Quote Originally Posted by OneGuy67 View Post
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.
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.)

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

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.
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:

Is a government-sponsored police force the most effective means to ensure a peaceful, low-crime society? If so, in what way?