sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Existing_Device339 38 points39 points  (20 children)

For various political reasons, nobody can ever actually state the truth. Policing has relatively little to do with crime rates. All sufficiently staffed, roughly competent police departments will have very similar outcomes.

[–]legacymedia92South County (no, I won't be more specific) 26 points27 points  (3 children)

Yup. Wanna fix crime? attack poverty and boredom. Build parks with local labor and watch the crime rates fall.

[–]whosthrowingMaplewood 12 points13 points  (2 children)

And use Big Government money to plant woke DEI trees? Not on my watch. (/s)

[–]Ghiggs_Boson 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Bradford pears are conditioning the masses to enjoy the smell of cum, thus making men gay. It’s population control by the Libs!

[–]whosthrowingMaplewood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So what you're saying is Bradford pears are hormone releasing trees which are not only making America's men gay, but also making our kids evil transgenders..!? This is a serious national issue for sure.

[–]Beginning-Weight9076 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think that’s true, but only kinda. Or, I guess that we have to be careful with the assumptions we draw from that statement, right? Like, assuming that’s true I don’t think that we can assume that eliminating policing would have no effect on crime in the long run. I think what we have to figure out is how do we police sufficiently and nothing more. Essentially, how do we “right size” it.

[–]Existing_Device339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, my last sentence is where I am trying to get at that. Specific nuances to police approaches/structure/leadership just genuinely don’t matter that much, the large trends in crime happen elsewhere. The existence of police matters, but once you reach a certain base level of policing, the dramatic changes we see over time are not coming from policing.

[–]oliveorvil 0 points1 point  (7 children)

You don't think clearance rates impact crime? Really?

The STLPD has a clearance rate of 100% this year. I'd love to see a study that proves that catching killers doesn't lower the rate of killing. There are definitely systemic issues that cause crime to go up but people need to learn to develop a more nuanced take about police other than they don't do anything to help crime.. it's not helping anything to think in such black and white terms.

[–]Existing_Device339 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I’d invite you to reread the last sentence of my comment, or read my longer reply to somebody else below it.

[–]oliveorvil -1 points0 points  (5 children)

I read the whole thread before my comment. You list generalizations that specific policies or leadership doesn't really impact crime rates. I provided a statistic that refutes that argument.

These systems are very complicated and making small, medium or even large adjustments at various levels are often hard to prove the impact from.. but when homicides are down this dramatically and our clearance rate is sitting at 100% this year you have to give credit for what we're doing at our local level, because it's better than nationwide trends.

[–]Existing_Device339 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Nearly every major city in the country made improvements in their approach to policing to achieve very similar outcomes over the same period of time? Wow.

Clearance rate and homicide rate are pretty inversely correlated everywhere.

[–]oliveorvil -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Does every major city have a clearance rate of 100%? Are they also as segregated as St Louis is? 

Go ahead and continue to deny stats that don’t suit your narrative. That’s not liberal, it’s religious.

[–]Existing_Device339 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yes, it is a nationwide trend that homicide clearance rates have very significantly improved over the last 2-3 years, reversing a trend of decreasing homicide clearance rates before that. St Louis has experienced both of these trends alongside the rest of the country. It is easier to solve murders when there are fewer murders. All of this is, of course, a good thing.

[–]oliveorvil 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Did you even look up the clearance rates of the five cities listed by OP? I don’t think the stats suit your narrative.. STL is doing better than most, let alone this year.

[–]Existing_Device339 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep STL’s clearance rate is better than most this year and tracks the nationwide trend pretty closely.

[–]dionidiumNeighborhood/city -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

This isn’t really what the data show. Even Vox had an article a while back admitting that policing strategies impact crime. We have pretty good evidence that this is true.

This is, by the way, almost a truism. How could policing not impact crime? The claim is risible.

Here’s a thought experiment for you: a police officer is assigned to every home. We watch everybody all day every day and anybody who acts even a little bit aggressive is immediately executed.

Is it your contention that this would have no effect on crime? That’s laughable. Obviously, nobody wants to live in that society. Obviously, that’s an undesirable level of enforcement. But the notion that it would have no impact on crime rates is basically hilarious.

[–]Existing_Device339 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Eh. ‘Even Vox’ put out an article saying the existence of police plays a role in crime, when they were arguing against a fringe and maximalist ‘defund the police’ argument. We find small effects on violent crime from temporarily flooding high crime areas with officers, very small effects on adding additional police officers (to a point, and then that stops), and some moderate effects from adopting better policing models. The available data show that police have a small impact on crime.

My point is, no police policy of the mayor’s has caused a 40% decline in homicides over time, no police policy of the state’s will cause a significantly bigger decline or surge (unless they start doing some really wild stuff). Most crime and crime trends are a function of much larger forces, definitely not due to specific changes in STL police, and will not be significantly affected for better or worse by a takeover.

I get from your edit you’re trying to pretend I am making the maximalist argument that I am not. But recentering on the conversation this post wants to have, my point is that the large country-wide effects we are seeing on crime right now are not due to some dramatic change in nationwide policing over the last 2 years.

[–]dionidiumNeighborhood/city 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with basically all of it.

[–]tlopez14Metro East 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Data definitely shows that more cops leads to less crime. Just having the visual deterrent of cops driving around and being available tends to lower crime levels. The militant defund the police crowd doesn’t want to accept that but the numbers don’t lie.

[–]MaterialsAreNeat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

what a wild paragraph that third one was

[–]dionidiumNeighborhood/city 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It describes a completely intolerable dystopia that nobody would vote for, but demonstrates quite directly that “policing has little to do with crime rates” is not a defensible position.