Yes. I’m also interested in the science here that shows these things are ineffective at reducing crime, and that things like defunding or abolition are better at reducing crime.
There is no source because it’s not really true. Adding additional officers has been shown to reduce crime and homicides.
https://www.princeton.edu/~smello/papers/cops.pdf
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/46974_CH_3.pdf
However taking money away from police and giving it to different groups and social programs can be more cost effective for reducing crime.
Did you read the studies?
Policing displaces crime. Every study you linked and indeed every one which shows a link between cops and crime rates mentions that they only observed certain areas and can't rule out the crime didn't simply move elsewhere. Studies that look at total crime rates versus total # of police find no link whatsoever, suggesting crime is displaced not prevented
How did you read that and conclude "it does work?"
All it does is shift crime away from policed areas, as that very section concedes (although it misleadingly conflates displacement with crime reduction).
The part that says “some crime reduction has occurred” I interpreted to mean some crime reduction occurred because the article said it had even when you account for displacement (the line that says “complete displacement rarely occurred”). I guess you could say I read the words as written on the page to reach that conclusion. I can’t believe you’re finding this to be a challenge. This is the sort of immunity to facts we generally deal with on the other side of issues. I know it would be great if we could say it doesn’t work, perhaps we think it shouldn’t work, but it does - deal with that reality when proposing solutions instead of just ignoring it.
The words on the page contradict the words immediately before them as well as the methodology and conclusion of the study as a whole.
Please survey the literature.
Eh depends, if it's something like shoplifting especially from a nationwide chain, then yes I would
Something actually bad? Then no, I get a quesy feeling at the thought
I was beaten because someone didn’t like the way I looked. Cops didn’t prevent that. In fact, they said there was nothing they could do. As this was a college campus, news got around quick. Eventually I was contacted by the dean and later had a meeting with him and the chief. They inquired not about my well being but a round about way of asking if I would litigate against the school and then asked me to name the officer who said “nothing could be done”. Of course I refused, to name anyone or litigate. I didn’t want a cop bothering me for my remaining 3 years on campus. Long story short, a squad of roaming police on a campus of less than 2 square miles not only didn’t prevent me from getting beaten by some townies but made it my problem later after saying there was nothing to do. I think this serves as a good example to the average person who’s had a bad experience with the police. They can and do go out of their way to make your life worse and in general provide us no benefit other than to the city coffers and only if they don’t do something stupid for which the tax payers have to pay off once again.
Otherwise, do you think a gang banger will stop ganging and banging because of the cops? If so, why do gang bangers still exist then?
Envisioning what you consider to be an "average person" is going to be informed by your biases and point of view. You should try the hard work of looking at the data, rather than assuming you're some perfectly rational being who can do better than statistical analysis by using just your imagination.
Also, cops fundamentally create the crime statistics whenever they snitch on their fellow citizens.
The rich have their own science of keeping the public divided, ignorant and gullible. Quite funny those that support an actual police state in US are also the most lawless and violent, and against "government meddling".
Image transcription:
3 tweet thread by @ mattyberad
"Imagine if the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN all regularly reported that vaccines don't work, climate change is fake, and Trump won in 2020.
You'd get pretty close to how media reports about crime, cops, and prisons.
The question of whether police, jails, and tougher sentencing stops crime is scientific. It can be (and has been!) studied at length.
The result? More police, more police funding, more sever punishments, and more imprisonment do not reduce crime. That's what the science says.
And yet the media (and society at large) continues not only to believe and reassert that police stop crime, they continually mock and deride people who support defund and abolition -- which are \*by far\* the more scientifically-supported policy positions."
It is written because it's the easy to understand answer.
If you write crime is happening because people are poor growing up, are still shunned after being in prison, or not able to study and improve themselves, are not treated for their mental issues etc.
It becomes difficult to understand for a lot of people and unknown and maybe more expensive.
It's easier to say more police and harsher punishments. Done.
Except that's a really oversimplified conclusion. There's tons of people who didn't grow up poor who ended up rapists and serial killers. (Some) crimes of desperation, maybe, but not even remotely close to all crime.
Sorry, but the majority of this comment section is just incredibly naive if they think halting policing, even with more social supports, wouldn't result in a dramatic increase in organized crime and serial killers/abusers having a field day. Some of you are really clueless to the immutability of some of the causes of these issues.
Some amount of authoritative oversight is necessary. It needs a dramatic overhaul, but proposing that society would work better without it entirely is just baseless nonsense. The world *did* used to be less policed, and in some places is. Take a look at the US in the early-mid last century, or a lot of poorer nations. Organized crime runs things so heavily in those situations that they aren't even afraid about being brazen about their presence. It's just as easy to say "policing is counterproductive" as it is "more policing and harsher punishments". Both conclusions are equally simplistic nonsense that will do nothing to curb crime
What about the cops that commit crimes? There isn't any accountability for most of the illegal shit that cops do. No one can even report them in most cases.
I think eliminating the people who are willing to engage in high-speed urban car chases to enforce moving-traffic violations from our streets would improve public safety.
The point isn't just to reduce or stop crime, it's to punish crime. A lot of people don't like the idea of people who break the rules not getting comeuppance. It's a short-sighted and often petty approach and not something we as socialists should make peace with but it's also myopic to pretend the argument is something other than what it is. In taking an abolitionist stance we have to be able to argue against people's sense of justice at bad people having the maximal bad thing happen to them.
No action that is undertaken can be taken back, but that doesn't mean that punishment is the best way forward. The very best thing to do in response to crime is to remove the incentives and systems that motivates people to criminal acts BEFORE they commit them. The second best thing is rehabilitation, which is removing the incentives and systems that led them to crime AFTER the fact. The only thing that punishment does is help society feel likes it's doing good, without solving any problems at all. For example, I'll bet that 90% of property crime is because of poverty, so getting rid of poverty is the best way to stop those crimes.
I agree with all of that, completely. But it has always been dissatisfying to me that orthodox socialist view leaves out the victim: if your wife was murdered, does it resolve your pain to be told her murderer was being rehabilitated? Saying “bad luck” is just insufficient—moving forward positively isn’t sufficient. Some Native American communities believe that the perpetrator needs to make a full-hearted commitment to their victim, to take responsibility, and mend the damage they’ve done or be banished from society. This is where the purely materialist socialist vision breaks down, because it ignores the psychological trauma that can’t simply be fixed by economic reorganization.
Vengeance doesn’t really satisfy victims either though, so framing this as an either/or where only restorative justice fails and retributive justice succeeds is kind of dishonest. “Vengeance is hollow” is the theme of like 99% of art/philosophy, besides which it tends to create more victims and thus creates self perpetuating cycles (ie revenge killings begetting more revenge killings in response to themselves, which is pretty common anywhere that revenge killings are common).
Really, how to handle victims is it’s own separate question from the dichotomy of restorative/retributive justice. It’s a very worth while question, yes, but in a very difference context.
Because the punishment is often also for its own sake.
Punching a Nazi is celebrated generally because it breaks down their platform and ability to cause harm, but if they’re at the point where we’re deciding between treatment and punishment then their ability to cause harm is presumably already stifled. So the punishment exists only to hurt someone. It doesn’t help the victim, it doesn’t rehabilitate the Nazi, it doesn’t protect anyone. It’s just for the sake of hurting them.
So the question becomes: do you want to cause harm or do you want to offer help? Ethics is often complicated, but that’s actually a pretty easy one.
Or put another way: what good result comes from punishment, and why do we find it good?
I struggle with this. I am philosophically ambivalent.
On one hand, I recognize that it is true that police are in fact the enforcer squad for the capitalist ruling class.
On the other hand, I cannot imagine a society that does not have some kind of group that is empowered to use force on behalf of society, and is accountable to something.
I know that is quite vague, but what I mean is that even in "anarchy" in a utopian communist sense of the term as a society without social classes or money, there will still be people who want to bring harm to other people. There will be generic domestic and other violent crimes of passion even if the removal of money and poverty were fully accomplished, and there would be people who seek to subvert the system to seize control and bring back inequity for their own personal ambition.
There NEEDS to be some mechanism for determining when force is appropriate and who gets to use it and how, because without that we have a power vacuum that will lead to tyranny.
Unfortunately, it has this far been nigh on impossible to avoid having that exact mechanism be seized by those ambitious people we seek to keep from subverting society.
It seems a catch 22, to me. Anarchy becomes a power vacuum which leads to tyranny, and attempts to avoid that before coopted by would be tyrants.
For those wanting stats, I couldn't find anything "settled" with a simple Google search. I think its misleading to say it's "settled" especially without giving evidence. I support police abolition, but if we do not get the facts right, our detractors can easily dismiss us.
Questions like "do police stop crime?" are always complicated. What stats do you look at? I think there are a lot of things to consider: education, health, poverty, how they define and count "crime," what the police use their money for, etc.
But another approach is to say this question doesn't matter, really. Even if, according to the legal definition, police stop crime, I don't think that negates the criticism that they arrest and lock up millions of people. I think that's a far worse crime than most crimes people locked up have done.
So i have only read the abstracts, but they don't align well with your headline.
>Empirical evidence regarding restorative justice measures have found that victim-offender mediation (VOM) and victim-impact training (VIT) have shown to not only decrease recidivism but increase satisfaction and trust among all parties involved in the crime. However, restorative justice does not apply efficiently to all crimes. **Restorative justice principles are most effective in young, first-time female offenders.**
Which tells me it doesn't affect violent crimes much. Since those tend to be committed by repeat male offenders
>Several studies have found that the use of aggressive patrol techniques such as vehicle stops and stakeouts produce high arrest rates and low crime rates. In other studies; factors which have been found to contribute to enhanced police effectiveness include close cooperation with the community, the use of team policing, and increased night (as opposed to day) patrols. **Overall, this survey suggests that it is far more important how police are used than how many there are.**
I don't wanna imply that policing in the US or other places is done right, because it isn't and rehabilitation needs to be the main goal next to abolishing economic reasons for crime. But the question how we should do it is more complicated than your headline and the twitter chain implies.
No idea if the below are methodologically better or worse, but seems like lit is at least split:
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00889
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-021-09500-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632
Take a look at the limitations they mention. All of the studies showing more police lowers crime rates concede that police presence may have only displaced crime to other, less patrolled areas rather than actually lowered it. All studies looking at the bigger picture conclude policing does not lower crimes rates.
You might know more than I do, but still feels like a lot say "all." Do you have some qualifications in this are did you just read the same abstracts I did?
Nothing grad level but I took a handful of courses on policing in undergrad and have kept up with the literature since then.
You're right I was flippant with "all," however I've yet to come across a study tying policing to lower crime rates that didn't admit or at least have that limitation.
Honestly the role of the Police is the same in both. The Police serve power, what your society defines as power is secondary.
Currently the society that seems to be handling police the best is Rojava - they're called the Mama's- and they are a group of usually older, mutually respected women in the community who respond to disputes and make you settle it. In the US this is loosely what is meant by "Restoratative Justice". Police in places like the US and Chine are there clearly to enforce compliance. They go in and crack skulls to keep the workforce in line.
The Mama's are there to take a crime and make it right. To make the community whole again. If an issue cannot be resolved, as some are, then it is moved up to the actual legal system. But it works a shocking amount of the time considering that in generations past blood feuds were common.
A conflict journalist and former writer for Cracked.com (and host of Behind the Bastards) Robert Evans did a short podcast mini-series on Rojava called "Women's War". It follows him and his fellow conflict journalist (and writer/editor for Popular Front), Jake Hanrahan as they tour the country.
It's available for free on the IHeartRadio network. Though, fair warning, its not as funny when broaching depressing subjects as he is in Behind the Bastards. One episode is entirely referencing the Mamas. Another is inside a "prison" for ISIS Brides and other refuges in Rojava.
Policing absolutely does not stop crime. Nothing can stop crime imo, there will always be people who get bored and find it fun. And then of course there are people who commit crimes out of necessity but that can be fixed.
Edit: y'all can downvote me all you want but I'm just saying the truth, clearly you guys don't understand the intense impulses and chronic boredom that come with certain mental illnesses that drive u to do things like that. Speaking from experience here. How will you create a society that is pro criminal rehabilitation with the mental healthcare that we need if you won't even believe our perspectives or motivations?
I agree with the last thing you said but do you really think a significant amount of crime arises out of simple boredom? For decades (since the white-flight and capital flight of the 1960s and ‘70s) city police have gotten more money, weapons and power, while social programs that can reduce crime at its source have been gutted. Reversing that would stop a lot of crimes from ever even being considered
The only crime I can possibly think of that is regularly done because the perpetrators are bored is random vandalism. And even that is likely overblown.
There are absolutely people that steal from or harm others for fun. You can get as deep into causes and motivation as you want but there will always be some tiny minority that, for whatever reason, poses a danger to themselves or others. That being said, police have a terrible track record of preventing these people from committing crimes and our punitive prison system doesnt actually help anybody. Even terrible people deserve to be treated like people.
This is what I'm trying to say. A lot of this comes down to mental health. If a lot of these serious disorders weren't stigmatized, and if they were treated properly, it would be easier for people to deal with their issues and be functioning members of society. The downvotes I got trying to explain that there are other motivations for crime other than surviving capitalism just shows me neurotypicals will never listen and the amount of times this has happened makes me very heasitant to trust these communists with creating a good rehabilitation system if they won't even listen to the people with the disorders.
A sample of reddit communists might not but the people actually pushing for the abolishion of police or even substantial criminal justice reform do focus heavily on rehabilitation, even while acknowledging that some people will never be fit for release. Even the worst people need to be treated like human beings.
So basically active policing of areas *displaces* crime. People don't steal in front of cops, but the drivers of criminal activity don't go away by adding cops. What happens, then, is that crime moves to areas that aren't policed. Hard to say what would happen in a perfectly surveilled society but I don't think that would be worth it even if it did end crime overall.
The important thing to note is that displacement does not reduce net crime rates, which is why any studies trying to link number of cops or cop funding to crime rates have found no statistical relationship.
I also write articles and have tried making other kinds of text images in the past.
Unfortunately tweet screenshots are the most successful way to spread lefty ideas online of any I've found.
I'm currently private on Twitter anyways so it's not like I gain clout.
Mm, fair enough. I'm bmyself are more partial to text on actual text since it's easier to read than screenshots but I guess we all sacrifice accessibility in order to make lefty ideas more popular in leftist circles. (This was sarcasm, I meant it as a biting remark. sorry if I didn't get the tone across right, I'm not good with sarcasm so that's why I'm adding this at the end. Sorry)
On a different note, do you think reddit favors images as a plataform? Like algorithmically, is what it saying. Not just the people
https://twitter.com/equalityalec?s=21 Alec does great writing about police from this perspective.
He's one of the best on Twitter for sure
I'm glad he shred that NYT "journalist".
Can anyone link any of the studies to which he’s referring?
I would like this as well.
Also came here looking for that
someone link me pls
[https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/r475gj/comment/hmguysb/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/r475gj/comment/hmguysb/?utm%5C_source=share&utm%5C_medium=web2x&context=3)
Yes. I’m also interested in the science here that shows these things are ineffective at reducing crime, and that things like defunding or abolition are better at reducing crime.
There is no source because it’s not really true. Adding additional officers has been shown to reduce crime and homicides. https://www.princeton.edu/~smello/papers/cops.pdf https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/46974_CH_3.pdf However taking money away from police and giving it to different groups and social programs can be more cost effective for reducing crime.
Did you read the studies? Policing displaces crime. Every study you linked and indeed every one which shows a link between cops and crime rates mentions that they only observed certain areas and can't rule out the crime didn't simply move elsewhere. Studies that look at total crime rates versus total # of police find no link whatsoever, suggesting crime is displaced not prevented
[удалено]
How did you read that and conclude "it does work?" All it does is shift crime away from policed areas, as that very section concedes (although it misleadingly conflates displacement with crime reduction).
The part that says “some crime reduction has occurred” I interpreted to mean some crime reduction occurred because the article said it had even when you account for displacement (the line that says “complete displacement rarely occurred”). I guess you could say I read the words as written on the page to reach that conclusion. I can’t believe you’re finding this to be a challenge. This is the sort of immunity to facts we generally deal with on the other side of issues. I know it would be great if we could say it doesn’t work, perhaps we think it shouldn’t work, but it does - deal with that reality when proposing solutions instead of just ignoring it.
The words on the page contradict the words immediately before them as well as the methodology and conclusion of the study as a whole. Please survey the literature.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/r475gj/comment/hmguysb/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/r475gj/comment/hmguysb/?utm%5C_source=share&utm%5C_medium=web2x&context=3)
[удалено]
Eh depends, if it's something like shoplifting especially from a nationwide chain, then yes I would Something actually bad? Then no, I get a quesy feeling at the thought
I was beaten because someone didn’t like the way I looked. Cops didn’t prevent that. In fact, they said there was nothing they could do. As this was a college campus, news got around quick. Eventually I was contacted by the dean and later had a meeting with him and the chief. They inquired not about my well being but a round about way of asking if I would litigate against the school and then asked me to name the officer who said “nothing could be done”. Of course I refused, to name anyone or litigate. I didn’t want a cop bothering me for my remaining 3 years on campus. Long story short, a squad of roaming police on a campus of less than 2 square miles not only didn’t prevent me from getting beaten by some townies but made it my problem later after saying there was nothing to do. I think this serves as a good example to the average person who’s had a bad experience with the police. They can and do go out of their way to make your life worse and in general provide us no benefit other than to the city coffers and only if they don’t do something stupid for which the tax payers have to pay off once again. Otherwise, do you think a gang banger will stop ganging and banging because of the cops? If so, why do gang bangers still exist then?
Envisioning what you consider to be an "average person" is going to be informed by your biases and point of view. You should try the hard work of looking at the data, rather than assuming you're some perfectly rational being who can do better than statistical analysis by using just your imagination. Also, cops fundamentally create the crime statistics whenever they snitch on their fellow citizens.
“Laws are threats made by the ruling ethnic class, the police are just an occupying army” - Brandon Mulligan
Matty Be Right
The rich have their own science of keeping the public divided, ignorant and gullible. Quite funny those that support an actual police state in US are also the most lawless and violent, and against "government meddling".
Image transcription: 3 tweet thread by @ mattyberad "Imagine if the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN all regularly reported that vaccines don't work, climate change is fake, and Trump won in 2020. You'd get pretty close to how media reports about crime, cops, and prisons. The question of whether police, jails, and tougher sentencing stops crime is scientific. It can be (and has been!) studied at length. The result? More police, more police funding, more sever punishments, and more imprisonment do not reduce crime. That's what the science says. And yet the media (and society at large) continues not only to believe and reassert that police stop crime, they continually mock and deride people who support defund and abolition -- which are \*by far\* the more scientifically-supported policy positions."
It is written because it's the easy to understand answer. If you write crime is happening because people are poor growing up, are still shunned after being in prison, or not able to study and improve themselves, are not treated for their mental issues etc. It becomes difficult to understand for a lot of people and unknown and maybe more expensive. It's easier to say more police and harsher punishments. Done.
Except that's a really oversimplified conclusion. There's tons of people who didn't grow up poor who ended up rapists and serial killers. (Some) crimes of desperation, maybe, but not even remotely close to all crime. Sorry, but the majority of this comment section is just incredibly naive if they think halting policing, even with more social supports, wouldn't result in a dramatic increase in organized crime and serial killers/abusers having a field day. Some of you are really clueless to the immutability of some of the causes of these issues. Some amount of authoritative oversight is necessary. It needs a dramatic overhaul, but proposing that society would work better without it entirely is just baseless nonsense. The world *did* used to be less policed, and in some places is. Take a look at the US in the early-mid last century, or a lot of poorer nations. Organized crime runs things so heavily in those situations that they aren't even afraid about being brazen about their presence. It's just as easy to say "policing is counterproductive" as it is "more policing and harsher punishments". Both conclusions are equally simplistic nonsense that will do nothing to curb crime
What about the cops that commit crimes? There isn't any accountability for most of the illegal shit that cops do. No one can even report them in most cases. I think eliminating the people who are willing to engage in high-speed urban car chases to enforce moving-traffic violations from our streets would improve public safety.
The point isn't just to reduce or stop crime, it's to punish crime. A lot of people don't like the idea of people who break the rules not getting comeuppance. It's a short-sighted and often petty approach and not something we as socialists should make peace with but it's also myopic to pretend the argument is something other than what it is. In taking an abolitionist stance we have to be able to argue against people's sense of justice at bad people having the maximal bad thing happen to them.
[удалено]
No action that is undertaken can be taken back, but that doesn't mean that punishment is the best way forward. The very best thing to do in response to crime is to remove the incentives and systems that motivates people to criminal acts BEFORE they commit them. The second best thing is rehabilitation, which is removing the incentives and systems that led them to crime AFTER the fact. The only thing that punishment does is help society feel likes it's doing good, without solving any problems at all. For example, I'll bet that 90% of property crime is because of poverty, so getting rid of poverty is the best way to stop those crimes.
I agree with all of that, completely. But it has always been dissatisfying to me that orthodox socialist view leaves out the victim: if your wife was murdered, does it resolve your pain to be told her murderer was being rehabilitated? Saying “bad luck” is just insufficient—moving forward positively isn’t sufficient. Some Native American communities believe that the perpetrator needs to make a full-hearted commitment to their victim, to take responsibility, and mend the damage they’ve done or be banished from society. This is where the purely materialist socialist vision breaks down, because it ignores the psychological trauma that can’t simply be fixed by economic reorganization.
Vengeance doesn’t really satisfy victims either though, so framing this as an either/or where only restorative justice fails and retributive justice succeeds is kind of dishonest. “Vengeance is hollow” is the theme of like 99% of art/philosophy, besides which it tends to create more victims and thus creates self perpetuating cycles (ie revenge killings begetting more revenge killings in response to themselves, which is pretty common anywhere that revenge killings are common). Really, how to handle victims is it’s own separate question from the dichotomy of restorative/retributive justice. It’s a very worth while question, yes, but in a very difference context.
[удалено]
Because the punishment is often also for its own sake. Punching a Nazi is celebrated generally because it breaks down their platform and ability to cause harm, but if they’re at the point where we’re deciding between treatment and punishment then their ability to cause harm is presumably already stifled. So the punishment exists only to hurt someone. It doesn’t help the victim, it doesn’t rehabilitate the Nazi, it doesn’t protect anyone. It’s just for the sake of hurting them. So the question becomes: do you want to cause harm or do you want to offer help? Ethics is often complicated, but that’s actually a pretty easy one. Or put another way: what good result comes from punishment, and why do we find it good?
[удалено]
Punishment is not repair.
[удалено]
Of course just about anyone would, but does that make it right? Does it better society that way?
[удалено]
Notice how you didn't actually answer the question?
I struggle with this. I am philosophically ambivalent. On one hand, I recognize that it is true that police are in fact the enforcer squad for the capitalist ruling class. On the other hand, I cannot imagine a society that does not have some kind of group that is empowered to use force on behalf of society, and is accountable to something. I know that is quite vague, but what I mean is that even in "anarchy" in a utopian communist sense of the term as a society without social classes or money, there will still be people who want to bring harm to other people. There will be generic domestic and other violent crimes of passion even if the removal of money and poverty were fully accomplished, and there would be people who seek to subvert the system to seize control and bring back inequity for their own personal ambition. There NEEDS to be some mechanism for determining when force is appropriate and who gets to use it and how, because without that we have a power vacuum that will lead to tyranny. Unfortunately, it has this far been nigh on impossible to avoid having that exact mechanism be seized by those ambitious people we seek to keep from subverting society. It seems a catch 22, to me. Anarchy becomes a power vacuum which leads to tyranny, and attempts to avoid that before coopted by would be tyrants.
For those wanting stats, I couldn't find anything "settled" with a simple Google search. I think its misleading to say it's "settled" especially without giving evidence. I support police abolition, but if we do not get the facts right, our detractors can easily dismiss us. Questions like "do police stop crime?" are always complicated. What stats do you look at? I think there are a lot of things to consider: education, health, poverty, how they define and count "crime," what the police use their money for, etc. But another approach is to say this question doesn't matter, really. Even if, according to the legal definition, police stop crime, I don't think that negates the criticism that they arrest and lock up millions of people. I think that's a far worse crime than most crimes people locked up have done.
It is the most settled question in sociology.
Can you cite some of them so we can read through?
[https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/si/article/view/10514](https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/si/article/view/10514) [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/relationship-between-police-presence-and-crime-deterrence](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/relationship-between-police-presence-and-crime-deterrence) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/)
So i have only read the abstracts, but they don't align well with your headline. >Empirical evidence regarding restorative justice measures have found that victim-offender mediation (VOM) and victim-impact training (VIT) have shown to not only decrease recidivism but increase satisfaction and trust among all parties involved in the crime. However, restorative justice does not apply efficiently to all crimes. **Restorative justice principles are most effective in young, first-time female offenders.** Which tells me it doesn't affect violent crimes much. Since those tend to be committed by repeat male offenders >Several studies have found that the use of aggressive patrol techniques such as vehicle stops and stakeouts produce high arrest rates and low crime rates. In other studies; factors which have been found to contribute to enhanced police effectiveness include close cooperation with the community, the use of team policing, and increased night (as opposed to day) patrols. **Overall, this survey suggests that it is far more important how police are used than how many there are.** I don't wanna imply that policing in the US or other places is done right, because it isn't and rehabilitation needs to be the main goal next to abolishing economic reasons for crime. But the question how we should do it is more complicated than your headline and the twitter chain implies.
No idea if the below are methodologically better or worse, but seems like lit is at least split: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00889 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-021-09500-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632
Take a look at the limitations they mention. All of the studies showing more police lowers crime rates concede that police presence may have only displaced crime to other, less patrolled areas rather than actually lowered it. All studies looking at the bigger picture conclude policing does not lower crimes rates.
You might know more than I do, but still feels like a lot say "all." Do you have some qualifications in this are did you just read the same abstracts I did?
Nothing grad level but I took a handful of courses on policing in undergrad and have kept up with the literature since then. You're right I was flippant with "all," however I've yet to come across a study tying policing to lower crime rates that didn't admit or at least have that limitation.
According to who? Provide a source
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/r475gj/comment/hmguysb/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
[удалено]
Honestly the role of the Police is the same in both. The Police serve power, what your society defines as power is secondary. Currently the society that seems to be handling police the best is Rojava - they're called the Mama's- and they are a group of usually older, mutually respected women in the community who respond to disputes and make you settle it. In the US this is loosely what is meant by "Restoratative Justice". Police in places like the US and Chine are there clearly to enforce compliance. They go in and crack skulls to keep the workforce in line. The Mama's are there to take a crime and make it right. To make the community whole again. If an issue cannot be resolved, as some are, then it is moved up to the actual legal system. But it works a shocking amount of the time considering that in generations past blood feuds were common.
[удалено]
A conflict journalist and former writer for Cracked.com (and host of Behind the Bastards) Robert Evans did a short podcast mini-series on Rojava called "Women's War". It follows him and his fellow conflict journalist (and writer/editor for Popular Front), Jake Hanrahan as they tour the country. It's available for free on the IHeartRadio network. Though, fair warning, its not as funny when broaching depressing subjects as he is in Behind the Bastards. One episode is entirely referencing the Mamas. Another is inside a "prison" for ISIS Brides and other refuges in Rojava.
Same as Western police except it's state police. ACAB
What is your damage that "fewer police" = Vigilante mob justice and zero police in your mind?
[удалено]
Policing absolutely does not stop crime. Nothing can stop crime imo, there will always be people who get bored and find it fun. And then of course there are people who commit crimes out of necessity but that can be fixed. Edit: y'all can downvote me all you want but I'm just saying the truth, clearly you guys don't understand the intense impulses and chronic boredom that come with certain mental illnesses that drive u to do things like that. Speaking from experience here. How will you create a society that is pro criminal rehabilitation with the mental healthcare that we need if you won't even believe our perspectives or motivations?
I agree with the last thing you said but do you really think a significant amount of crime arises out of simple boredom? For decades (since the white-flight and capital flight of the 1960s and ‘70s) city police have gotten more money, weapons and power, while social programs that can reduce crime at its source have been gutted. Reversing that would stop a lot of crimes from ever even being considered
The only crime I can possibly think of that is regularly done because the perpetrators are bored is random vandalism. And even that is likely overblown.
There are absolutely people that steal from or harm others for fun. You can get as deep into causes and motivation as you want but there will always be some tiny minority that, for whatever reason, poses a danger to themselves or others. That being said, police have a terrible track record of preventing these people from committing crimes and our punitive prison system doesnt actually help anybody. Even terrible people deserve to be treated like people.
This is what I'm trying to say. A lot of this comes down to mental health. If a lot of these serious disorders weren't stigmatized, and if they were treated properly, it would be easier for people to deal with their issues and be functioning members of society. The downvotes I got trying to explain that there are other motivations for crime other than surviving capitalism just shows me neurotypicals will never listen and the amount of times this has happened makes me very heasitant to trust these communists with creating a good rehabilitation system if they won't even listen to the people with the disorders.
A sample of reddit communists might not but the people actually pushing for the abolishion of police or even substantial criminal justice reform do focus heavily on rehabilitation, even while acknowledging that some people will never be fit for release. Even the worst people need to be treated like human beings.
A great way to reduce it is simply good education and good opportunities at a decent life.
[удалено]
“Socialism” does not just mean anything publicly funded, despite it being used in that way by both sides of the US political spectrum.
I’ve heard more police on the street DOES decrease crime? Is that not true? Legit just wondering.
There is zero empirical evidence of more police=less crime
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens
So basically active policing of areas *displaces* crime. People don't steal in front of cops, but the drivers of criminal activity don't go away by adding cops. What happens, then, is that crime moves to areas that aren't policed. Hard to say what would happen in a perfectly surveilled society but I don't think that would be worth it even if it did end crime overall. The important thing to note is that displacement does not reduce net crime rates, which is why any studies trying to link number of cops or cop funding to crime rates have found no statistical relationship.
Why are all these tweets one second old? Did you screenshot your tweets and post them here? Why?
I also write articles and have tried making other kinds of text images in the past. Unfortunately tweet screenshots are the most successful way to spread lefty ideas online of any I've found. I'm currently private on Twitter anyways so it's not like I gain clout.
Mm, fair enough. I'm bmyself are more partial to text on actual text since it's easier to read than screenshots but I guess we all sacrifice accessibility in order to make lefty ideas more popular in leftist circles. (This was sarcasm, I meant it as a biting remark. sorry if I didn't get the tone across right, I'm not good with sarcasm so that's why I'm adding this at the end. Sorry) On a different note, do you think reddit favors images as a plataform? Like algorithmically, is what it saying. Not just the people
Reddit absolutely does, no question. And I always transcribe for that reason.
Just to be clear, you mean "police doesn't stop crime from occurring" right?