https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...
We have much fewer officers per capita than France or Germany, but these countries have much less crime than we do. Considering how much crime we have, we should have way more police than other countries, but it’s not the reality.
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...
recent evidence in police budget reductions
Only about 8% of US cities have reallocated police founding elsewhere; most have increased it since 2020, and in nearly half of jurisdictions it has risen by >10%.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-in...
The US also spends more than most other developed countries as a % of GDP, though less than Russia and Costa Rica: https://www.workandmoney.com/s/police-spending-by-country-98...
I don't have access to this study, so I cannot really comment on it, but this is just one study. When you take the evidence as a whole, the picture is quite different. See for example this systematic review, which looked at 49 separate studies and it did find that, yes, "police presence has mostly crime reduction effects on crimes related to motor theft, property, violence and guns. Police presence also reduces calls for service and improves traffic behaviour".
Additionally, these misdemeanor arrests have been very useful in reducing violent crime rate in NYC. NYC cops under Giuliani and Bloomberg would harass people for trivial shit, find guns on them that they weren't allowed to possess, and then throw the book at them for it. This resulted in carrying a gun being too risky activity for NYC criminals, which resulted in great reduction in shootings, homicide, and other crime involving use of guns like robbery and carjacking. Now, of course, one might object to this strategy, based on morality or legality of it, but what you cannot object to is whether it worked, because it clearly did. This is my point: police activity reduces crime.
> Only about 8% of US cities have reallocated police founding elsewhere; most have increased it since 2020, and in nearly half of jurisdictions it has risen by >10%.
Given that inflation since 2020 has been over 10%, that means that more than half of jurisdiction did cut police funding in real terms.
> The US also spends more than most other developed countries as a % of GDP, though less than Russia and Costa Rica: https://www.workandmoney.com/s/police-spending-by-country-98...
And Russia and Costa Rica indeed have crime rates similar to ours. Rather more importantly than spend, though, is how much we actually get for it. Seems like policing is another one of those fields, like medicine and education, where we spend more than other countries as a percentage of GDP, but get less value for the spend. This is why I'm talking about actual metrics like police officers per capita, not dollars spent on policing.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/relation...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-021-09500-8
> The systematic search strategies yielded 49 studies focusing on testing the effects of police presence or evaluating its measurement. We find evidence that police presence has mostly crime reduction effects on crimes related to motor theft, property, violence and guns. Police presence also reduces calls for service and improves traffic behaviour. Police presence focused on specific areas, times and types of crime achieves maximum effectiveness. The reviewed studies show a high degree of heterogeneity in reporting which limits comparability of findings across studies. Research on police presence presents evidence for significant crime preventative effects of focused police actions and shows strongest effects when focused on certain areas, times, or types of crimes
Look at the 49 studies they went through. Most of them show that adding officers lowers crime. Now you have seen the data.
Now, given that the homicide rate gap is real and not just reporting artifact, what about other crime? It stands to reason that the disparities there are also real, but there still might be differences in reporting, which could either exaggerate or diminish the reported gap. Which is it?
In my view, the latter is true: the gap between US and Europe is even worse than it seems. This whole thread is a great example: Americans don’t even bother reporting a lot of crime, because it is a common knowledge that it won’t do much. In Europe, people report much more petty crime, because the cops will actually follow up on a lot of it, and the justice system will actually punish the offenders. This means that the real crime gap is even bigger than the reported one.
This is also clear to anyone who actually has experience living in both places. I grew up in Poland, I live in relatively safe US city (Seattle), and the amount of crime I observe here is probably a whole order of magnitude higher than I did back in Poland.
> And secondly because there are absolutely detrimental effects of policing, and this would lead into a conversation more about what the goals of policing should be
Yes, I agree that there is a trade off here. However, in US, the balance is completely lopsided towards the costs of crime. Criminals impose massive burden on everyone around them, including their families. Crime has enormous costs to victims, but also huge negative externalities. For example, if you own a house in a crime ridden neighborhood, then even if you are never a victim of crime yourself, just the fact that people avoid your neighborhood costs you probably tens of thousands of dollars in terms of lost property values. Businesses avoid crime ridden locations, resulting in fewer jobs and services for residents. Really, the negatives of increased policing would have to be quite enormous to make up for the benefits.
For a real world example, look at how much more flourishing NYC has become after Giuliani and Bloomberg cleaned it up. Do you thing that NYC residents would prefer to go back to 1985 era?
> Does incarcerating people too much lead to higher crime rates in the future when they're released?
Compared to what? Even if you ignore deterrence role, incarceration reduces crime purely by incapacitating criminal’s ability to do crime. Hard to victimize people when you’re locked up.
Crime is young men’s game, and most of it is committed by very small fraction of population. They commit most of their crime between 16 and 35, with crime activity sharply tapering thereafter. If you incarcerate those repeat offenders for many years, and release them only once they are older and cooled off, than increase in criminality induced by incarceration will be more than made up by reduction in criminality during prime crime years.
We need to incarcerate more people, and do it for longer. That’s exactly how we achieved long decrease in crime, starting in mid 90s. People understood that. Senator Joe Biden was major sponsor of crime reform bill that was designed to do exactly that, put more criminals in jail for longer. It’s a shame that we were made to forget that, and now we reap the fruit of reduced policing and increased criminal exuberance, with crime rates hugely spiking starting from June 2020.
I cannot respect this claim at all. Incarceration destroys lives when it overwhelmingly doesn't need to happen. Taking away the most formative years of someone's life and then releasing them into society after endless years of inhumane treatment with no meaningful income or resources is absolutely not a net positive for society. Throwing people in prison only worsens the problems of poverty and systemic racism which leads to further crime.
There are a lot of factors that went into crime decreases in the 90s, and it was happening before the crime bill. The crime bill was awful to the point that Biden himself called it a big mistake.
Look, I simply do not care much about well-being of repeat offenders. If someone is getting convicted for their third felony, then given the reporting, clearance and conviction rates, it is highly likely that this is more like 10th-20th felony he committed, not 3rd. This means that he victimized a lot of people, and if we let him out, he'll likely victimize many more. Why don't you think about the well being of the victims, instead of that of the criminal? They typically cannot do much to avoid being victimized, whereas for the criminal, it is very easy to avoid jail: all he needs to do is to not commit crime. Overwhelming majority of people, including some very poor ones, manage to do it. If you don't want to waste your youth in jail, stop committing crime, what is the problem with this message?
Yes, I do, and I think we are creating more victims of crime over the long term with with our current approach to incarceration.
> I simply do not care much about well-being of repeat offenders
I really hope you have the opportunity to meet and spend time with people who have done significant time in prison. There are some absolute shit people in prison, but the vast majority of them are really well-meaning, well-intentioned, loving human beings who've made mistakes. People who have committed crimes aren't intentionally trying to create victims in the vast majority of cases. They're making poor decisions or finding themselves in poor situations that result in victims. And in a massive amount of cases, there's no victim at all (thanks war on drugs).
People find themselves in difficult places in life. Likely difficult ways you've never dreamed of. People get desperate. People get to the end of their rope. People lack support systems. People are the product of inter-generational poverty and struggling in large part due to, you guessed it, the massive scale of incarceration in this country. People are responsible for their actions. But given a lot of circumstances, I understand why they made the choices they did, even if someone else got hurt as a result. It doesn't justify it, but it's understandable.
These are real human beings and it's really sad to hear you don't care about the well-being of fellow humans.
I think you are very wrong here, but I don’t think that there is anything at all that could possibly convince you otherwise.
> I really hope you have the opportunity to meet and spend time with people who have done significant time in prison. There are some absolute shit people in prison, but the vast majority of them are really well-meaning, well-intentioned, loving human beings who've made mistakes.
The only people I know who have been in prison are members of my extended family, who I would by no means describe as well-meaning, well intentioned, loving human beings. So no, I don’t find very convincing.
But, even granting this, if someone is found by the justice system to have committed a serious, felony-level “mistake” three separate times (which in practice means he committed this “mistake” many more times, given the gaps in detection and conviction rates), it is beside the point whether they were “well-intentioned”: if they repeatedly keep “finding themselves in poor situations that result in victims”, we need to prevent them from creating any more victims, and prison is extremely effective at this job.
> People are the product of inter-generational poverty and struggling in large part due to, you guessed it, the massive scale of incarceration in this country.
In huge swaths of the world, poverty is much, much higher than in poorest places in America, but crime is relatively nonexistent. Consider, for example, Bangladesh, where average income is less than what you get in US from food stamps alone, but homicide rate is less than half of US. Even in US, huge majority of poor people do not commit crime. Being poor is extremely poor excuse for crime, when huge majority of the poor manages to avoid breaking into other people’s homes to steal their valuables, or beating other people to within an inch of their life.
> But given a lot of circumstances, I understand why they made the choices they did, even if someone else got hurt as a result. It doesn't justify it, but it's understandable.
In many cases I also do understand that, but it only makes me despise them even more. Overwhelming majority of people, including very poor and down-trodden people would not do the same thing in their shoes. However, in other cases I simply do not find any reasonable explanation whatsoever. The guy who threatened to beat me up as I was waiting for the bus has no reason to do it whatsoever, and he definitely did not appear loving and well intentioned.
> These are real human beings and it's really sad to hear you don't care about the well-being of fellow humans.
Yes, I do not care about the well being of some fellow humans, if they committed acts which clearly and unequivocally proved them not deserving of being treated charitably, and who by those acts destroyed well being of many other people. Crime is really heinous thing, and its damaging impact on victims is really understated. You asked me to meet and spend time with crime perpetrators. I ask you in return to spend time with crime victims instead. It appears to me that you care much less about them than about people victimizing them.
They asked me for the login and they were going to use Find to get to the phone. I got there first and it turns out it was just lost. But I was surprised that they would use it.
If that's genuinely what they do, would be nice if Apple implemented a police version of 'Find my Friends' to let you give them permission to track the device rather than the password.
I doubt the police (the person, not the organisation) knows or cares what else can be done with the password, to them it's just the hoop they need to jump through to see what they need to see for the task at hand.
I wouldn't imagine they would have the organisational capability to misuse those passwords, other than the individual realising they could look through iCloud photos or something.
It's still bad, and Apple should implement a sharing or law enforcement mode for this case, but I doubt it's malicious at the state level.