4 ms·
Tough on crime policies can mean a lot of things, but more police officers on the streets definitely improve both crime rates and the perception of safety. So d
by shuckles 4y ago
Tough on crime policies can mean a lot of things, but more police officers on the streets definitely improve both crime rates and the perception of safety. So does higher rates of clearance and prosecution. This is not a controversial fact in research. The question is always whether it's worth the cost, since police departments are very expensive.
- asveikau 4y agoNo, it is not uncontroversial. The current wave of this thinking is a rehashing of the '80s and '90s crime wave politics. Increased prosecution and incarceration is a harmful consequence of that, one we should not repeat.
- jvmfjvfjvflkj 4y agoWhy doesn't it work when it's worked for NYC?
- bombcar 4y agoAt extremes "tough on crime" obviously works; if every person who ever did a crime was summarily executed by the state, very quickly you'd run out of crime-doers. Obviously, even the worst societies have considered "death for every offense" a bit too tough. The problem is complex and involves multiple things - any "simple" solution likely has glaring issues. And a glib answer to some of these could be "NYC cracked down on crime so criminals moved elsewhere, perhaps to San Francisco".
- shuckles 4y agoMore policing and consistent prosecution also work at the margins, not just the extremes.
- asveikau 4y agoI don't know what you mean. Perhaps you're referring to the popular myth that Giuliani cleaned up New York? What actually happened is that crime declined everywhere starting around 1994. Same reasons Dolores Park is now routinely filled with yuppies instead of gang violence.
- TeeMassive 4y agoIt created other socio-economics problems. 'Tough on crime' is a short-sighted solution.
- shuckles 4y agoI was referring to specific policies. Tough on crime is a political label that could mean anything.
- TeeMassive 4y agoFair enough.
- shuckles 4y agoI work on this topic professionally and have been a paid consultant to the San Francisco District Attorney office under George Gascon and Chesa Boudin. I’m happy to hear evidence that more foot patrols, increased clearance rates, and increased prosecution don’t decrease crime rates or the perception of public safety.
- asveikau 4y agoYou're conflating a lot of things. I've seen a paper that suggests increasing a police force by X (I forget the number) reduces murder by 1 per year. That's probably the best thing I've seen supporting your views and it's pretty weak and impractical. I'd say this is probably correlation rather than causation. But the idea that increased prosecution prevents crime is absolute horse shit. Prosecution is too late to intervene. The crime has already occurred. When a crime rate increases, new people committing new crimes will grow faster than the system can punish people for old ones. The people committing property crime in SF (note that that's the actual issue, violent crime is low despite this freak incident) are not thinking rationally about the consequences or lack thereof either.
- shuckles 4y ago> Prosecution is too late to intervene. The crime has already occurred. Wrong. A small number of people commit most crimes. They have plenty of crimes to commit in the future if able. > The people committing property crime in SF (note that that's the actual issue, violent crime is low despite this freak incident) are not thinking rationally about the consequences or lack thereof either. Wrong at multiple levels. Violent crime rates are high for the demographics, among other things. Property crime like smash and grabs, home invasions, catalytic converter thefts are conducted by professional crime rings with sophisticated operations.
- asveikau 4y ago> They have plenty of crimes to commit in the future if able. You're thinking of recidivism completely wrongly. > Violent crime rates are high for the demographics, among other things. This is false. The information is available to you.