4 ms·

I'm trying to learn more about this. What I am reading suggests this is the wrong frame. What if all the money spent over-policing these neighborhoods was inste

I'm trying to learn more about this. What I am reading suggests this is the wrong frame. What if all the money spent over-policing these neighborhoods was instead spent on social services to support the people living there? Would that decrease the crime rate more or less than the policing? I'm not sure, but I'm becoming more convinced by this line of argument...

alacombe 6y ago
Food for thought, more than 50% of the federal budget is already spent on social services.
- indigochill 6y ago
  I'm curious what your source is for that, because that's pretty remarkable, especially given the outcry about out-of-control military spending.
  - benjaminmarks 6y ago
    Arbitrarily citing https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w... The bulk of social services spending is social security and medicare, which _each_ account for somewhere between 20-30% of federal spending. Military spending is closer to 15-20% of the federal budget
  - brchr 6y ago
    There are some semantic issues, e.g., the distinction between "mandatory" and "discretionary" expenditures, but the data is pretty easy to explore. Essentially you are "both right". > 50% of total spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Whether that is "social services" is another semantic question. And > 50% of the discretionary budget is defense. But have a look for yourself: e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > Whether that is "social services" is another semantic question. This is puzzling to me. I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that social security, medicare, and medicaid aren't social services. As far as I'm aware, everyone agrees that these are all social services. I would be curious to hear arguments for excluding it from the "social services" rubric.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Food for thought, that factoid doesn't say anything. For multiple reasons actually: From the fact that we could be spending any arbitrary percentage and it wouldn't mean it was enough... To the fact your 50% number doesn't map to 50% spent of the type of social services they meant. Just because it Social Security has the word social in it doesn't mean it's helping the way these social services would...
- jtolmar 6y ago
  Police are funded by the municipal or county government, not the fed
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > Police are funded by the municipal or county government, not the fed It's not that black and white, because... Police slush funds are funded (indirectly) by the federal government—drug search and seizures are passed off to the feds to prosecute (because many states have laws banning the practice), and the feds shares a portion of the value seized back with the local police department. Win-win.
- Loughla 6y ago
  I need any legitimate citation for that.
  - fastball 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
fastball 6y ago
I thought that this book[1] was an enlightening read into the topic. It outlined that the conventional thinking about crime falls into two broad categories: "heroes/villains" (there are bad people that just do bad and need to be stopped) vs. "victims/survivors" (criminals are effectively created by poor circumstances / just want to feed their families, etc). The author argues (with research to back it up) that the truth is neither / both / there are other factors at play, on of the more interesting factors just being "opportunity". [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Truth-About-People-Things/dp/0241960436 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Truth-About-People-Things/...
- danans 6y ago
  I don't think your comment should be downvoted (perhaps something about the book/author itself?). The heroes/villains trope has been heavily overplayed by US culture and before 2016, by politicians of all stripes. I've heard the police department captains in the area I live describe the scenario as a "war", "wolves and sheep", etc. That's not to say there aren't really heroic cops or that there aren't really bad criminals, either. But the idea that either of them exist and act independently from their surrounding context, whether that is a corrupt police union or an impoverished struggling community, is very shortsighted. If anything, that set of tropes needs to be taken down several notches, and the corruption and poverty/inequality need to be addressed directly. We've tried the approach of militarization of police and mass-imprisonment for non-violent offenses. It hasn't worked.

alacombe 6y ago

Food for thought, more than 50% of the federal budget is already spent on social services.

indigochill 6y ago
I'm curious what your source is for that, because that's pretty remarkable, especially given the outcry about out-of-control military spending.
- benjaminmarks 6y ago
  Arbitrarily citing https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w... The bulk of social services spending is social security and medicare, which _each_ account for somewhere between 20-30% of federal spending. Military spending is closer to 15-20% of the federal budget
- brchr 6y ago
  There are some semantic issues, e.g., the distinction between "mandatory" and "discretionary" expenditures, but the data is pretty easy to explore. Essentially you are "both right". > 50% of total spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Whether that is "social services" is another semantic question. And > 50% of the discretionary budget is defense. But have a look for yourself: e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Whether that is "social services" is another semantic question. This is puzzling to me. I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that social security, medicare, and medicaid aren't social services. As far as I'm aware, everyone agrees that these are all social services. I would be curious to hear arguments for excluding it from the "social services" rubric.
BoorishBears 6y ago
Food for thought, that factoid doesn't say anything. For multiple reasons actually: From the fact that we could be spending any arbitrary percentage and it wouldn't mean it was enough... To the fact your 50% number doesn't map to 50% spent of the type of social services they meant. Just because it Social Security has the word social in it doesn't mean it's helping the way these social services would...
jtolmar 6y ago
Police are funded by the municipal or county government, not the fed
- erichocean 6y ago
  > Police are funded by the municipal or county government, not the fed It's not that black and white, because... Police slush funds are funded (indirectly) by the federal government—drug search and seizures are passed off to the feds to prosecute (because many states have laws banning the practice), and the feds shares a portion of the value seized back with the local police department. Win-win.
Loughla 6y ago
I need any legitimate citation for that.
- fastball 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

fastball 6y ago

I thought that this book[1] was an enlightening read into the topic. It outlined that the conventional thinking about crime falls into two broad categories: "heroes/villains" (there are bad people that just do bad and need to be stopped) vs. "victims/survivors" (criminals are effectively created by poor circumstances / just want to feed their families, etc). The author argues (with research to back it up) that the truth is neither / both / there are other factors at play, on of the more interesting factors just being "opportunity". [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Truth-About-People-Things/dp/0241960436 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Truth-About-People-Things/...

danans 6y ago
I don't think your comment should be downvoted (perhaps something about the book/author itself?). The heroes/villains trope has been heavily overplayed by US culture and before 2016, by politicians of all stripes. I've heard the police department captains in the area I live describe the scenario as a "war", "wolves and sheep", etc. That's not to say there aren't really heroic cops or that there aren't really bad criminals, either. But the idea that either of them exist and act independently from their surrounding context, whether that is a corrupt police union or an impoverished struggling community, is very shortsighted. If anything, that set of tropes needs to be taken down several notches, and the corruption and poverty/inequality need to be addressed directly. We've tried the approach of militarization of police and mass-imprisonment for non-violent offenses. It hasn't worked.