Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
The rate didn't drop to 0 everywhere, which makes me think that there was still plenty of people to take reports for the crime.
The study itself states that there was no significant increase or reduction in crime across many cities where police went on strike.
The flip side is also hard to quantify. There is no way to show that if Officer A was sitting in this particular parking lot, it prohibited a vehicle from being broken into or stolen and the would be suspect went to another location and did what they were going to do.
Does marked units patrolling reduce crime? I don't know. It is a basic tenet of law enforcement that visible, marked patrol vehicles with uniformed officers deters crime, but there isn't any way to prove it.
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
This just in... Medical Doctors don't end illness or death. With the best medical care ever known throughout history, your odds of dying are still 100%
It seems fairly easy to quantify. Find a situation where the police stopped doing their jobs (for example, went on strike,) and then analyze reported crime statistics to see if there was a significant rise. If crime jumps up, you can draw a pretty strong statistical correlation to police presence and preventing crime. If not, you have a strong argument that their presence doesn't (since their absence doesn't result in an increase in crime.)Originally Posted by OneGuy67
This study seems to do that, though I'd like to take a closer look at their methodology.
A historical point: back before there were police, citizens voluntarily formed organizations (both for-profit and all-volunteer) to help people who were unable (through poverty, being too busy or being dead/injured by their assailant) to find, apprehend and remand to the custody of the courts the people who were responsible. There was a very sophisticated system of communication between these organizations in different areas, so that fleeing criminals couldn't simply move away and start over. By all accounts it was harder to get away with a crime in America by an order of magnitude than it was to get away with a crime in Europe (which had, by this time, police forces funded by the state.)
What was most interesting to me was, none of this (the volunteer organizations, methods of communication, etc.,) were not mandated by any government official or central authority. Best practices spread via word of mouth and effectiveness was through the roof.
I wonder if that system could be updated to increase law enforcement effectiveness - obviously technology has advanced and at least some rudimentary training in order to not spoil forensic evidence is necessary, but I think the question is a good one that should be asked.
Here's a link to a good overview of the whole situation regarding how law enforcement and prosecution was done at the time of the founding:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
Again, this is not a cop bashing thread. Cops are not bad people, in fact, a cop is our host here. But I think it would be interesting to raise this question:The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.
Is a government-sponsored police force the most effective means to ensure a peaceful, low-crime society? If so, in what way?
The idea has merit, but the jurisdiction of individual groups would need to be very small. If I live in Thornton, and volunteer for Denver, I'm not going to know anyone/everyone in the neighborhood, and as a result, will care less about roughing people up. However, if my jurisdiction, as a volunteer, is restricted to the mile radius around the home I have to return to every night, I'll have a much greater chance of treating people fairly and with respect.
The success of something like this, would depend directly on how closely knit the community is. Just like every other economic system under the sun, some things work on paper, and in very small groups, but will fail miserably on a large scale. Like Communism. Or sharing a work refrigerator. Easy when there are only 10 people and you know every single one of them. More difficult when there are 75, and some jerk from accounting that you've never even met keeps eating your Plantanito pancakes while you are in a meeting.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Interesting thought, but false logic. The statistics you want to rely on come from reports generated by the police. Its called NIBRS. Its a bunch of codes that every report is broken down into for statistical purposes. Each agency reports them to the CBI, who compiles them for the state and then sends the results to the FBI.
So, if no reports are generated, there is no crime reported, although I'm sure crime is occuring. Also, those reports and statistics can be massaged to show an increase or decrease in a specific crime based on how they are reported. Do you have a sexual assault or an unlawful sexual contact? Depending upon how the case is initially written up, it could go either way. How about A DUI or a DUI associated with another crime, like vehicular assault. Only one gets reported, although there may be multiple crimes invovled. Do you put down as the primary crime the most serious or the causation, or the most minimalist?
The big ones obviously are the Class I felonies: Murder, Sexual Assault, etc. What if you have a number of Sunday morning alcohol related regretted-the-previous-nights-sexual-encounter and report a sexual assault? Sexual assault occurs when the one or more of the parties are unable to give informed consent. What is informed consent and where does that stop when alcohol is consumed? Does she need to be falling down drunk to not be able to give consent or is one beer sufficient to be unable to given informed consent? There isn't a standard or a set limit. And in that example, it seems to fall on the side of the female. Isn't the alcohol consumed by the male party also inhibiting his ability to give informed consent to sex?
So, you as the detective, what do you do? You got a female victim reporting an assault, although you have no evidence of an assault, other than sexual contact and the male party admits to sexual contact, but insists it was consensual? The question of informed consent is out the window as both were intoxicated and one or the other shows you receipts from the previous evening. Do you arrest the male and put him in jail on the word of the female, even though the chances are that the DA will not go forward with a prosecution, or do you not arrest and risk the female going to the media and crying that no one is willing to listen to her story of rape. AND...to bring it back to the discussion, what do you code this for NIBRS reporting?
Pancho, you sound like someone really wanting to hear and debate on an intellectual level. It is nice to have the debate and thought, not the bashing. If you ever wanted to meet and discuss these issues one on one, let me know. We can even invite others and have a really good discussion!
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
Please refer back to the first post in this thread; the study cited clearly shows that there wasn't a significant change in reported crimes. If it was as you said (that crimes were simply not reported due to there being no police on duty) then there would have been a 100% drop in reported crime rates.
I've worked with large, volunteer groups before.
The big advantage, in this case, is that police get quite a bit of personal immunity and protection from the state, along with an institutional bias towards their testimony and a large, professional machine that helps to make anything questionable go away (Police Unions...)
Again, this isn't to say all or most cops are bad. But it doesn't take many bad cops to do a lot of bad things, with that kind of institutionalized power. And there have been cases with departments that, if they weren't thoroughly corrupt, had a significant minority of their cops doing bad things (LAPD, arguably even now, NOPD, etc.)
The legal shift to individual citizens would also take away the institutional power, the arguable conflicts of interest with the prosecutor, and the (in cases excepting conduct that was grossly out of line) personal immunity from civil or criminal penalties.
Yes, you may be more likely to rough up someone far from you. You may also just be an asshole and are more likely to rough people up, period. But the rules change from being a cop to being an ordinary citizen, and your actions are looked at much more closely and with less 'benefit of the doubt' by the courts.
I just think getting away from that model might have some benefit. It certainly saves plenty of money, and it would seem to address some of the glaring issues centered around the courts that having a police force (as it stands now) entails.
Anyway, in my experience working with volunteer groups, the knuckleheads vote themselves out pretty fast. A volunteer organization is a social animal, and those who are rude, unprofessional or undedicated usually just find they don't fit in and leave.
Just some thoughts.
absolute power corrupts absolutely
That was a great response Pancho. Great observations.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote