A few places in America have managed to figure out 'Maybe we should send out not cops, but social workers to address the problems the social workers are trained experts in'.
Also no correlation.
It’s almost as if there are social programs which are effective & those which are not—spending on the former is effective while spending on the latter is not. Just like there is police spending (also a social program, BTW) which is effective & police spending which is not.
Sure? But crime didn't fall more than places that spent less. The question isn't why a city might choose to spend more on cops, it's whether or not that spending actually delivers results.
I agree in principle but the study *did* actually find an overall correlation between more spending on police & less crime—the researchers threw it out because it wasn't consistent with their other results.
I think that's probably a valid thing to do—as I've already said, the efficacy of spending >
I'm not seeing where that's said. But apparently I don't have access to the full article anymore. Since crime was down across the board and spending up across the board we expect a correlation between more spending and less crime.
But if you spend more on police, then a higher proportion of traffic violations are committed by cops, and as those offenses are cancelled it results in a drop in reported crime!
Genius! https://bsky.app/profile/mtsw.bsky.social/post/3kj4j76fyyc23
Just absolutely amazing that the police union hasn't been investigated and prosecuted. All of this corruption just out in the open www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/n...
At least 1,232 people were killed by police in the U.S. in 2023, the highest number in a decade. 3 killings a day. 2/3 were a result of responding to non violent crimes. 1/3 were while the person was fleeing. www.welcometohellworld.com/the-people-c...
We keep giving the gangs money, but they just spend it on more uniforms, badges, and equipment from military auctions. Why doesn't crime go down?
The Ess Eff police have an above average solution rate to homicide cases, yet claim to be underfunded. I say keep them hungry they perform better.
It’s FAR more popular with conservatives, true. But the permanent Dem strategy of “please like us, bigots” is extremely questionable, at best. Anytime a conservative has to choose between an authentic fascist and a Dem, they always pick the real thing.
What I’m *really* critiquing here is the Dem gerontocracy. It’s not the 90s anymore, people aren’t conditioned to be terrified of the coming super crime wave with super predators etc.
But to septu and octogenarian Dems (ie Dem Leadership), it’s always the 90s and we must always be tough on crime.
Our problem here is that older people vote more. If those voters are worried about crime, that matters electorally. As the cohorts change, that might also change. As recently as 2022 61% of D's though crime was worse than the year before (might actually have been true, given the COVID crime spurt).
Normie Ds (however we want to define that) *used to* think that. I’m skeptical that’s still true.
I’m skeptical because A) BLM protests had numbers, and B) normie Ds are slightly tuned in on policy. “We need to adopt conservative stuff to elect Ds” no longer applies in normie Ds’ minds, IMO.
In Bloomington the greatest decrease in crime resulted from creating housing for the chronically homeless. It was the most effective public safety expenditure in decades.
