Quote:
Originally Posted by skyhigh07
Yeah, because speaking in absolutist terms that sound contrived is “truth”. Lol.
Do a Google search - Most mainstream publications and studies show the effect of police in preventing crime is complicated and “mixed”. The latest NYT article on the subject denotes this.
You don’t have to be all in for the police but honestly the scripted extremism sounds ridiculous. Nuance, moderation and balance guys. You should try it…
|
Yes there's two sides to this debate. Totally agree. You can check out that NYT article and numerous others that they've published and they're usually sure to get quotes from both sides.
On one side you have rigorous academics, with decades of data and research. On the other side you have let's see, uh... Police spokespeople, police chiefs, and uh "consultants" who are... Hmm... It seems like they're former police. Definitely two very equally valid sides with equally valid arguments.
In all seriousness, there are some things that cops can do that do increase public safety. Most useful is simply being present, on the street. No need to really do anything, just walking around has shown to decrease crime. If while they're walking around, they're also interacting with people, helping people, building trust, making friends, all the better.
The problem is, cops don't really like to do these things. So when you factor how expensive it is to hire a cop, and how little of their time each cop generally devotes to the few things that actually make communities safer, it's not exactly a great investment. Factor in how cops do enjoy doing things like harassing people, decreasing trust in the police, irresponsibly discharging their weapons, etc. that actually make communities less safe and it's basically a wash.
You'd be better off spending that money to replace lead pipes. Truly, just about anything.