obviously, but that just takes the conversation to a million other sub-topics. how do we better equip people, what is their responsibility and what is society’s responsibility?
If they need to wait for society to improve?
You’ll have to flesh out more what you mean by your question, as I’m not able to parse it.
I watched the Whitlock video starting at that time mark, and the next minute was him describing an idea he has for sketch comedy video who’s comedic value would be drawn from a strawman type caricature of what he thinks some athletes believe. So, not sure how it’s relevant.
he’s talking about the grand gestures, versus something that might actually change racial identity across the board
Studies have that this causes crime to move elsewhere, not effectively reduce it.
Maybe an analogy with r-word-ism might help our anti-abolish liberals…
To some folks, r-word-ism is when some r-word-ist hates poc in their “secret inner heart”. So to these folks, combating r-word-ism means this… identifying r-word-ists personally by their hatefulness, and then fixing their “secret inner hearts” personally not to hate.
To others, r-word-ism is systemic, and not just a malfunction in some other folk’s “secret inner heart”.
Often times the “secret inner hearts only” folks will propose certain schemes to fix out-of-the-closet r-word-ers “secret inner heart” personally… and imply if we just change enough “secret inner hearts” that r-word-ism will have been vanquished.
Invariably the “systemic” folks will push back on that idea. That’s the same exact dynamic we have here with the anti-abolish folks.
To the “secret inner heart only” folks, and to the anti-abolish folks, the system is fine. There is no need for systemic change. In fact… they are most of all interested in preserving the system as-is. Instead… to them it’s a matter of a few bad apples giving the barrel a bad name. So they feel that if only a few bad apples can be made to personally stop hating… like the segregationists and “bad” cops… all problems solved.
To the “systemic” folks, and to the abolitionists, the problems are fundamentally systemic. They are primarily interested in changing the system. To them, no amount of “kumbaya” with out-of-the-closet r-word-ists, no amount of non-systemic police “reform”, can ever solve the problems.
3 Likes
Since criminology isn’t my thing, I’m relying mainly on what I’ve soaked up via the link Keeed posted. Do the studies you are talking about refer to specifically the use of cameras or just any increased attention by police?
If you blanket an entire city with cameras, would crime move out of the city?
Cops were skeptical about the idea of focusing on hot spots.
But Dr. Weisburd won over Mr. Gajewski and other skeptics — and also won the 2010 Stockholm Prize, criminology’s version of the Nobel — by showing that crime was not simply being displaced. Moreover, he and his colleagues reported a “spatial diffusion of crime prevention benefits” because crime also declined in adjoining areas, as the police in Jersey City had observed.
“Crime doesn’t move as easily we thought it did,” Mr. Gajewski said. “If I’m a robber, I want to be in a familiar, easily accessible place with certain characteristics. I need targets to rob, but I don’t want people in the neighborhood watching me or challenging me. Maybe I work near a bus stop where there are vacant buildings or empty lots. If the police start focusing there, I can’t just move to the next block and find the same conditions.”
After more than two dozen experiments around the world, criminologists generally agree that hot-spot policing is “an effective crime prevention strategy,” in the words of Anthony Braga, a criminologist at Harvard and Rutgers who led a review of the research literature last year.
Some of these outliers are pretty fucked up. Even if the overall average is 1% of the budget, that’s higher than I’d have thought, but not exactly a nationwide scandalous issue.
If you’re looking to disband some police departments, you can start with the cities of less than 1500. Looking at you, Butler WI with their bullshit speed traps making me drive 25 all down Hampton.
Still, outliers are just that.
Tough break for team don’t abolish to have Inso on their side
1 Like
How you figure. They’re already on @ inso0’s side. Always have been.
Remember team anti-abolish-cops == team anti-abolish-landlords.
2 Likes
Team don’t abolish consists of roughly everyone, so I think we’ll be okay.
You and the people who run BLM’s platform development team are on a very tiny island. Still, I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t want to see what a month without any police looked like.
1 Like
This could be the case, I thought the research to which I linked was a little more broad, but I could be mistaken there.
I say we come up with a compromise, agree to funding more police if it is all used to fund greater policing of white-collar crime, especially tax evasion/fraud.
1 Like
Have SWAT teams conducting no-knock raids of accounting firms and vacation homes in Palm Beach Island to secure financial records and computers.
2 Likes
Do not agree and maybe that’s all a bit tongue in cheek, but the sentiment is very West Wing Magical Thinking.
Increase funding, but instead of paying in USD, pay them in all those tubes of tooth paste and provisions the extra ICE money went toward.
As long as we are talking about theory, here…
-
On the level of regime change: my feelings align with what I think the research you linkeed might show. To me, a perfect example is Tunisia at the beginning of the Arab Spring era. That was a revolutionary general strike. And yes… I do agree the Che-style fetish for armed bands spewed by some in the cold war era to be poor propaganda.
-
But (there’s always a but)… that’s not saying taking up arms regarding regime change is always less “effective”, or that we want to introduce results oriented thinking. To me, an example might be the Spanish Revolution of 1936. The CNT/FIA had decisions to make, and several of those decisions will always be second guessed. And they lost the war. But I don’t feel I can sit here decades later and say they made the “wrong” choice by raising militias and fighting the fascists.
-
And… none of this is really relevant to situations like the G.Floyd uprising. AFAIK Che-style armed bands isn’t on the table now… unlike in the 1960s era of the civil rights movement. Sure, the MSM decry looting. But again, AFAIK no organized group (on the BLM side) is pursuing a pro-active campaign of organized looting. That’s just shit that happens. The MSM also decry symbolic targeted vandalism of the propaganda of the deed variety (often associated with the black bloc tactic)… which while not non-existent in this uprising, has hardly been prevalent.
So basically, of the non-archaic violence the MSM likes to bleat on about… looting and vandalism… the first is irrelevant, and the second isn’t significant. It’s a red herring. And it’s used to de-legitimatize the uprising.
It is quite possible that my information is outdated. What I remember from the criminology lectures is that when police presence and observation is increased the crime will move to adjacent areas.
We will probably have to differentiate between types of crime. Drunken brawlers are less likely to move 5 blocks over to pick a fight if the police presence is increased in the bar district.
Career criminals on the other hand will not say to themselves “I guess I’ll have to learn to code” when you add more cameras to the subway station.
Robberies and burglaries maybe. Selling drugs probably not, the dealers will stay where their buyers are.
I am overall skeptical that the expected reduction of crime is worth it if we need big brother like observation. That’s a different issue though.
That is of the cities or counties budget. You said police budget. Which i guess would be higher.
Do you have any numbers?
If more cops walking the beat and more camera surveillance were equally useful, which one would be preferable?
I’m am probably more willing than most to accept more “Big Brother-like observation” because I see its value in things like COVID tracking. I am going to consider ideas that libertarians hate in the range of options for what society looks like after abolishing the police.
I wound up going down a rabbit hole of government budgets that ultimately ended with me deciding this is not worth my time today to parse the data. I only checked Wisconsin and Minnesota though, maybe other states are easier.
The bottom line is that the police departments themselves get very little of overall ticket revenue, at least in these 2 states. Any ticket quotas that exist are likely mandated from above the paygrade of the people in the actual police department. The money feeds statewide spending on everything from education to jails to more administrators.