dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 9, 2020 21:25:51 GMT -8
as policing has become more aggressive resulting in skyrocketing incarceration rates. I think most of us remember the 70's and 80's when crime seemed to spin out of control. The past two decades have seen safer streets all over the country including major cities such as Los Angeles and New York which seemed beyond hope. Rudy Giuliani's heavy handed approach to crime fighting has served as a model which leads some to believe the results speak for themselves.
Now the left is talking "defund the police." How can we reform policing without jeopardizing the gains made against crime? How would you assuage people's fears?
I can see the right running on fear invoking images from the 70's and 80's. Keep America Safe! The Left will Make America Dangerous Again!
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 9, 2020 22:22:11 GMT -8
You make a montage of thuggish cops beating up on peaceful protestors, old men and women, pepper spraying children, all the images that we saw in the past week and you put it on a continuous loop on every network and let it sink in.
You want to keep Americans safe? Rein in the cops.
By the way, I believe the crime rates started going down after the excesses of the 80s were being toned down. There were a number of suggestions about this trend, the most interesting one being the switch to unleaded gas.
|
|
|
|
Post by gainsborough on Jun 9, 2020 23:24:01 GMT -8
A few points:
1. Crime
Crime rates dropped all across the country during the period that Giuliani was promoting his "broken windows" policies. Other cities that did not implement those practices saw similar drops in crime rates. It's now clear that Giuliani's policies were not responsible for the successes he claimed. Some theories for explaining the reductions in crime include:
- eliminating lead in paints
- unleaded gas
- easy access to abortions
IMO, one point that does not receive much attention is a very simple one: crime rates drop when huge numbers of people are incarcerated. Following this logic, we could reduce the crime rate to zero simply by putting enough people in jail.
2. De-funding the police
This is a new term, and there is currently no agreement as to what it means. It appears to me that everyone is choosing their own interpretation of it. Let me begin with a simple statement: de-funding the police does not mean eliminating all cops. Before I provide my own definition of the term, I'd like to provide some background info:
Over the last few decades, many cities faced budget shortfalls, and they had to make some hard decisions. Some civic services were cut, and others were eliminated altogether. But for political reasons, funding the police has always been practically unassailable - police budgets were protected even during the hardest times. As a result, the police began to assume responsibility for all kinds of incidents. As a result:
- If a store is robbed at gunpoint, the store owner calls 911 and the police are dispatched
- If a homeless person wanders around while talking to himself and yelling at passersby, someone calls 911 and the police are dispatched
- If a wild dog is roaming around in a residential neighborhood, someone calls 911 and the police are dispatched
- If a domestic dispute turns loud and ugly, a neighbor calls 911 and the police are dispatched
Notice a pattern?
In some cases, it's appropriate for the police to handle the situation. But not every situation is best resolved by a man carrying a badge and a gun. De-funding the police means the city should have the appropriate resources to deal with different types of problems - animal control, mental health services, counseling, etc.
As I see it, "de-funding the police" means we take some money out of the police budget and use it for other civic services. I'd like to see animal control officers dealing with wild animals, and counselors dealing with domestic disputes, and therapists helping people with mental health problems. Other people have other ideas about how to use the funds that were formerly assigned to the police. For example, some people promote spending that money on youth programs.
And you know what? This approach will also be good for the police, too. It's not fair to expect a policeman to be an expert in all types of situations. "De-funding the police" means the police should deal with crime, and we should provide funding to allow other experts to handle the other types of situations.
I repeat: not every situation is best resolved by a man carrying a badge and a gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Jun 10, 2020 0:04:07 GMT -8
as policing has become more aggressive resulting in skyrocketing incarceration rates. I think most of us remember the 70's and 80's when crime seemed to spin out of control. The past two decades have seen safer streets all over the country including major cities such as Los Angeles and New York which seemed beyond hope. Rudy Giuliani's heavy handed approach to crime fighting has served as a model which leads some to believe the results speak for themselves. Now the left is talking "defund the police." How can we reform policing without jeopardizing the gains made against crime? How would you assuage people's fears? I can see the right running on fear invoking images from the 70's and 80's. Keep America Safe! The Left will Make America Dangerous Again! Wasn't part of that a complicated thing? That is the suburbanization of the 60s and 70s resulted in many service jobs relocating to suburbs and resulting in urban decay. Then urban revitalization created reverse trends. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 10, 2020 6:52:48 GMT -8
as policing has become more aggressive resulting in skyrocketing incarceration rates. I think most of us remember the 70's and 80's when crime seemed to spin out of control. The past two decades have seen safer streets all over the country including major cities such as Los Angeles and New York which seemed beyond hope. Rudy Giuliani's heavy handed approach to crime fighting has served as a model which leads some to believe the results speak for themselves. Now the left is talking "defund the police." How can we reform policing without jeopardizing the gains made against crime? How would you assuage people's fears? I can see the right running on fear invoking images from the 70's and 80's. Keep America Safe! The Left will Make America Dangerous Again! Faulty premise. In 1997, there were 242 police officers for every 100,000 residents nationwide, and the national violent crime rate was 611.0 per 100,000 inhabitants. By 2016, the number of officers dropped to 217 per 100,000 residents, as law enforcement agencies shed jobs in the aftermath of a national recession and the nation’s population grew. But the national violent crime rate, dropped by 37 percent, to 386.3 out of 100,000 inhabitants. There was a 10% decrease in the number of cops, and a 37% decrease in the number of violent crimes. Obviously, increasing the number of police officers increases crime. People who want more cops are soft on crime.  |
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,028
|
Post by hasben on Jun 10, 2020 7:36:58 GMT -8
In 1997, there were 242 police officers for every 100,000 residents nationwide, and the national violent crime rate was 611.0 per 100,000 inhabitants. By 2016, the number of officers dropped to 217 per 100,000 residents, as law enforcement agencies shed jobs in the aftermath of a national recession and the nation’s population grew. But the national violent crime rate, dropped by 37 percent, to 386.3 out of 100,000 inhabitants. There was a 10% decrease in the number of cops, and a 37% decrease in the number of violent crimes. Obviously, increasing the number of police officers increases crime. People who want more cops are soft on crime. You may be right about that but the other possibility is that fewer cops made fewer arrests so the rate appeared to drop. Rates are based on arrests not calls to report crimes. Many calls may have gone unanswered or arrived too late to make arrests. It's kind of like CV testing. Decrease testing and your infection rates drop. |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Jun 10, 2020 7:38:13 GMT -8
A few points: 1. Crime Crime rates dropped all across the country during the period that Giuliani was promoting his "broken windows" policies. Other cities that did not implement those practices saw similar drops in crime rates. It's now clear that Giuliani's policies were not responsible for the successes he claimed. Some theories for explaining the reductions in crime include: - eliminating lead in paints - unleaded gas - easy access to abortions IMO, one point that does not receive much attention is a very simple one: crime rates drop when huge numbers of people are incarcerated. Following this logic, we could reduce the crime rate to zero simply by putting enough people in jail. 2. De-funding the police This is a new term, and there is currently no agreement as to what it means. It appears to me that everyone is choosing their own interpretation of it. Let me begin with a simple statement: de-funding the police does not mean eliminating all cops. Before I provide my own definition of the term, I'd like to provide some background info: Over the last few decades, many cities faced budget shortfalls, and they had to make some hard decisions. Some civic services were cut, and others were eliminated altogether. But for political reasons, funding the police has always been practically unassailable - police budgets were protected even during the hardest times. As a result, the police began to assume responsibility for all kinds of incidents. As a result: - If a store is robbed at gunpoint, the store owner calls 911 and the police are dispatched - If a homeless person wanders around while talking to himself and yelling at passersby, someone calls 911 and the police are dispatched - If a wild dog is roaming around in a residential neighborhood, someone calls 911 and the police are dispatched - If a domestic dispute turns loud and ugly, a neighbor calls 911 and the police are dispatched Notice a pattern? In some cases, it's appropriate for the police to handle the situation. But not every situation is best resolved by a man carrying a badge and a gun. De-funding the police means the city should have the appropriate resources to deal with different types of problems - animal control, mental health services, counseling, etc. As I see it, "de-funding the police" means we take some money out of the police budget and use it for other civic services. I'd like to see animal control officers dealing with wild animals, and counselors dealing with domestic disputes, and therapists helping people with mental health problems. Other people have other ideas about how to use the funds that were formerly assigned to the police. For example, some people promote spending that money on youth programs. And you know what? This approach will also be good for the police, too. It's not fair to expect a policeman to be an expert in all types of situations. "De-funding the police" means the police should deal with crime, and we should provide funding to allow other experts to handle the other types of situations. I repeat: not every situation is best resolved by a man carrying a badge and a gun. Good analysis. Thanks for taking the time to write it. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 10, 2020 7:48:52 GMT -8
You may be right about that but the other possibility is that fewer cops made fewer arrests so the rate appeared to drop. Rates are based on arrests not calls to report crimes. Many calls may have gone unanswered or arrived too late to make arrests. It's kind of like CV testing. Decrease testing and your infection rates drop. Violent crimes tend to get reported. Crime rates are based on reports, not arrests, because fewer arrests are made than crimes are committed. |
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 10, 2020 8:14:26 GMT -8
You guys are of course making great points. But they are all nuanced. Yes, nuanced and great, but still nuanced.
As I said before, the right is so much better at sloganeering.
"Get tough on Crime!"
"Lock them up and throw the key away!"
"Three Strikes and You are out!"
From the left:
"Black Lives Matter."
"Defund Police"
These beg to be misunderstood and misrepresented. Not saying they are wrong, but we are dealing with the American public here. I am not optimistic that anything will come out of this other than more division and strife.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 10, 2020 8:59:56 GMT -8
Faulty premise. In 1997, there were 242 police officers for every 100,000 residents nationwide, and the national violent crime rate was 611.0 per 100,000 inhabitants. By 2016, the number of officers dropped to 217 per 100,000 residents, as law enforcement agencies shed jobs in the aftermath of a national recession and the nation’s population grew. But the national violent crime rate, dropped by 37 percent, to 386.3 out of 100,000 inhabitants. There was a 10% decrease in the number of cops, and a 37% decrease in the number of violent crimes. Obviously, increasing the number of police officers increases crime. People who want more cops are soft on crime. Source? It looks like you're cherry picking dates to make a point. You can make a rising market look like a declining one by picking a peak and a dip. The one issue that I take with Oliver's pov is that increasing the number of cops is the problem. He cited the Camden experience with changing police policies as an example of how to do it right. The number of officers in Camden was dramatically increased. More police does not equal more police violence. Another point that needs to be made is that not only are communities much safer than they were in the late 80's, communities of color are much safer. The issues, as I see them are: 1) the training approach - see the changes made in Camden 2) police unions negotiating contracts that way overly protect bad cops 3) the lack of a structure that requires cops to call out other cops, even their superiors, who are engaging in unnecessarily dangerous behavior. 2 of the cops that spoke up to Chauvin had less than a week on the street. 4) the cops being the catch-all solution to all of societies problems 5) militarization of police forces. Numbers are not the problem. JMO. Aside - the "Defund the Police" backers ……. It's hard for me to believe they actually want police reform. It looks like they are grandstanding. If they wanted police reform they would never have chosen such an grossly inaccurate and inflammatory brand. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Jun 10, 2020 18:55:42 GMT -8
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 10, 2020 20:24:08 GMT -8
Is anyone familiar with CALEA? It stands for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Here is their website. The site is full of corporate lingo that I don't really care to cut through. FWIW, three city police departments in Orange County are accredited (Tustin, Garden Grove, Buena Park). While I have heard lots of complaints about police in other surrounding cities (Huntington Beach and Fullerton are particularly bad), I have never heard a bad thing about cops from these three cities. In fact, reddit's subreddit for Orange County (/r/OrangeCounty) has singled out Tustin and Garden Grove cops for professionalism since protests began. These cities have very diverse populations. Garden Grove is home to large Vietnamese, Hispanic and Korean communities with no shortage of gang issues. Rallies in these cities have been large, but peaceful without a single incident. |
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 10, 2020 20:37:16 GMT -8
So far nobody has mentioned in the thread mass incarceration. I bet people link that with safer streets. So how do we reduce incarceration while keeping the streets safe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 11, 2020 6:09:08 GMT -8
So far nobody has mentioned in the thread mass incarceration. I bet people link that with safer streets. So how do we reduce incarceration while keeping the streets safe? I think most people rarely think about mass incarceration. I think it's a question of "out of sight, out of mind." I believe mass incarceration is a result of mandatory minimums for victimless crimes, primarily drug possession, so there's one thing we could do. |
|
|
|
Post by bruinfan13 on Jun 12, 2020 0:06:50 GMT -8
So far nobody has mentioned in the thread mass incarceration. I bet people link that with safer streets. So how do we reduce incarceration while keeping the streets safe? I think most people rarely think about mass incarceration. I think it's a question of "out of sight, out of mind." I believe mass incarceration is a result of mandatory minimums for victimless crimes, primarily drug possession, so there's one thing we could do. Yes, 3 strikes went horribly wrong when victimless crimes were included as "Serious Crimes" which actually was not the original intent of the Law. Massive 1980's California Prison expansion started. I believe 18 New State Prisons were constructed in rural on areas. As you said- out of sight out of mind. Also, Rural means lots of poor people that need a gig, the pay is good, entrance standards are low and achievable. The local community is revitalized because each prison needs many CDC and civilian staff. Think oil boom town. This Prison expansion incarceration hysteria caused the California State general fund to devote more money to The CDC than the U Of California system in a budget year. Tremendous waste of money and resources. You said it perfectly, I just wanted to flesh out some key details and motivations |
|
