this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
173 points (98.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7194 readers
827 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
pangyuehung@lemmy.ml
yogthos@lemmy.ml
173
An Early Warning That Policing May Be in Decline | Police departments across the country are solving far fewer crimes than they did before 2020. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/usa@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

While headlines tend to focus on falling clearance rates in large liberal cities, the decline occurred nationwide in both red and blue cities, counties and states. The violent crime clearance rate, for example, fell considerably between 2019 to 2022 in big cities, which tend to be led by Democrats, as well as in small cities and suburban and rural counties, which tend to be led by Republicans.

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Portland Police collects 1/4 of a billion dollars every year.

For that:

They don't respond to 911 calls:

https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/08/31/mayor-calls-rebukes-portland-police-bureaus-claims-of-understaffing-bullshit/

They don't do traffic enforcement:

https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/08/31/mayor-calls-rebukes-portland-police-bureaus-claims-of-understaffing-bullshit/

They don't have a gang/gun violence taskforce:

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/06/09/mayor-ted-wheeler-agrees-to-disband-the-portland-police-bureaus-gun-violence-reduction-team/

Even the bike theft team is gone (after having one of their own bikes stolen).

https://www.kgw.com/video/news/local/the-story/portlands-bike-theft-task-force-eliminated/283-7de1f9a1-6f89-40b0-99c9-cb3f54125c89

So what are they doing with 1/4 billion a year?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 26 points 11 months ago

Stockpiling tear gas in case people complain.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I dunno, it looks like it’s pretty much in line with the long-term trend for the past 60 years. It’s also interesting that crime has been generally declining over those same periods (both long-term and short-term), suggesting that catching and punishing offenders isn’t as big a factor in reducing crime as most people assume.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It has always been a question of fulfilling the needs of people. Crime is so often caused by desperation.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Often it is greed

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

They're also making up crimes. First hand account here.

[–] KeefChief13@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why solve when you could shoot

[–] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Why do actual work when you can collect overtime by hanging out at a crime scene with your buddies for an hour or two?

[–] Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is by percent, but not by total volume.

This could easily mean that crime is on an incline.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

They directly say that this is not the case.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The exact causes of the decline in arrests are difficult to pinpoint, but the timing is clearly tied to the summer of 2020, suggesting that changes in policing and America’s dwindling confidence in law enforcement since the killing of George Floyd played a role.

Low morale and extreme stresses in the departments have led to high levels of resignations among older and more experienced officers and significantly fewer recruits to replace them.

It also means significantly longer response times, leaving clues to grow stale and witnesses to disappear before officers arrive.

For a long time, conventional wisdom pointed to factors beyond the control of law enforcement — such as whether a witness was present or whether physical evidence was left behind — as the primary drivers of solving crimes.

But newer research from a criminologist, Anthony A. Braga, presents a clear connection between the amount of investigative resources dedicated to a crime and the likelihood of its being solved.

Civilians can respond to low-level incidents that don’t require an officer, take reports over the phone and aid investigators in solving cases.

The original article contains 1,069 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

The comments here should be good. All well thought out and reasonable. munching popcorn

[–] HoxhasShotgun@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Best warning I have ever had. More of this please. Pigs don't solve crimes anyway.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The point of police isn't to stop crimes, they're an occupying force to control their own citizens. Militarization isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The solve rate for rape is 25%? That's horrifying. What the fuck? We have more tools available to solve crimes now than ever before in history. Get off your asses and give people some justice!

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

There are many issues with this, mostly that a large number of victims don’t immediately seek help and because of the delay (often months or years) cant have a rape kit done.

This reduces the evidence available for finding and prosecuting the offenders.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If women aren't submitting rape kits, how come so many forensic labs have huge backlogs of untested kits?

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Huh, the US seems to have a backlog which is what I assume you’re referring to, Im not familiar with the specifics so can’t comment on the cause.

Older data in this example but it’s similar enough to more recent data Ive seen elsewhere, and has a better sample size.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

Only 31% of rapes are reported and of those 77% are eligible for rape kits.

That’s remarkably similar to the 25% of cases where the rapist is successfully convicted according to the claims above.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago

Justice is something that you tell children to help sleep at night along with tales of Santa and the tooth fairy.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -5 points 11 months ago

I mean no, that is the solve rate for rape that police are willing to investigate, which is basically "the victim is a pure innocent white woman and there is a lot of actual physical evidence unlike 99 percent of rapes"

[–] !deleted488580@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do police actually solve crimes at all? Or are they basically doing legwork for prosecutors by gathering evidence to be used to prove a suspect's guilt (when the cops don't just summarily execute the suspect for being poor or black) or scare them into pleading guilty for a lesser sentence?

[–] quindraco@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Your question makes very little sense. How do you think prosecutors work, exactly?

The order of operations for going to prison is:

  1. Cop wants to arrest you. If the cop has no genuine excuse to do so, this arrest won't go anywhere (they can still lock you up for up to 24 hours at will). If you've just committed a crime in front of the cop, well, that's easy, the cop just puts you away; skip to step 3. If this is an investigation, the cop goes to step 2.

  2. Cop gets permission from a judge to arrest you. This is called an arrest warrant.

  3. Cop arrests you and puts you in jail. At this point you should lawyer up, but as that is not compulsory, it is not a distinct step in this list.

  4. Cop gives evidence to prosecutor. Because there is a time delay between 3 and 4, the cop may do additional investigating before this step.

  5. Prosecutor decides to prosecute (they may choose to dismiss instead).

  6. You go to court. Judge asks you how you plead. You plead not guilty. The media pretends this is notable, even though no-one pleads guilty ar this step (it is called arraignment).

  7. The evidence against you is shown to you. The judge again asks you how you plead. This time you have a genuine choice in your answer.

  8. Optional: if you pled not guilty, go to trial. Jury convicts you.

  9. Judge sentences you to prison.

That's the basic pipeline.

Note that cops don't have to do their jobs at all, which is most likely why, as the article discusses, they don't. Why get paid to work when you can get paid to not work?