Police don’t just show up, they walk around. At least in non-police states like the US.
And wherever they walk around, crime is prevented. Because a robber isn’t going to snatch a purse when a police is looking right at them. A drug dealer isn’t going to sell drugs in front of the police station. And people drive slower and don’t go into a road rage when the police is riding close by.
I rarely see cops walking and I’m not in the states. That might normal where you are but I can guarantee that cops have to be called, pretty much everytime you need one. They aren’t the deterrent you think they are.
Also when I see one I don’t think they are increasing safety and security.
The threat of violence from police and incarceration by police are also associated with the presence you mention. These also prevent crime from happening.
The “problem” is that it’s physically impossible to have police everywhere, all the time, for that prevention to be meaningful. It’s diminishing returns and exponential cost. So programs to prevent people from turning to crime, like jobs programs, pay so they aren’t suffering in poverty, affordable and accessible mental health and regular health care, addiction treatment, decent housing, etc. are the logical next steps.
But no. We just hire more cops, give them more guns, and the equivalent of military armored vehicles. They choose violence.
If they are only preventing opportunity, the crime will just take place at a different place or time when an officer is not present. The program’s mentioned are aimed at reducing the motive for crime, which applies at all places and times.
It creates marginalized and crime hubs too. Police chooses to be present somewhere (where there’s a perceived interest) and chooses not to somewhere else. Also crime is not viewed equally among the different spheres of society and police just creates its own type of systemic violence in relation to that.
Yeah yeah I know, ACAB and everything.
Police don’t just show up, they walk around. At least in non-police states like the US.
And wherever they walk around, crime is prevented. Because a robber isn’t going to snatch a purse when a police is looking right at them. A drug dealer isn’t going to sell drugs in front of the police station. And people drive slower and don’t go into a road rage when the police is riding close by.
So no, police does prevent crimes.
I rarely see cops walking and I’m not in the states. That might normal where you are but I can guarantee that cops have to be called, pretty much everytime you need one. They aren’t the deterrent you think they are.
Also when I see one I don’t think they are increasing safety and security.
The threat of violence from police and incarceration by police are also associated with the presence you mention. These also prevent crime from happening.
The “problem” is that it’s physically impossible to have police everywhere, all the time, for that prevention to be meaningful. It’s diminishing returns and exponential cost. So programs to prevent people from turning to crime, like jobs programs, pay so they aren’t suffering in poverty, affordable and accessible mental health and regular health care, addiction treatment, decent housing, etc. are the logical next steps.
But no. We just hire more cops, give them more guns, and the equivalent of military armored vehicles. They choose violence.
If they are only preventing opportunity, the crime will just take place at a different place or time when an officer is not present. The program’s mentioned are aimed at reducing the motive for crime, which applies at all places and times.
It creates marginalized and crime hubs too. Police chooses to be present somewhere (where there’s a perceived interest) and chooses not to somewhere else. Also crime is not viewed equally among the different spheres of society and police just creates its own type of systemic violence in relation to that.