5 ms·

I sometimes feel it's as if we were having a conversation about fire, with one side advocating for having building codes so fires are less likely to start in th

I sometimes feel it's as if we were having a conversation about fire, with one side advocating for having building codes so fires are less likely to start in the first place, and the other advocating for having fire departments put out the fires. Or one side was advocating for safer road and car design so that people don't get injured in auto accidents in the first place, and the other side was advocating for emergency rooms to treat people who get injured in auto accidents. Clearly we need both long-term solutions and short-term, and the police and jails are not the long-term solution but they are necessary, like fire departments and emergency rooms. If we have more fires or more auto accidents, we need more funding for fire departments or emergency rooms, at least until the longer term solutions have time to start working. I don't see why this is even a partisan issue. San Francisco (and many other cities in the US currently) need an increased police presence and more dangerous people put in jail, as a way of coping with the short-term consequences. We need improvements in police and especially jails, but that doesn't change the fact that an increase is needed in the short term at least.

jeffbee 4y ago
SFPD is the most over-funded and over-staffed agency in the state, and the worst-performing one at the same time. The very last thing SF needs is a bigger police budget so more cops can stand around idly. http://www.cjcj.org/news/13268 http://www.cjcj.org/news/13268
- shuckles 4y ago
  This may be the case, but your link doesn't really prove the point. SFPD is certainly not over-staffed, with half the per capita police force of most major cities. Per capita statistics in San Francisco also need to be adjusted because the _resident_ population is much smaller than the _daytime_ population due to land use issues. In addition, the police standing idly is an unfounded claim. As far as I can tell, a major part of the problem is that each police action takes a huge amount of overhead to execute. Booking a suspect is a multi-hour trip to the station.
  - alxmng 4y ago
    Someone was repeatedly breaking into my apartment lobby to steal mail. The police told me they couldn’t do anything unless I had video of it. So I caught the crime on video, identified them, and went to the police station with the video. They said they wouldn’t do anything because it wouldn’t be prosecuted anyway. Oh, and they also warned me not to confront the perp or do anything myself or they might arrest me. The same person continued to steal packages, and I moved.
    - chii 4y ago
      > because it wouldn’t be prosecuted anyway. which is weird to me - video evidence should mean a slam-dunk case is it not? So the reason it isn't going to be prosecuted is political then? Which means a failing of the system and institutions. This is an indication of a deeper problem. Moving is the individual's solution of course, but that's not a real solution for the state.
    - shuckles 4y ago
      I could tell you a dozen similar stories about every part of the San Francisco or state bureaucracy. Does that mean they’re all over staffed and over funded? If booking a suspect takes multiple hours of work by the booking officers, I could see why the police would not want to allocate the few officers they have on any shift to that job for a mail thief.
- duxup 4y ago
  I feel like there's a weird dynamic out there where the folks pushing hard for real change in policing, also have ideas that aren't palatable (or at least seem not to be) to the majority of voters... who otherwise I think wouldn't be entirely opposed to some changes... So you get this situation where there's a strong will to do something, but the process gets locked up. In Minneapolis there was a vote to replace the police department, it failed. The whole discussion surrounding it was a mess. Discussions where you took issue with the approach to replacing it inevitably involved accusations of racism and etc. Even just taking issue with the slogans about "Defund the police" (I felt that was not a good route to get folks on board) would result in being accused of being some pro police nazi or something. The proposal was defeated even in neighborhoods that supporters felt would obviously support it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  If they're like the police in Austin Texas, it's pretty much an understanding amongst the police force that since the BLM riots and extreme fallout during and after that with the public, police will not respond to (or will put forth only the minimum they can get away with) for petty crime and traffic enforcement. We're going on 2 years now and enforcement has become a complete joke.
duxup 4y ago
Agreed, there's gotta be space between "no consequences / ignore X things" and "this process for any crime is so arduous that it will potentially upend someone's life". Along with outreach, help, but also help that improves everyone's life, including the folks who are victims in all this.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"I don't see why this is even a partisan issue" Because one side wants to treat the underlying causes, which it sees as poverty, inequality, lack of good education, and lack of opportunities; while the other side has the attitude of "fuck 'em, they're criminals", and wants to be "tough on crime" by increasing policing, criminal penalties, and the number of people thrown in jail. The former side sees the justice system as fundamentally unjust and favoring the privileged, connected, and wealthy, and as discriminating against the poor.. as disproportionately affecting blue collar criminals while giving white collar criminals a slap on the wrist (if that). Jail is seen as both a finishing school for criminals and a human rights disaster, where inmates are not actually reformed but come out as more tied in to the criminal underworld than ever, and where after they are released society almost forces them in to reoffending because legal work opportunities for those with a criminal record are so limited and many inmates learn nothing in jail except how to commit crimes more effectively. Many see the police as abusive and corrupt, with the recent exposes on police brutality, murder, and corruption just throwing fuel on the fire. Police cultures which try to cover up abuses within their own organizations instead of bringing them to light make the general public even more distrusting. Giving more funding to police departments which betrayed the trust of their communities is seen by some as funding a criminal organization. Meanwhile, the other side sees those police who are caught abusing their power as just a few bad apples (if that... some will support the police no matter what crimes they commit), and deny that there are systemic issues which need to be addressed. For some of these it's always the criminal's fault, if someone's in jail they deserve it, and the justice system is in fact fair and just. That's not to mention vigilante, militia, and "patriot" groups which are happy to take the law in to their own hands to fight those they see as enemies. Attitudes towards drug offenses (which are the reason a huge portion of people are in jail in America) also matter. These are all very different views of the world, and those are some reasons why criminal justice reform and what should be done with or about police is so controversial.
- xienze 4y ago
  > Because one side wants to treat the underlying causes, which it sees as poverty, inequality, lack of good education, and lack of opportunities Well hold on, you're leaving out one critical component. That same side will -- in the face of certain demographics committing the overwhelming about of street crime (like said shoplifting) -- do things like eliminate cash bail, increase the threshold for felony shoplifting, and the like in order to not "destroy minority lives" by throwing them in jail despite repeated violations. There is such a thing as TOO MUCH compassion, but I'm not sure if SF has figured that out yet.

jeffbee 4y ago

SFPD is the most over-funded and over-staffed agency in the state, and the worst-performing one at the same time. The very last thing SF needs is a bigger police budget so more cops can stand around idly. http://www.cjcj.org/news/13268 http://www.cjcj.org/news/13268

shuckles 4y ago
This may be the case, but your link doesn't really prove the point. SFPD is certainly not over-staffed, with half the per capita police force of most major cities. Per capita statistics in San Francisco also need to be adjusted because the _resident_ population is much smaller than the _daytime_ population due to land use issues. In addition, the police standing idly is an unfounded claim. As far as I can tell, a major part of the problem is that each police action takes a huge amount of overhead to execute. Booking a suspect is a multi-hour trip to the station.
- alxmng 4y ago
  Someone was repeatedly breaking into my apartment lobby to steal mail. The police told me they couldn’t do anything unless I had video of it. So I caught the crime on video, identified them, and went to the police station with the video. They said they wouldn’t do anything because it wouldn’t be prosecuted anyway. Oh, and they also warned me not to confront the perp or do anything myself or they might arrest me. The same person continued to steal packages, and I moved.
  - chii 4y ago
    > because it wouldn’t be prosecuted anyway. which is weird to me - video evidence should mean a slam-dunk case is it not? So the reason it isn't going to be prosecuted is political then? Which means a failing of the system and institutions. This is an indication of a deeper problem. Moving is the individual's solution of course, but that's not a real solution for the state.
  - shuckles 4y ago
    I could tell you a dozen similar stories about every part of the San Francisco or state bureaucracy. Does that mean they’re all over staffed and over funded? If booking a suspect takes multiple hours of work by the booking officers, I could see why the police would not want to allocate the few officers they have on any shift to that job for a mail thief.
duxup 4y ago
I feel like there's a weird dynamic out there where the folks pushing hard for real change in policing, also have ideas that aren't palatable (or at least seem not to be) to the majority of voters... who otherwise I think wouldn't be entirely opposed to some changes... So you get this situation where there's a strong will to do something, but the process gets locked up. In Minneapolis there was a vote to replace the police department, it failed. The whole discussion surrounding it was a mess. Discussions where you took issue with the approach to replacing it inevitably involved accusations of racism and etc. Even just taking issue with the slogans about "Defund the police" (I felt that was not a good route to get folks on board) would result in being accused of being some pro police nazi or something. The proposal was defeated even in neighborhoods that supporters felt would obviously support it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
daniel-cussen 4y ago
lost_tourist 4y ago
If they're like the police in Austin Texas, it's pretty much an understanding amongst the police force that since the BLM riots and extreme fallout during and after that with the public, police will not respond to (or will put forth only the minimum they can get away with) for petty crime and traffic enforcement. We're going on 2 years now and enforcement has become a complete joke.

duxup 4y ago

Agreed, there's gotta be space between "no consequences / ignore X things" and "this process for any crime is so arduous that it will potentially upend someone's life". Along with outreach, help, but also help that improves everyone's life, including the folks who are victims in all this.

pmoriarty 4y ago

"I don't see why this is even a partisan issue" Because one side wants to treat the underlying causes, which it sees as poverty, inequality, lack of good education, and lack of opportunities; while the other side has the attitude of "fuck 'em, they're criminals", and wants to be "tough on crime" by increasing policing, criminal penalties, and the number of people thrown in jail. The former side sees the justice system as fundamentally unjust and favoring the privileged, connected, and wealthy, and as discriminating against the poor.. as disproportionately affecting blue collar criminals while giving white collar criminals a slap on the wrist (if that). Jail is seen as both a finishing school for criminals and a human rights disaster, where inmates are not actually reformed but come out as more tied in to the criminal underworld than ever, and where after they are released society almost forces them in to reoffending because legal work opportunities for those with a criminal record are so limited and many inmates learn nothing in jail except how to commit crimes more effectively. Many see the police as abusive and corrupt, with the recent exposes on police brutality, murder, and corruption just throwing fuel on the fire. Police cultures which try to cover up abuses within their own organizations instead of bringing them to light make the general public even more distrusting. Giving more funding to police departments which betrayed the trust of their communities is seen by some as funding a criminal organization. Meanwhile, the other side sees those police who are caught abusing their power as just a few bad apples (if that... some will support the police no matter what crimes they commit), and deny that there are systemic issues which need to be addressed. For some of these it's always the criminal's fault, if someone's in jail they deserve it, and the justice system is in fact fair and just. That's not to mention vigilante, militia, and "patriot" groups which are happy to take the law in to their own hands to fight those they see as enemies. Attitudes towards drug offenses (which are the reason a huge portion of people are in jail in America) also matter. These are all very different views of the world, and those are some reasons why criminal justice reform and what should be done with or about police is so controversial.

xienze 4y ago
> Because one side wants to treat the underlying causes, which it sees as poverty, inequality, lack of good education, and lack of opportunities Well hold on, you're leaving out one critical component. That same side will -- in the face of certain demographics committing the overwhelming about of street crime (like said shoplifting) -- do things like eliminate cash bail, increase the threshold for felony shoplifting, and the like in order to not "destroy minority lives" by throwing them in jail despite repeated violations. There is such a thing as TOO MUCH compassion, but I'm not sure if SF has figured that out yet.