I'm very open to these sorts of conclusions but a little skeptical that we can draw them from the research here. A few things seem hard to establish in the data:
1) Are the long-term trends from driven by increases in reporting and associating deaths properly with police chases? I know, for example, that police killing databases and records have gotten much more thorough, and by default include many cases (such as chase fatalities) that tended to be ignored in the past. I see the first paper claims to mitigate this to a degree but it's hard to say if they truly do.
2) Would the NYC apply nationally? The transportation and crime environments in NYC are atypical to say the least. I'm also not at all surprised to find it may not have done anything from a deterrence pov, but it's also weird that they only looked at harms and deterrence. I would think arrest and conviction rates would also matter.
It makes a lot of sense that any individual police pursuit is net negative in terms of crime/safety.
But taken collectively, my concern is that a blanket policy of fewer (or no) pursuits would lead to a significant increase in people fleeing police once word gets out that you can just drive dangerously for a few minutes and the police will back off.
I feel like we saw the same thing with shoplifting, once thieves figured out that the security guard at CVS won't lift a finger and you can just load up a trash bag of stuff and walk out the door. Or fare jumping on the subway. Does it really make sense for the police to chase down one guy over a $3 fare? Individually probably not, but unless you do it sometimes, people will start doing it everywhere.
I think technology is the answer here. There's no issue with letting a guy go if a drone is able to follow him home.
Pursuits need to be closely evaluated by supervisors to (unbiasedly) determine the benefit versus the risk. Cops hate it when a sergeant/lieutenant calls off a pursuit, but the bene fit of chasing down the perp has to be weighed against the potential of an innocent third-party, officer, or even the perp getting injured or killed.
I suspect that a "drone-as-first-responder" program could mitigate a lot of this.
Wow, Jeff, a couple of academics coming to a conclusion that we should be more permissive on punishing crime? Who would have thunk it. Definitely a shocking conclusion!
It literally is exactly what it says. Let's be real here - any research that showed the opposite conclusion (we should be tougher on crime - obvious to anyone that has even one eye) would be shelved and never spoken about again. Academics are utter frauds just pushing ideological leftist slop.
Just go online for a week and you'll see social scientists openly bragging about how they would bury findings that didn't align with their hard-left ideology.
"And if you think every academic who works on crime control has those beliefs, you don’t know a lot about the literature."
Oh cool, so criminology is 99/1 hard-left to slightly-centrist?
I like this from Lee Kuan Yew's "The Man and His Ideas"
"Not for him the fashionable liberal ideas of modern-day penology which sought not so much to punish as to reform criminals, and where crimes were explained away by blaming it on some failing of the [society]..."
Theodore, which city is safer and has less disorder and mentally ill drug addicts harassing normal taxpayers? Singapore or New York? How about you give me an answer there.
I submit, again, you don’t know the literature. You know a stereotype. Here’s a recent metaanalysis of 17 recent studies. The conclusion is: more police, less crime, and the article is comparing which ways of deplying police work less. That’s not "defund" or hard left. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/5KXRWYN7EZ8ZXVSKIQFI?target=10.1111/1745-9133.12665
And it should not be remotely surprising. Many crime control academics have law enforcement backgrounds or work directly with law enforcement. That is, they get hired by police departments to advice on department policy. They aren’t going to be hired if they just tell the police that they suck, or give analyses that aren’t actionable. The chiefs talk to each other.
Here’s a city: Boston. Almost 600,000 citizens, about 30 murders per year the past two years. That’s not on Singapore’s level, but Boston is in the United States, where citizens (very much including conservatives) would never tolerate the government incursions on personal freedom that Singaporeans allow. For example, gun control there is nearly the strictest in the world, much stricter than would be allowed in the US. What does Boston do? They are smart about figuring out how murders happen, how to target police, and how to get citizens to help the police prevent and solve crimes.
Just “get tough” doesn’t work if it’s done stupidly. You won’t convince me that PDs are wrong when they tell police not to shoot at a fleeing shoplifter running away on a sidewalk. Maybe that would deter the next shoplifter, or maybe not. If I get shot, or anybody in my family does, I’m going ballistic. There has to be a better way to stop shoplifters - find it. So, yes, you need to look at cost and benefit of specific policies, not just say the tougher the better.
"Maybe that would deter the shoplifter, but if I get shot, or anybody in my family, I’m going ballistic. Not worth it."
Yes, not worth it to you because in your mind the shoplifter is just a poor victim of society. So is the guy that is ranting full throat in a crowded subway. Or the guy that tags a building with some stupid scribble. Or the guy that steals a bike to trade it for drug money. Or the guy that jumps the turnstile for the 75th time this year. All poor victims of society which should never ever have police resources directed at punishing their behavior.
Can you ride your bike to any store in downtown Boston and leave it there unlocked while you go inside and shop for 45 minutes? If the answer is "no" then it is utterly failing at preventing crime.
Will someone that "tags" a building have over 50% chance of seeing any kind of consequence? If the answer is "no" then it is utterly failing at preventing crime.
Progressives have harmed the psyche of the average Western (not just American) urban dweller to such degree that "not being shot/stabbed" counts as "low crime".
I'm very open to these sorts of conclusions but a little skeptical that we can draw them from the research here. A few things seem hard to establish in the data:
1) Are the long-term trends from driven by increases in reporting and associating deaths properly with police chases? I know, for example, that police killing databases and records have gotten much more thorough, and by default include many cases (such as chase fatalities) that tended to be ignored in the past. I see the first paper claims to mitigate this to a degree but it's hard to say if they truly do.
2) Would the NYC apply nationally? The transportation and crime environments in NYC are atypical to say the least. I'm also not at all surprised to find it may not have done anything from a deterrence pov, but it's also weird that they only looked at harms and deterrence. I would think arrest and conviction rates would also matter.
It makes a lot of sense that any individual police pursuit is net negative in terms of crime/safety.
But taken collectively, my concern is that a blanket policy of fewer (or no) pursuits would lead to a significant increase in people fleeing police once word gets out that you can just drive dangerously for a few minutes and the police will back off.
I feel like we saw the same thing with shoplifting, once thieves figured out that the security guard at CVS won't lift a finger and you can just load up a trash bag of stuff and walk out the door. Or fare jumping on the subway. Does it really make sense for the police to chase down one guy over a $3 fare? Individually probably not, but unless you do it sometimes, people will start doing it everywhere.
I think technology is the answer here. There's no issue with letting a guy go if a drone is able to follow him home.
Pursuits need to be closely evaluated by supervisors to (unbiasedly) determine the benefit versus the risk. Cops hate it when a sergeant/lieutenant calls off a pursuit, but the bene fit of chasing down the perp has to be weighed against the potential of an innocent third-party, officer, or even the perp getting injured or killed.
I suspect that a "drone-as-first-responder" program could mitigate a lot of this.
Wow, Jeff, a couple of academics coming to a conclusion that we should be more permissive on punishing crime? Who would have thunk it. Definitely a shocking conclusion!
Not at all what it says.
It literally is exactly what it says. Let's be real here - any research that showed the opposite conclusion (we should be tougher on crime - obvious to anyone that has even one eye) would be shelved and never spoken about again. Academics are utter frauds just pushing ideological leftist slop.
Read it again. Not what it says.
And if you think every academic who works on crime control has those beliefs, you don’t know a lot about the literature. Not even close.
Just go online for a week and you'll see social scientists openly bragging about how they would bury findings that didn't align with their hard-left ideology.
See below:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-politically-guided-science-is
"And if you think every academic who works on crime control has those beliefs, you don’t know a lot about the literature."
Oh cool, so criminology is 99/1 hard-left to slightly-centrist?
I like this from Lee Kuan Yew's "The Man and His Ideas"
"Not for him the fashionable liberal ideas of modern-day penology which sought not so much to punish as to reform criminals, and where crimes were explained away by blaming it on some failing of the [society]..."
Theodore, which city is safer and has less disorder and mentally ill drug addicts harassing normal taxpayers? Singapore or New York? How about you give me an answer there.
I submit, again, you don’t know the literature. You know a stereotype. Here’s a recent metaanalysis of 17 recent studies. The conclusion is: more police, less crime, and the article is comparing which ways of deplying police work less. That’s not "defund" or hard left. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/5KXRWYN7EZ8ZXVSKIQFI?target=10.1111/1745-9133.12665
And it should not be remotely surprising. Many crime control academics have law enforcement backgrounds or work directly with law enforcement. That is, they get hired by police departments to advice on department policy. They aren’t going to be hired if they just tell the police that they suck, or give analyses that aren’t actionable. The chiefs talk to each other.
Here’s a city: Boston. Almost 600,000 citizens, about 30 murders per year the past two years. That’s not on Singapore’s level, but Boston is in the United States, where citizens (very much including conservatives) would never tolerate the government incursions on personal freedom that Singaporeans allow. For example, gun control there is nearly the strictest in the world, much stricter than would be allowed in the US. What does Boston do? They are smart about figuring out how murders happen, how to target police, and how to get citizens to help the police prevent and solve crimes.
Just “get tough” doesn’t work if it’s done stupidly. You won’t convince me that PDs are wrong when they tell police not to shoot at a fleeing shoplifter running away on a sidewalk. Maybe that would deter the next shoplifter, or maybe not. If I get shot, or anybody in my family does, I’m going ballistic. There has to be a better way to stop shoplifters - find it. So, yes, you need to look at cost and benefit of specific policies, not just say the tougher the better.
"Maybe that would deter the shoplifter, but if I get shot, or anybody in my family, I’m going ballistic. Not worth it."
Yes, not worth it to you because in your mind the shoplifter is just a poor victim of society. So is the guy that is ranting full throat in a crowded subway. Or the guy that tags a building with some stupid scribble. Or the guy that steals a bike to trade it for drug money. Or the guy that jumps the turnstile for the 75th time this year. All poor victims of society which should never ever have police resources directed at punishing their behavior.
Can you ride your bike to any store in downtown Boston and leave it there unlocked while you go inside and shop for 45 minutes? If the answer is "no" then it is utterly failing at preventing crime.
Will someone that "tags" a building have over 50% chance of seeing any kind of consequence? If the answer is "no" then it is utterly failing at preventing crime.
Progressives have harmed the psyche of the average Western (not just American) urban dweller to such degree that "not being shot/stabbed" counts as "low crime".