5 ms·

what evidence is there that more police reduces crime?

monocasa 6y ago
In fact I'll throw out there the time that the NYPD went on strike to prove to the people of New York how much they needed the force (which is pretty fucked up IMO, they were essentially sacrificing the security of civilians in their mind), but instead crime plummeted even accounting for reduced reports of crime. Ie. the presence of police in fact seems to increase crime. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
- djsumdog 6y ago
  A counter example is Iraq, where disbanding existing police and trying to create a new unit from scratch caused Baghdad to turn into a violent warzone. (source: Iraq No End in Sight. documentary)
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Baghdad was already a literal violent warzone. We had just invaded and they didn't want an occupying army there.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      That is absolutely, 100%, not true. Barbra Bodine stated in "Iraq: No End in Sight," Baghdad had ~11 murders in their morgue each year. It was safe for foreigners to have coffee and walk out on the street. In the opening weeks of the invasion, there were over 30 murders per day. It was under an autocratic fist. Speak against Saddam and go to jail .. but it was safe.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        I'm saying that the US invading turned it into a warzone, not the removal of police. They created a civil war where the only thing that nearly everyone agreed with was that the Americans should leave.
        djsumdog 6y ago
        True. But I do think better planning and reconstruction efforts would have prevented the war zone. General Shinseki requested three times the number of troops that were deployed. They simply did not have enough to take an old Baghdad or much of Iraq. That combined with turning away the local current military leadership that was volunteering to help, made it spiral way worse that it needed to.
  - empath75 6y ago
    Well that’s because the police became terrorists. And it was already literally a warzone.

In fact I'll throw out there the time that the NYPD went on strike to prove to the people of New York how much they needed the force (which is pretty fucked up IMO, they were essentially sacrificing the security of civilians in their mind), but instead crime plummeted even accounting for reduced reports of crime. Ie. the presence of police in fact seems to increase crime. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5

djsumdog 6y ago
A counter example is Iraq, where disbanding existing police and trying to create a new unit from scratch caused Baghdad to turn into a violent warzone. (source: Iraq No End in Sight. documentary)
- monocasa 6y ago
  Baghdad was already a literal violent warzone. We had just invaded and they didn't want an occupying army there.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    That is absolutely, 100%, not true. Barbra Bodine stated in "Iraq: No End in Sight," Baghdad had ~11 murders in their morgue each year. It was safe for foreigners to have coffee and walk out on the street. In the opening weeks of the invasion, there were over 30 murders per day. It was under an autocratic fist. Speak against Saddam and go to jail .. but it was safe.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      I'm saying that the US invading turned it into a warzone, not the removal of police. They created a civil war where the only thing that nearly everyone agreed with was that the Americans should leave.
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        True. But I do think better planning and reconstruction efforts would have prevented the war zone. General Shinseki requested three times the number of troops that were deployed. They simply did not have enough to take an old Baghdad or much of Iraq. That combined with turning away the local current military leadership that was volunteering to help, made it spiral way worse that it needed to.
- empath75 6y ago
  Well that’s because the police became terrorists. And it was already literally a warzone.