Police barely solve any crime

[Nealithi]

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.

I think protocols change often. It may not be done well, but they do get changed. But I think the police union is a necessary protection for the police itself. It keeps or reduces people falsely accusing the police of wrong doing from gutting the police just because they can. Sadly I have relatives that if they could ruin a police department with accusations. They would lie as they breathe just to make themself seem better by hurting others. I know there are more out there than them.
Flip side. In the case of genuine wrong doing I think a police officer found actually guilty of crime should have conduct unbecoming put on top of anything at trial or plea. So even said plea deal is worse than if the officer was a civilian.

[Frustration]

What's very clear is that it's a bad, bad idea to have a system police itself. It doesn't work with politicians, it doesn't work with doctors, it doesn't work with the police.

If the system actually did work, it could stay functional a long, long time - but you'd have to get to that point, first. Starting with even a moderate level of corruption, the self-policing is the first thing to fail.

I don't expect any existing society to make much headway in understanding and dealing with the problem, especially in the time they have left.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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

Mostly CEOs.

[Nealithi]

What's very clear is that it's a bad, bad idea to have a system police itself. It doesn't work with politicians, it doesn't work with doctors, it doesn't work with the police.

If the system actually did work, it could stay functional a long, long time - but you'd have to get to that point, first. Starting with even a moderate level of corruption, the self-policing is the first thing to fail.

I don't expect any existing society to make much headway in understanding and dealing with the problem, especially in the time they have left.

You have something of a point on having a system police itself and corruption. The reason I only say something of a point however is how do you fairly judge something you do not understand? Stepping sideways a moment. IT work, put a manager to oversee IT but has no IT background. How does he know what they are doing? He has to either assume they are truthful or lying to him. He has to make decisions with no preexisting information.
Now I am not a police officer. The closest I come to that is GTA San Andreas. Now a suspect who was witnessed robbing a store. Is known to be armed, breaks into a house and barricades himself inside. The family is not home, but the family dog is. From the armchair what is the right response? I can tell you they used an armored vehicle and several grenade launchers to put tear gas into the house. Ripping a back wall off the house in the process. The suspect shot himself rather than be taken in. Was this justified? The city does not want to pay for this. Are they right or wrong? I was not on the ground there. It sucks for the family and something should be done. But were the police wrong?


Your last comment. I will bite. 'In the time they have left'?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Police reputation varies from region to region. A lot of factors can stack against a police force, just given the fact that it's a centralized organization funded by local municipality taxes. Like minimum wage, a well endowed city per capita is more likely to have a properly functioning police force that doesn't fall to the trappings of urban decay.

Police in the UK and Japan are supposed to be highly adept at nonviolent de-escalation from what I've heard from recent times internet videos. Hard to compare those two places as countries to the US overall though.

[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.

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.

The barrier to police solving crimes is not our freedoms and rights, which they frequently ignore anyway. The problem is they aren't good at their jobs, if you assume their jobs are to punish crimes and find out who did them.
I'm somewhat shocked that you think it's only public good and civil liberties holding them back from a 100% success rate.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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.

Are you suggesting that police solve the majority of major/serious crimes? Because the article points out that, specifically, is not true.

Because most of the stuff that goes unsolved and unpunished? Is, for all practical purposes, unsolvable and unpunishable.

Got any evidence to support that claim, or are you just giving the police the benefit of your doubt?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Police reputation varies from region to region. A lot of factors can stack against a police force, just given the fact that it's a centralized organization funded by local municipality taxes. Like minimum wage, a well endowed city per capita is more likely to have a properly functioning police force that doesn't fall to the trappings of urban decay.

Except it's precisely the cities full of Urban decay that still have massive police budgets. Look at any major metropolitan area and it's likely to be bigger than all the infrastructure put together.

So spend so much money on them if they don't actually do anything about the vast majority of serious crime?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Police reputation varies from region to region. A lot of factors can stack against a police force, just given the fact that it's a centralized organization funded by local municipality taxes. Like minimum wage, a well endowed city per capita is more likely to have a properly functioning police force that doesn't fall to the trappings of urban decay.

Except it's precisely the cities full of Urban decay that still have massive police budgets. Look at any major metropolitan area and it's likely to be bigger than all the infrastructure put together.

So spend so much money on them if they don't actually do anything about the vast majority of serious crime?

See bold.

I think I should probably reassert that citizens' incomes and house prices tend to have a slightly exponential positive effect. It's not just a matter of businesses.

The places with more unrest tend to have bigger populations that will add to the burden of police forces.

I don't take these to be particularly persuasive details, I don't think you quite follow...

The systemic reasoning that police forces are inherently drunk with power kind of has to do with an inherent conservative structure of more local government handling local affairs out of the purveyance of higher state and federal governments. It's an inherent tradeoff, so I personally think that more oversight would be the condition that makes funding do what it's set out to do.

[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.

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.

The barrier to police solving crimes is not our freedoms and rights, which they frequently ignore anyway. The problem is they aren't good at their jobs, if you assume their jobs are to punish crimes and find out who did them.
I'm somewhat shocked that you think it's only public good and civil liberties holding them back from a 100% success rate.

They aren't good at thier stated jobs anyway. Whether that is thier actual job is matter for another thread.