal justice (12^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Satterfield, J. (2009, October 25). On the sixth day of lemaricus davidson trial, witness tells new story . Tennessean

Image from: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jha/lowres/jhan113l.jpg

Appeals, Apointments, and Attorneys

1. The state of Tennessee selects its high court/supreme court judges in uncontested retention elections after initial appointment

2.Tennessee selects its intermediate appellate court judges through uncontested retention elections after initial appointment.

3.Trial court judges in Tennessee are selected through partisan elections for all general jurisdiction trial court judges.

Some of the benefits of selecting judges through popular elections are that the voice of the people is actually heard when this happens and that because of this the judge selected may better represent his or her constituents. Some of the drawbacks of selecting judges through popular elections are that the judges may not be selected based on their integrity or merits of accomplishment, but rather on their persona or other extraneous and irrelevant factor. Another drawback is that the selected judges may only be concerned with being re-elected instead of doing his or her job (ABA 2009).

The highest level in the Tennessee court system is the state Supreme Court, which has 5 justices. Underneath the Supreme Court are the Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals, which have three divisions each. Below that are the 31 judicial districts, comprised of the Circuit Court, which has 85 judges; the Chancery Court and Probate Court, which has 34 chancellors and 2 judges; and the Criminal Court, which has 33 judges. Beneath those courts are the Juvenile Court, which is made up of 98 courts and has 17 judges in addition to 93 judges from the General Sessions Court, and the Municipal Court, which is made up of roughly 300 courts and has 251 judges. The lowest levels in the court system are the General Session Court, which has 151 judges, 93 of whom serve the Juvenile Court. 93 counties use the General Session Court, and 2 additional counties have a trial justice court (“Tennessee court system,” 2007).

Recent Felony Arrest

The suspect was speeding on Interstate 40 and was pulled over by a Tennessee Highway Patrol trooper, and arrested a fugitive wanted in Washington D.C. A court of General Jurisdiction would hear this case

Tenn. Traffic Stop Nets Felony Arrest, $100K in Duffel Bag. (2008 January, 15) retrieved (2009 October, 26) from Policeone.com website: http://www.policeone.com/police-products/duty-gear/bags-cases/articles/1650481-Tenn-traffic-stop-nets-felony-arrest-100K-in-duffel-bag/#

Recent Court Appeal

The case is being appealed based on the new ruling of the Tennessee Court of Appeals that the “paramour clause” can’t force the court to make decisions that are in the best interests of the children. The case will be sent back to the trial court. A Court of General Jurisdiction would hear this case.

Tennessee Appeals Court Unanimously Upholds the Rights of Lesbian Mom. 2009, (September, 21) retrieved (2009 October 26) from eNews Park Forest website: http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10279:tennessee-appeals-court-unanimously-upholds-rights-of-lesbian-mom-&catid=88888935:gay-and-lesbian&Itemid=88890242

American Bar Association. (2009, October 27). ABA

FACT SHEET ON JUDICIAL SELECTION METHODS IN THE STATES. Retrieved from httzp://www.abanet.org/leadership/fact_sheet.pdf

(2007). Tennessee court structure as of 2007. Retrieved from http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/Ct_Struct/state_inc.asp?STATE=TN

Image From: http://www.gaycoupleslawblog.com/uploads/image/iStock_000008206152XSmall.jpg

Searches and Seizures in Society

The article that was posted on the New York Times website was about the ruling of a case through police misconduct. The officer pulled over a gentleman, known as Bradley Harrison, who was driving a rented vehicle with over seventy-seven pounds of cocaine in the back of his vehicle. When the police officer pulled him over due to missing a front-end license plate, which is acceptable within the country of Alberta, where you’re not required to have one in the front, he began to proceed on a search on the vehicle where he found the disturbing evidence. As a result, the court system agreed to the police misconduct but not to suppress the evidence that was found in the back of Harrison’s truck (Liptak, 2008). The article goes on about different countries and their methods of police misconduct and how they don’t suppress evidence due to police misconduct. However, the United States tends to be the only country that suppresses evidence immediately after police misconduct has been found, due to the act of the exclusionary rule. The exclusion of evidence should never occur in any case which evidence is found. If police misconduct is found, even if the people have the right from unlawful searches, the officer should be tried for misconduct where he would receive a hearing to maintain his badge or lose it and be required to some sort of training or punishment for the violation of civil rights. As for the victim, the victim should never be released to police misconduct or a violation of their rights. However a strong, reduced sentence for the violation he or she has committed should be sufficient because of the fact that he was still doing something completely illegal in the country’s eyes. As for the exclusionary rule, it should be set to scale depending on the violation. For example, if the officer who performed the misconduct found a small amount of drugs within your vehicle, it should be easy enough to say that it’s not that big of a deal but suggest that they should really receive some help. However if police misconduct is found and you found a bomb in the vehicle lets say, to exclude such evidence towards the individual would be a little harder than the case of a small amount of drugs.

In April 2007, a law enforcement officer heard that a woman, Charlotte Yvonne Turner, who was on parole for having sold drugs, was selling cocaine. Shortly after, the officer pulled her over for driving without a seatbelt, which he later admitted to being a pretext. His intentions were to find drugs. During the stop, he searched her and found a large sum of cash. The officer and his partner believed it had come from selling drugs, and they decided to search her house. During the search, they found a loaded gun. They charged Turner with being a felon in possession of a handgun (Carey, 2009). The warrantless search described in this case is a combination of two different forms of an automobile search. The officer both searched the driver and performed a pretext stop. “A pretext stop is one in which police officers stop a car because they suspect the driver is involved in a crime such as drug trafficking, but, lacking probable cause, they use a pretext such as a minor traffic violation to stop the car and search its interior” (Siegel, 2009). Officers are allowed to search the driver and the passenger of a car in order to secure their own safety. The officer did not obtain a warrant due to the fact that he had probable cause at the moment to search Turner. The judge ruled that the search in the home was unlawful, and the Court of Criminal Appeals supported his decision. The Supreme Court then overturned the judge’s ruling and ordered the case back to court. On October 15, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that “people on probation should not expect the same degree of legal privacy enjoyed by private citizens who have not been convicted of a crime” (Carey, 2009). This ruling increased the power of Tennessee law enforcement, regarding warrantless searches.

The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect people's fifth and fourteenth amendments. The Miranda Warning means that suspects in custody must be told that they have the following rights:
~"They have the right to remain silent.
~If they decide to make a statement, the statement can and will be used against them in a court of law.
~They have the right to have an attorney present at the time of the interrogation, or they will have an opportunity to consult with an attorney.
~If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them by the state (Siegel, 2009).

Example Situations in which a person's illegally obtained statements can still be used against them:
1) If a suspect makes an ambiguous reference to an attorney during their questioning they are not protected under Miranda. This includes saying such as "maybe I should talk to an attorney” (Siegel, 2009).
2) "An attorney's request to see the defendant odes not affect the validity of the defendant's waiver of the right to counsel” (Siegel, 2009). If your friends or family hired an attorney for you for example and you made statements voluntarily even though your family hired an attorney, the statements were made before the attorney arrived and therefore are not affected by Miranda Law.
3) "A suspect can be questioned in the field without a Miranda warning if the information the police seek is needed to protect public safety” (Siegel, 2009). For example in an emergency, if the police ask you where you hid your weapons.

Carey, Clay (2009, October 16). Tennessee police have more power to search without warrants. The Tennessean. Retrieved from http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091016/NEWS03/910160343/-1/RSS05.

Liptak, Adam (2008, July 19). U.S. is alone in rejecting all evidence if police err. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html?_r=1.

Siegel, L.J. (2009). Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Image retrieved from: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/august2005/august05leb_img_16.jpg

Babes, Broward, and Brutality

1.) Are police reports written by female officers more accurate than those written by male officers? Females may write more accurate reports because women pay more attention to detail than men.
2.) Do female officers make more arrests on domestic violence calls than male officers? Since women are more likely to have been victims of domestic violence themselves, they may empathize with the victim more than a man would.
3.) If a pursuit on foot is necessary, are male officers more successful in apprehending the suspect? Since males are physically faster and stronger, they may be more able to outrun or overpower the suspect.
4.) Do male officers work a greater amount of or longer shifts than female officers? Male officers may be less likely to take time off to attend to children at home.
5.) Are male officers more likely to engage in racial profiling? Women tend to pay a great deal of attention to social issues and may be more likely to be sympathetic to minorities
These are all questions we need to consider when evaluating the dichotomy of gender.

Police Women of Broward County


(Having trouble viewing the video? Click here)
The Law Enforcer: According to this view, duty is clearly set out in law, and law enforcers’ stress playing it “by the book.” Because the police are specifically charged with apprehending all types of lawbreakers, they see themselves as generalized law enforcement agents. Although law enforcers may prefer working on serious crimes - which are more intriguing and rewarding in terms of achievement, prestige, and status - they see the police role as one of enforcing all statutes and ordinances. They perceive themselves as neither community social workers nor vengeance-seeking vigilantes. Simply put, they are professional law enforcement officers who perform the functions of detecting violations, identifying culprits, and taking the lawbreakers before a court. Law enforcers are devoted to the profession of police work and are the officers most likely to aspire to command rank.
The police in this particular TV show fit the description of “The Law Enforcer” because they do things “by the book” and proceed to carry out the law without hesitation or discrimination. They know what they have to do when they arrest someone and they do it properly. While they sometimes may display behavior more closely associated to “The Social Agent”, they are still for the most part, “The Law Enforcer” types when everything is put into perspective.

An example of police brutality:
Police officers accused of police brutality used excessive force, made threats and tortured a man in Campbell County, Tennessee. The police showed up at the house of Lester Siler and suspected him of drug use. They asked for his wife and son to leave the home. After Siler declined to sign consent for the officers to search his house, the officers tortured him for two hours. The police began to use excessive force by beating Siler with their bare hands and bats, made threats by holding loaded guns to his head, threatening to shoot him, burned him with lighters and other forms of torture. The police officers involved were unaware that Siler’s wife turned on a tape recorder before leaving the house with her son. The acts of torture were caught on tape. (Largen 2005)
The police should have not tortured Lester Siler. In our Constitution it clearly states that cruel and unusual punishment will not be used. Torture is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The police should have left after Siler declined to sign the consent form and should have requested for a court order and warrant to search his house.


Largen, C. (2005). American Cops Taped Torturing Drug Suspect. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from radio.indymedia.org website: http://radio.indymedia.org/en/node/9797

Image from: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31bKPcyg1eL._AA280_.jpg

History, Handling, and Heuristics

In 1969, Tennessee included Brentwood as one of their cities. That same year, Emery Pewitt was elected to be the city’s first mayor. At the time, the sheriff’s department provided the city with most of their law enforcement needs. Mayor Pewitt and two of the city’s commissioners decided it would be better to provide full-time law enforcement services in Brentwood. On February 1, 1971, Howard D. Buttrey was hired as the city’s first Chief of Police, thus establishing the Brentwood Police Department (City of Brentwood, 2008). The United States Department of Justice’s Law Enforcement Assistance Administration gave Chief Buttrey a grant of $40,000 to buy two police cars. The Brentwood Police Department hired three officers to begin patrolling the streets full-time. At the time, this police department did not have way of dispatching their own officers. Instead, it was done by a police station in Nashville. In 1972, however, Brentwood was able to hire communications personnel. They were in charge of taking phone calls and dispatching officers. Two years later, they opened their first police department headquarters. In 1989, the Brentwood Police Department received accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies Incorporated. It became the first department in Tennessee to be accredited more than once. In 2008, it was re accredited for the fifth time. The Brentwood Police Department is very proud of their accomplishments. More history can be found in the City Of Brentwood History Page.

The only "Community Policing Unit" in Tennessee is in the City of Maryville's Police Department. They must be pretty amazing with mission statements like "A primary goal is to be known by the community and to know the residents they serve. By having the ability to talk with and to listen to residents they are able to identify situations where additional police intervention or services by other community services are needed. Officers regularly attend resident council meetings and other neighborhood activities. Throughout the workshop the officers were exhibiting their “community” commitment in interacting with the residents." (Doggette, 2004). Among the normal objectives of Community Policing Units, the Maryville's Police Department also offer programs such as "Rape Aggression Defense classes and AARP Driver's Safety" classes (Maryville A to Z). To contact about services or programs through the Maryville Police Department you can request more information by calling (865) 273-3717.
I personally think that the hardest challenges that most Community Policing Units face that the Maryville Policing Unit has overcome is that challenge of reaching out to every community. Being that Maryville is a smaller city it doesn't have too many communities and can easily spread its various members of this organization effectively. Most of the communities won't need specific needs more than others or that seem too radical in comparison so this is also a plus for this program to work even better.

Around the time of 1971, when they first obtained their grant of $40,000, one problem would be depending on the size of their town or city, would be rough to patrol around in just two cars. Obviously there could be a lot more officers that sat around when two cars were out patrolling, but how would they be able to handle more than two disturbances? It seemed like they also could not find the room necessary for their headquarters since the first police department headquarters opened in the back of an Exxon station, then moved a few times within three years. Seems after they finally hit their final location in 1987, things went up. They established over fifty-eight officers with fourteen civilian personnel around the year 2000. Plus reaccredited several times starting with 1989 and last one was reported in 2008. The only problems that could be seen in today’s world, could be a lack of resources, lack of patrol officers to cover the size of their city or town, and a well funded budget to pay the officers to continue their services.

In the state of Tennessee there are 1,869 state law enforcement agency employees, which average out per 100,000 residents to 32 employees. The sworn personnel are 972 employees and then per each 100,000 residents there are 16 personnel’s. The local police departments and employees have 254 agencies and the number of personnel is 10,905 and per 100,000 residents it is 185. Then the number of sworn personnel is 8,680 and per 100,000 residents it is 147.The sheriff’s offices and employees have 94 agencies and the number of personnel is 9,545 and per 100,000 residents it is 162. The number of sworn personnel’s is 4,665 and per 100,000 residents it is 79(Reeves, 2004). Tennessee needs to have more sworn offices for the next three reasons. First, the more sworn officers that each area has, the fewer residents that they need to look over and the more control they may have over those residencies. The second thing is the more officers we have the more coverage there is going to be, security rates would go up, and areas will not only be patrolled once but two or three times. The last and final thing is that officers would arrive quicker to call in incidences, which means that instead of waiting 20 minutes to an hour for an officer to arrive, it may only be 5 to 10 minutes. All in all the more officers an area has the easier things will flow and the safer the area becomes.

City of Brentwood (2008). Department history. City of Brentwood, Tennessee, retrieved online from http://www.brentwood-tn.org/index.aspx?page=462.

Doggette, J. (2004). Community Mediation Center. http://www.2mediate.org/News/News_Archive_2004.htm

Maryville A to Z. http://www.ci.maryville.tn.us/Pam/Community%20Guide.pdf

Reaves, Brian A., Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, NCJ 212749, Local police department and employees, by State, September 2004.

Reaves, Brian A., Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, NCJ 212749, Primary State law enforcement agency employees, by State, September 2004.

Reaves, Brian A., Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, NCJ 212749, Sheriff9 9s offices and employees, by State, September 2004.

Image from : http://www.brentwood-tn.org/Modules/ShowImage.aspx?imageid=1398