Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,507 posts)
4. I've read a few descriptions.
Sat Jun 20, 2020, 11:56 AM
Jun 2020

Most of the "defund"-related articles point out a few crucial bits.

They disposed of the old police union. They got rid of bad officers. As a result, crime rates were reduced.



Older ones focused on the idea that removing the old union mean they could sharply reduce worker compensation and benefits.

The result of that being that they hired a lot of new officers. As a result, crime rates were reduced.


One puts causality front and center. While more police probably reduces crime rates, most wouldn't want to say that's the entire reason. Approach also matters, but even then that's not going to be the final word. The other says that the real reason for burglaries and shootings was because people didn't like the police. That fails the laugh test as much as "the cops are nice to me at 1 pm so I won't break into that corner apt. at 2 am when I know the guy who live there is at his girlfriend's."


A third set points out that crime rates were falling nationwide or that a smallish set of individuals in any area usually account for an outsized portion of the crime, and that some such had been incarcerated.

I rank the causes as 1. falling crime rates; 2. more police; 8. getting rid of bad cops.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Camden NJ police chief te...»Reply #4