Избранные труды

But there is an impression that this work lacks to some extent the consistency of aim. Such a conclusion is based on the results of the analysis of the present public opinion on the militia.

3. Problem

As a problem we understand here the definition of ways and means for system reformation[520] which is based on the identification and comprehension of the problematic situation (see above).

So, there are two constants (from the above-described). (1) The relations between the public and the police are of importance for the both subjects of interrelation. (2) The current relations between the militia and the public in Russia have a dysfunctional nature.

Conclusion. The system needs to be reformed with such a desirable result as the eufunctionality of the public opinion, the public spirits and behaviour of citizens, on the one hand and the police actions on the other hand.

To reform the complicated system, a complex system of measures is needed. The list of recommended measures is given at the end of the report. You may find here the characteristic of prerequisites for taking such measures.

To manage the complicated system a complex administrating parameter is required. But for the system of the police-public relations in present Russia the question of administrating parameter is complicated by itself. What authority is able to act in this capacity in the society torn apart by contradictions.

3.0. The relations of the police and public are composed of the public attitude to the militia, on the one side, and of the militia attitude to the public, on the other. The second side is often omitted in analysis.

3.1. Determinants of the public and individual opinion on the militia (1,12–67; 9, 23–70).

3.1.1. The real militia. In the first place the public or individual opinion on the militia and, consequently, the relations between the militia and the public are determined by an actual militia work, its results.

3.1.2. The negative determinant of recent years is the use of the militia as a figure in a political game.

3.1.3. The notion of it. An actual work of the militia influences the public opinion not only directly (it is more seldom) but through the public notion formed about this work. The notion on the militia work is influenced, besides by itself, by the orientations (stereotypes, prejudice) of the public, group and individual mind and also by mass media and referent groups.

3.1.4. Personal characteristics of militiamen with whom a citizen contacts. Militia personnel.

The public attitude to the militia is determined quite significantly by the fact who serves in it. And the current situation is here that cannot be worse any more.

3.1.5. In the last 8–9 years a great number of professionals left the militia. Not always they are substituted by equally skilled specialists.

The Provision on Service currently in force conduces to further professionals’ leaving the militia. They are granted the opportunity to retire early. And they leave the militia and move to other employers.

3.1.6. In recent years the law enforcement bodies, including the militia, have considerably increased their staff. But the fact that this increase has been carried out without following the objective law on the increase of a scheduled number[521] (6, 50–69) results in negative consequences. The militia has employed people who were not fit for such a service for their personal traits. It is proved by an evident or concealed shortage in quality and quantity, by a great staff turnover.

3.1.7. Some top positions in the militia have happened to be held by persons appointed not for their skills but for political reasons, by virtue of their personal devotion (members of teams).

3.1.8. Public notion on militia men

Usually the public has a deal with less trained militiamen and it affects negatively on the public notion about militiamen. More skilled officers sit in their offices and have contacts with citizens only from time to time.

3.1.9. “Alarm” factor. The following two kinds of anxiety are understood as the alarm factor: (1) to become a victim of a crime and (2) to become a victim of the militiamen’s outrage.

According to the April research in Penza 23 % of respondents fear “to become a victim of thieves and robbers” (21 % – “to be heavy injured or killed by criminals”), 10 % of respondents said that they are afraid of the outrages of the law-enforcement bodies.