The policy of the Memphis PD was to “clean up the streets.” We see how that worked out. In Atlanta, 1,000 National Guard may be called up to evict violent protestors from "Cop City"
While the "defunders" (for lack of a better term) are way off base in terms of trying to eliminate policing entirely, there are good ideas in terms of setting up non-police public safety/response units who are trained to deescalate situations.
It’s a recruiting a budgeting issue. Plus, mental health counselors are not law enforcement. They don’t go in to violent situations. Remaking policing by adding counselors is a good idea on paper but in practice tends to fail in making good teams.
I'd argue it's more a culture issue within the police (as you noted) than a budget issue (police budgets have grown, not shrunk), and that needs be addressed: the mentality of the "thin blue line", the mentality that police officers need to have each others' backs over the interest of the law and the populace.
I didn't say mental health counselors, though undoubtedly many of the issues that lead to crime occurring could be resolved by providing wide access to physical health/mental health/housing/food/rehab centers...
Using police in non-violent situations often leads to violent escalation by the police. Think about that autistic kid that was sitting in the middle of the road with a toy truck, with his care worker being shot while being next to him (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/north-miami-police-officers-shoot-man-aiding-patient-with-autism.html). A non-police unit of some sort is needed, whether working independently or in coordination with the police to ensure if violence occurs there can be action taken.
We use the police as a do-all tool: they can't and shouldn't be, and all the recruiting or budget increases in the world won't change that.
You are not wrong but how do we afford it all? If we could only fund a parallel organization to supplement every agency that occasionally needs another level of expertise. I fear that half the population would become government employees with all of the government's built-in inefficiencies.
It's a matter of priorities: if we prioritized getting people what they need before they get to the point of needing to commit crime, then they wouldn't be sent to jail - and it's really expensive to put people in jail, so if less are sent to prison then those dollars would assumedly be free to go towards those support services.
Nothing will ever be perfect. Some crime will still occur, some inefficiency will always be around, but we can do better, and we can improve efficiency - if we wanted to do so.
I hate to put it this way, but: we get the society we pay for.
A constitutional federal republic such as ours depends on voters, elected officials and government employees being men of good character to preserve the individual freedoms we enjoy. It is not well suited for simply throwing money at all the problems that can arise. I believe the founding fathers intended that it be difficult to convict individuals of criminal behavior but that, once convicted, the punishment should be swift and certain. A population composed of 20% criminals was never anticipated.
Maybe we have to many people. We certainly have too many career politicians. Changes in leadership and legislators should be forced every decade or so.
Money will be spent regardless: the question is whether we spend it on the well-being of our populace or whether we spend it incarcerating our populace. As with most things: prevention is less expensive than treatment, and thus it is with providing social services and incarceration.
I agree that the problem is political. Like everyone else, I do not know how to hold the people running the show accountable to the citizens without politics.
While the "defunders" (for lack of a better term) are way off base in terms of trying to eliminate policing entirely, there are good ideas in terms of setting up non-police public safety/response units who are trained to deescalate situations.
It’s a recruiting a budgeting issue. Plus, mental health counselors are not law enforcement. They don’t go in to violent situations. Remaking policing by adding counselors is a good idea on paper but in practice tends to fail in making good teams.
I'd argue it's more a culture issue within the police (as you noted) than a budget issue (police budgets have grown, not shrunk), and that needs be addressed: the mentality of the "thin blue line", the mentality that police officers need to have each others' backs over the interest of the law and the populace.
I didn't say mental health counselors, though undoubtedly many of the issues that lead to crime occurring could be resolved by providing wide access to physical health/mental health/housing/food/rehab centers...
Using police in non-violent situations often leads to violent escalation by the police. Think about that autistic kid that was sitting in the middle of the road with a toy truck, with his care worker being shot while being next to him (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/north-miami-police-officers-shoot-man-aiding-patient-with-autism.html). A non-police unit of some sort is needed, whether working independently or in coordination with the police to ensure if violence occurs there can be action taken.
We use the police as a do-all tool: they can't and shouldn't be, and all the recruiting or budget increases in the world won't change that.
You are not wrong but how do we afford it all? If we could only fund a parallel organization to supplement every agency that occasionally needs another level of expertise. I fear that half the population would become government employees with all of the government's built-in inefficiencies.
It's a matter of priorities: if we prioritized getting people what they need before they get to the point of needing to commit crime, then they wouldn't be sent to jail - and it's really expensive to put people in jail, so if less are sent to prison then those dollars would assumedly be free to go towards those support services.
Nothing will ever be perfect. Some crime will still occur, some inefficiency will always be around, but we can do better, and we can improve efficiency - if we wanted to do so.
I hate to put it this way, but: we get the society we pay for.
A constitutional federal republic such as ours depends on voters, elected officials and government employees being men of good character to preserve the individual freedoms we enjoy. It is not well suited for simply throwing money at all the problems that can arise. I believe the founding fathers intended that it be difficult to convict individuals of criminal behavior but that, once convicted, the punishment should be swift and certain. A population composed of 20% criminals was never anticipated.
Maybe we have to many people. We certainly have too many career politicians. Changes in leadership and legislators should be forced every decade or so.
Money will be spent regardless: the question is whether we spend it on the well-being of our populace or whether we spend it incarcerating our populace. As with most things: prevention is less expensive than treatment, and thus it is with providing social services and incarceration.
I agree that the problem is political. Like everyone else, I do not know how to hold the people running the show accountable to the citizens without politics.