The need for effective, trustworthy police officers is paramount in society today, especially as criminals become more devious and creative. Regarding whether police should be locally hired, there is a case to be made on both sides of the debate.
Those who support local recruitment of officers point to the need for the police to understand the minutiae of the local community. For example, a community may have certain frictions or a history of a specific grievance, whether religious, political or otherwise. In such situations, the argument goes, the police need to show sensitivity, and also be able to anticipate the kinds of crimes that may be committed. Furthermore, local officers may find it easier to gain informants in the community, leading to stronger evidence at trials, higher conviction rates and a deterrent to crime through sentencing, imprisonment, fines or community service leading to rehabilitation of the offender.
On the other hand, it seems likely that officers from the community may in fact share some of the tendencies of the people they grew up with. For example, in countries such as Mexico, we see a high incidence of corruption among the local business and government community which is equalled by bribery among the police. A second objection is that local sensitivity may lead to the police failing to enforce laws fully, and effectively making exceptions for some offenders, which is unequitable towards law-abiding citizens. Finally, we must remember that police officers should have transferable skills, such as lateral thinking and investigative ability, which should transcend their background or the environment they are working in.
Overall, it seems to me that local knowledge is not absolutely essential for the police, whose skills should be effective in any context. Indeed, I agree with those who say that the risks of local recruitment outweigh the benefits, because of the danger of corruption and over-familiarity with potential offenders.