Police barely solve any crime

[TGLS]

Hm. Kind of puts the "less than 1% of rapists serve time" into perspective.

[Thebestoftherest]

I would advise watching Chuck's review of Rules of Engagement and Tribunal why this is: our police are bound by rules and the bonds of freedom which are innocent until proven guilty, rights before justice, evidence before arrest, criteria must be met.

An actual police state would solve more crimes because they can wire tap anyone, seize anything, raid anyone and say what they like when it comes to crime stats. But that is not freedom. And we have to accept that living in a society based on freedom means that the police will always be operating with one hand tied behind their back.

Only a fool would want the police gone because they are ineffectual. And only a fool would want a police state.

You are right, although would it be so bad if we got rid of the police union, and alter protocols a little bit.

[Draco Dracul]

I would advise watching Chuck's review of Rules of Engagement and Tribunal why this is: our police are bound by rules and the bonds of freedom which are innocent until proven guilty, rights before justice, evidence before arrest, criteria must be met.

In theory. In practice they can just murder a random person, blame it on them, and face no consequences unless they're caught on camera.

Or if they're feeling nice arrest a random person and cut a plea deal because the existence of cash bail means that the choices are fight and lose your job or plea for probation. And your massively overworked public defender will advise the later.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's almost like people make a living by stealing and not getting caught.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I would advise watching Chuck's review of Rules of Engagement and Tribunal why this is: our police are bound by rules and the bonds of freedom which are innocent until proven guilty, rights before justice, evidence before arrest, criteria must be met.

An actual police state would solve more crimes because they can wire tap anyone, seize anything, raid anyone and say what they like when it comes to crime stats. But that is not freedom. And we have to accept that living in a society based on freedom means that the police will always be operating with one hand tied behind their back.

Only a fool would want the police gone because they are ineffectual. And only a fool would want a police state.

Do you really believe it's the rule of law that prevents police from being effective, or are you just playing devil's advocate? Sometimes I genuinely have trouble figuring out what you actually believe.

[clearspira]

I would advise watching Chuck's review of Rules of Engagement and Tribunal why this is: our police are bound by rules and the bonds of freedom which are innocent until proven guilty, rights before justice, evidence before arrest, criteria must be met.

An actual police state would solve more crimes because they can wire tap anyone, seize anything, raid anyone and say what they like when it comes to crime stats. But that is not freedom. And we have to accept that living in a society based on freedom means that the police will always be operating with one hand tied behind their back.

Only a fool would want the police gone because they are ineffectual. And only a fool would want a police state.

Do you really believe it's the rule of law that prevents police from being effective, or are you just playing devil's advocate? Sometimes I genuinely have trouble figuring out what you actually believe.

Mostly, yeah. A police force that can arrest anyone for no evidence would keep more crims off the streets than one that can't. They would also keep more innocents off the streets but that's the point.

[clearspira]

Hm. Kind of puts the "less than 1% of rapists serve time" into perspective.

This also links back to what I was saying. Rape is incredibly hard to actually prove, especially as, like most crimes against women, its not actually a thug down a dark alley that does it. Your rapist is most likely to be your partner not taking "no" for an answer.

If you could just point out any man and say "he did it" then every rapist in the world would be caught. But we have due process that means the innocent must be protected.

[TGLS]

Hm. Kind of puts the "less than 1% of rapists serve time" into perspective.

This also links back to what I was saying. Rape is incredibly hard to actually prove

Here's the statistics I'm looking at. Just looking at the numbers makes it look like rape gets the same or worse conviction rate. Once you adjust for the reporting rate (about half of the other two serious crimes listed), the conviction rate for reported rapes is 50% to 200% higher than the other crimes. Apart from maybe compstat, getting the reporting rate (and thereby the conviction rate) up is going to be a function of culture and not police reform.

[Draco Dracul]

It's almost like people make a living by stealing and not getting caught.

Mostly CEOs.

[Frustration]

There's a lot of minor crime that doesn't justify the expenditure of effort, frankly. Then there's a lot of common crime - sometimes including things like murder - where there's little evidence, no one will talk to the police about it, and similar cases are a dime a dozen.

If you're trying to argue for the elimination of the police force, though, you'd do well to provide an explanation for what you're going to replace them with and how they're going to do a better job. Because most of the stuff that goes unsolved and unpunished? Is, for all practical purposes, unsolvable and unpunishable.