3 ms·

I don't believe anyone on HN is so naïve that they think that the main reason crime rates vary between areas is that police presence varies. Your post makes it

by valvar 6y ago

I don't believe anyone on HN is so naïve that they think that the main reason crime rates vary between areas is that police presence varies. Your post makes it sound like you are, but I assume that you only think varying presence skews the numbers rather than generates them?

clairity 6y ago
i would hope no adult is naïve enough to believe police magically appear only where crime is and only addresses clear and existing crime, rather than being embedded in a complicated sociopolitical system overwhelmed by legal pitfalls. those are stories we tell children to comfort them for sleep.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  The vast majority of frontline policing is in response to an emergency call, so they have no control over where it is. HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them" Some police stations definitely work that way. And some even close their eyes, so they can go on waiting. It is in the poorer areas, where you could arrest all day long to the point of why bother. Makes sense, if the source of crime is complicated.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them. No, but when they aren't responding to calls, they spend the rest of their shift going on fishing expeditions. What do you think traffic cops, for instance, are doing most of their day? What about the cruiser slowly driving through a neighbourhood? They aren't there to respond to a call, they are just running license plates/looking for poorly maintained cars to pull over (Obviously, if someone egregiously breaks traffic rules in front of them, they don't need to look very far - but when nobody's breaking the rules, they can always find someone who looks suspicious.) The thing is, when you only go on fishing expeditions in poorer neighbourhoods/targeting poorer vehicles, you're going to find that will skew crime statistics - and statistical model based on that will direct even more policing towards those areas. It's why in the United States, the higher you are on the income ladder, the more illegal drugs you consume - yet the lower you are on the income ladder, the more likely you will end up in prison for drug use.
  - clairity 6y ago
    that's a misdirection. most crimes are not emergencies, and policing encompasses much more than emergency response. if policing were just, we'd see many more white-collar crimes like corruption, bribery, embezzlement, fraud, extortion, etc. being busted, because those crimes have much larger impact and wider fallout on communities and wider societies.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      White collar crime isn't a task for police any more than tax evasion is - those just plain aren't tasks they are meant for as opposed to public safety tasks. Which also explains why they are less funded, even without any conflicts of interest they aren't "sexy" crimes that grab attention, they all also lack urgency and thus are easily "procrastinated". Digging through records can uncover many of them and there are a lot of them. The police in their current role only show up at the behest of warrants in those situations to search or arrest.
Spooky23 6y ago
Enforcement has an impact that can be measured for certain activities, but not all. For example, enforcement of DWI laws had a meaningful impact on alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Deployments in NYC targeting crime of opportunity for things like muggings had a meaningful impact. In some cases, there may be a halo effect where addressing certain problems may reduce others. But it's not a magic bullet. Drugs seem to be an example where enforcement has limited impact on outcomes. You also have the risk of heavy routine enforcement fostering corruption. A good example is the Border Patrol, which arrests ~250 officers annually.

by valvar 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

i would hope no adult is naïve enough to believe police magically appear only where crime is and only addresses clear and existing crime, rather than being embedded in a complicated sociopolitical system overwhelmed by legal pitfalls. those are stories we tell children to comfort them for sleep.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
The vast majority of frontline policing is in response to an emergency call, so they have no control over where it is. HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them" Some police stations definitely work that way. And some even close their eyes, so they can go on waiting. It is in the poorer areas, where you could arrest all day long to the point of why bother. Makes sense, if the source of crime is complicated.
- vkou 6y ago
  > HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them. No, but when they aren't responding to calls, they spend the rest of their shift going on fishing expeditions. What do you think traffic cops, for instance, are doing most of their day? What about the cruiser slowly driving through a neighbourhood? They aren't there to respond to a call, they are just running license plates/looking for poorly maintained cars to pull over (Obviously, if someone egregiously breaks traffic rules in front of them, they don't need to look very far - but when nobody's breaking the rules, they can always find someone who looks suspicious.) The thing is, when you only go on fishing expeditions in poorer neighbourhoods/targeting poorer vehicles, you're going to find that will skew crime statistics - and statistical model based on that will direct even more policing towards those areas. It's why in the United States, the higher you are on the income ladder, the more illegal drugs you consume - yet the lower you are on the income ladder, the more likely you will end up in prison for drug use.
- clairity 6y ago
  that's a misdirection. most crimes are not emergencies, and policing encompasses much more than emergency response. if policing were just, we'd see many more white-collar crimes like corruption, bribery, embezzlement, fraud, extortion, etc. being busted, because those crimes have much larger impact and wider fallout on communities and wider societies.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    White collar crime isn't a task for police any more than tax evasion is - those just plain aren't tasks they are meant for as opposed to public safety tasks. Which also explains why they are less funded, even without any conflicts of interest they aren't "sexy" crimes that grab attention, they all also lack urgency and thus are easily "procrastinated". Digging through records can uncover many of them and there are a lot of them. The police in their current role only show up at the behest of warrants in those situations to search or arrest.

Spooky23 6y ago

Enforcement has an impact that can be measured for certain activities, but not all. For example, enforcement of DWI laws had a meaningful impact on alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Deployments in NYC targeting crime of opportunity for things like muggings had a meaningful impact. In some cases, there may be a halo effect where addressing certain problems may reduce others. But it's not a magic bullet. Drugs seem to be an example where enforcement has limited impact on outcomes. You also have the risk of heavy routine enforcement fostering corruption. A good example is the Border Patrol, which arrests ~250 officers annually.