The U.S. Has Fewer Crimes. Does That Mean It Needs Fewer Police?

Too much focus on police staffing and relationship to crime. Real relationship is call for services and number of officers. Most police officers rarely engage with serious crime but spend their time dealing with a myriad of citizen calls ranging from auto collisions to downed power lines. Evidence is near non-existent on whether number of police officers has any effect on crime rates. More officers makes public feel better but have little impact on serious crime. The correct number of officers is largely a function of number of calls for various services the department receives and how quickly the calls need to be handled.

But, nyc stopped arresting people that break the law. That's the main reason crime is 'down.' It's worth looking at the size of tje police force, but is that possible with the strength of their union? You'd have to pay them not to work.

"Black Lives Matter activists ... call for redirecting money...to community intervention programs, which could deploy “community conflict de-escalators, gang intervention specialists, and mental health response centers” to deal with nonviolent situations." In my view BLM activists are often part of the problem in that they escalate mayhem rather than help suppress it but here I agree with them. Minority communities must be empowered to 'de-escalate conflicts' while being made accountable for the chronic disengagement from civic life that fuels violence.

The clearance rate for murder in the U.S is about 60% (please note that clearance is not conviction, it just means the investigation yielded the person the police think did it). With that in mind, perhaps with fewer crimes and the same number of police, we can bring more criminals to justice?

This discussion almost never includes a look at the reasons that police departments got to be as large as they are in the first place. In every city in America, cops spend an inordinate amount of time handling calls for service that don't require a gun and badge and are largely taking reports, many of which can be entered into a record system in ways other than rolling the car, the salary, the gas, the oil, the benefit package, sometime the overtime, the tires......

Crime, as a function of economic behavior, has proven to be less profitable than redistributing and voting blocs. There are cameras everywhere and even the dumbest thief, hoodlam or arsonist knows that you have to go to remote areas before your whereabouts are not captured on recoverable video tape and computer cameras and as such the success ratio of deviant public behavior has plummeted to historical lows. Burglary and thefts have become more difficult, even with a police force that is more engaged in social re-engineering like saving heroin addicts from OD’ing by administering overdose reversing drugs. A far more effective method of securing funds is to support candidates that support refundable tax credits, SNAP payments and other formerly “ on the dole” handouts as these can be credited directly to your government provided debit card without any show of force other than voting for liberal Democratic ( mostly although not exclusively) candidates that favor “ income redistribution” so that the hard working tax patting citizenry can support multiple generations of sycophants.

Chuck Wexler: “I would rather have highly paid, highly identified, highly skilled police officers who can respond to these crises,” Mr. Wexler said. “I equate what the police do to an emergency room physician.” The difference being that the police don't take an oath to "...I use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury" - and they are a long way from so doing without prejudice.

The United States believes in punishment. We like harsh sentencing, 3 strikes, and long prison terms. But what science tells us about behavior change is that people need support, alternatives, skills, and role models. We know that because it works for us as parents, teachers, and counselors. But for some reason, when a stranger crosses some line, then we want them strictly punished. Until we seriously invest in prevention and rehabilitation we will spend too much time punishing people and destroying lives that could be productive. Yes, we need prisons and sentencing for violent offenders - we need safety - but if we want a more just and humane country we need to move beyond our current paradigm.

We need municipal social workers who would be called to deal with social problems as an alternative to criminal justice. For example if someone is drunk or high and misbehaving they could be brought in to try and help address the problem. This could even include coercion such as making someone take Antibuse, provided there was due process. Additionally they would liaise with properly funded community treatment centers that would be open after 4 pm and during the weekends when they are most needed. They would funded mainly by taxes on recreational drugs that in proportion to their associated harms. Thus cannabis would be taxed more lightly that alcohol. And LSD or MDMA would be taxed less than cannabis. While I strongly support a treatment based approach the example of Baltimore is problematic. In 2017, 55.8 per 100,000 people we're murdered - the highest in it's history. Before 2015 its murder rate had been trending downwards. This abruptly reversed after the death of Freddie Gray and the subsequent riots. The number of police per capita was cut and they stepped back due to the outcry and the time. This is believed to explain in large part why crime has shot up. A freedom of information request by the Baltimore Sun helped to demonstrate that the police officers were factually innocent in the Freddie Gray case. While in New York City, shootings by police dropped from 314 in 1971 (93 of them fatal) to 23 in 2015 (with eight of them fatal). Reality is complicated.

Absolutely! We need fewer police and more quality schools, since the health of our nation depends not on law enforcement, but an optimistic and productive citizenry. This police state contains far too many hooligans, who themselves would be in prison as violent felons if it weren't for their immunity as police officers. Half the number of cops, at twice the pay will yield solid career professionals, and not as many thugs.

Typical confusion of cause and effect. Next put in false alternatives which are headline grabbers. Then avoid serious discussion of alternatives allocation of resources; it's too much for the public to bear.

The NYT has done as much or more than most in promoting the 'we are unsafe' mantra driving the call for more gun control, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/insider/the-gun-epidemic-the-making-o... so what is the real story? Are the crime rates acceptable now, including homicides? Can the middle class and others continue to ignore the death toll in the low income neighborhoods in their cities? The problem with crime rates is that it can effectively hide dramatic problems depending upon the area under consideration. A rate may be low in large city but very high in a neighborhood in that same city, and it is these areas which need consideration. Anything less is pretty much institutionalized racism.

If crime is down, then perhaps something the police are doing, if only their presence, is working. Rather than cutting police forces, give them the skills to deal with those who commit petty crimes, such as drug addicts, and give them the skills to help those who live with mental illness. They would remain useful and crime rates would likely continue to decrease.

I worked for several years in a laboratory which, among other tasks, diagnosed suspected cases of rabies in a large western state. During the time I was there no cases of human rabies occurred. So, does that mean there was no need for the service? Should the number of technicians in the lab, and the zoologists and epidemiologists that supported them, be cut? No, it meant the public health system was doing a good job. Similarly with police and crime: you don't cut back on what's working. Let law enforcement allocate their resources to do an even better job.

We need to think about the saturation of video cameras as a deterrent to crime. Nearly every store has cameras, and many outdoor locations are also scanned by these cameras. It's getting hard to commit a crime without being observed. Surely this has something to do with falling crime rates.

It means we need fewer prisons, especially private for-profit prisons.

I think we need to have another "track" for law enforcement that has a heavy mental health component. More mental health/drug abuse training and knowledge of community resources that will help these folks who are clearly at risk when they come into contact with "regular" LEOs.

If this becomes a serious discussion, please include the fire departments.

Many, including some in the media, do not understand the strategy called ComStat that revolutionized police response to crime. Before this approach was applied we did much smoke and mirror policing; ‘put a cop on the beat and help calm perception’ that did nothing to lesson the addicts need or ‘give religion’ to someone bent on a criminal act. They would just all go to where the cop ‘wasent’. The big change came when we focused on the INDIVIDUALS causing the mayhem, not the overall concept or populations. The ComStat program made us concentrate to patterns and crime specifics that helped us find the ‘individuals’ we needed to deal with; our success speaks for itself.

When money was tight in New York City in the 1970's, there were significant cut-backs in all NYC employee groups, including law enforcement. There was what now seems like a "mini" opioid epidemic. And crime was very high. Bryant Park was "needle park," and police stood at the top of the subway entrance stairs, almost never going downstairs to patrol the platforms. Sure there are many complex factors contributing to crime rates, and variations in the kinds of crimes that are most prevalent. And law enforcement has many better tools nowadays for crime prevention, and more rapid intervention. There is always a need for more, and even constant, training in the use of deadly force, and community relations. But reducing police force numbers now, in the face of a massive opioid epidemic, when we know that the largest percentage of crime is associated with drug dependence; and when we know that police are using Narcon daily to save lives, would have a terrible impact on community safety.

Another huge factor in decreasing crime rates: legal abortion and more widespread use of contraception. Fewer young males, fewer crimes. Period. Think about THAT, " pro-life " folks.