4 ms·
> Shifting to more police and less imprisonment could reduce crime and improve policing. More police and less imprisonment also has the advantage of being a fea
by Test0129 4y ago
> Shifting to more police and less imprisonment could reduce crime and improve policing. More police and less imprisonment also has the advantage of being a feasible policy. Large majorities of blacks, hispanics and whites support hiring more police. “Tough on crime” can be interpreted as greater certainty of punishment and with greater certainty of punishment we can safely reduce punishment levels.
This conclusion is questionable. While the data seems to suggest we have an astonishingly high imprisonment and recidivism rate I don't think the thinly veiled "abolish the police" argument, coupled with it's typical race-based arguments, will solve anything.
We can really, truly, improve an unfortunate necessity of society by a few things in my estimation:
1. Regular psychological evaluation for police and yearly training on de-escalation coupled with firearms training. Additional scrutiny for people with previous experience in combat roles in the military. Lack of sufficient firearms qualification should prevent you from carrying a firearm under qualified immunity, additional PT should be done every 6 months and two failures removes you from the force.
2. Removal of most of qualified immunity. Your job was never "get home safe".
3. Defang the police union which by-and-large is how police get away with murder. Force police to carry malpractice insurance instead (value > 1MM).
4. Disincentivize crime hunting as a method of police keeping their job. For example, your next review at the precinct won't look so good unless you have N number of arrests. This can be done either by punishing police for over-policing, or changing laws that are designed to imprison people for trivialities (minor drug charges, child support, etc).
5. De-militarization of the police and a return back to the "old" times. Police should walk the beat and mingle with the people. As it stands now they drive around in veritable IFVs with more weaponry than is even close to reasonable for their day to day job. Right now they are closer to UN peacekeepers than civil servants.
6. Undoing Castle Rock v. Gonzales which allows police to not have any duty to defend.
7. Most importantly, seriously scrutinize the roles and motivations of DAs and their relationship with judges who are responsible for perpetuating the majority of non-violent crimes that put people in prison for decades.
Of course none of this will ever happen because the true purpose of the police is compliance and control, not safety. If you don't believe me think really hard about how comfortable you are talking to the police, and then think about how comfortable you are talking to a firefighter. The police are simply the meat enforcers of The State and so any desire to change them is simply wishful thinking. Even the military is nicer to citizens in an occupied country than the police are to their own countrymen. It's frankly shocking.
- dolni 4y ago> Your job was never "get home safe". You raise some good points but this isn't one of them. Dehumanizing police is NOT how we build an effective police force. Instead of grappling with the issue of their safety, you say "fuck you, you just shouldn't care if you die." What kind of police do you attract with a policy like that? People who have nothing to live for, that's who. And those are the people you LEAST want policing, because they probably don't give a rip if they go to jail. Policing in America is fundamentally different than in nearly all other parts of the world simply due to the pervasiveness of firearms. That's a reality we all have to contend with, like it or not.
- Volundr 4y agoI disagree with the original phrasing, but not necessarily the point being made. A cops job isn't to "get home safe", but rather to make sure everyone gets home safe. If in trying to make sure everyone gets home safe, they reduce the chance they do... well that's the job. It's not for everyone, and there's no shame in it not being for you (there's a reason I'm not a surgeon or physiologist, despite those being actual careers I considered), but if it's not something someone is capable of, we shouldn't be putting them in that position. Way back in my first year of college as I was getting ready to leave for class I saw a guy in my bushes. Needless to say I hesitated leaving, then I noticed a cop car up the street. I called 911 and told them about the guy hiding from them, and put the dogs in the back yard. A few minutes later, they chased him away from the gate and he started messing with the front door. I went out the back, hopped the fence and headed for the cops through my neighbors side yard, where I was met by one of them. He was naturally suspicious (remember he's just received reports of a guy in the bushes) but after explaining that I was the one who called (and I think showing him my ID that I lived there) we went to look for his partner. At no time did he so much as reach for his gun. We found his partner at the end of the driveway, she had seen him hide behind me car, and he had been ignoring her instructions to come out, so she was waiting for her partner. With him there she proceeded to walk behind and car and bring him out. She was maybe 5'2 and 120 pounds I'd put this guy at 6'. Obviously she had no way of knowing if he was armed, he could easily have had a gun in his cargo pants. Despite that, she too never drew her gun. Just walked back there, told him to turn around, and put the cuffs on him. This is what I expect from police.