4. (Worth 30%) You are the police chief of a large city, and are trying to decide how to allocate a limited number of property protection units to the different neighborhoods. (Police property protection units are groups of officers that specialize in combating such property crimes as burglary, robbery, and auto theft.) How would Friedman advocate financing and distributing these police? Why? Rawls? Why?Discuss in substantial detail: how would they defend their decisions.What specific information would they need in a policy analysis, and how would they use that information? Be sure to keep the focus of your answer very specifically on police protection.hints for question:I am specifically looking at your not making the mistake to assume that Rawls would put more money into poorer neighborhoods who need more police protection, because that would be wrong. He argues for all citizens’ fair and equal set of rights — in this case, the right to protection from theft and robbery regardless of their ownership of property or social status, and that is where students usually get confused. So he would argue for equal allocation of police resources and if there are inequities in police protection, those inequities should be allowed only if they maximize the position of the worst-off members of society. Rawls wouldn’t put more money per say into poorer areas, but that in order to offer the same police protection (which is based on tax money) then, implicitly, money from the rich would go to protect poorer neighborhoods.Lastly, make sure that you discuss everything thoroughly in terms of police protection and how would that go – in detail, and not just describe the two diverging views in generic terms. In other words, make sure you apply it to your example. – “What specific information would they need in a policy analysis, and how would they use that information?