A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote:
Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of
powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the
federal government up there. For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and
some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others,
like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the
primary law enforcement official of the county.

Same in Canada. The RCMP only has national jurisdiction in some areas, like
narcotics, and crimes in airports. (I'm sure there are
a few more.) Really a very narrow jurisdiction. In some places, the RCMP do
highway patrol and even city policing, but in those
places, the provincial and/or municpal governments have hired the RCMP to be
their police forces. And if they wanted to, they could
form their own and be rid of the mounties.

Well, I believe the RCMP does also enforce federal and province laws in the
vast largely uninhabited areas of Canada, including Indian reservations. So
tell me, does the RCMP have jurisdiction to take control of a major case in
the event the locals aren't (or can't) handle it?

Moreover, I suspect that in those areas where the locals do not have local
cops, the RCMP maintains jurisdiction to enforce, at the very least, federal
and province laws.


When I lived in Ontario, the only place I ever saw RCMP was at airports.
Ontario has its own provincial police for highway patrol
(as does Quebec), and small towns that don't want to form their own police
hire the OPP rather than the mounties.

That happens a lot with sheriff's departments down here.

Strangely, the model I would like to see in the US is the original
Canadian/British model where the police are hired, trained and supervised by
the federal or state government. Having been a cop in a small town, I know
precisely how hard it is to do good police work on a limited budget with
limited training and equipment budgets while being under constant pressure
to play favorites in enforcement based on who's friends with the town
council and Mayor.

For a long time I've thought that, at least at the state level, all police
officers should be hired, supervised and trained by the state, so that they
meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as well
as pay, and that local communities should have local officers appointed to
them from the state police pool, and should have to provide a share of the
funding through taxes.

In Britain, as I understand it, when you get a British police officer, you
get a *British Police* officer, not someone hired and supervised by the
local town fathers, which too often results in poorly trained, poorly
equipped, poorly supervised police officers who are subject to the personal
biases of the town administrators.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser