News

I'm not sure you know what you're arguing. You seemed to get really defensive when I said we should reduce the police. So I explained why it is smart to reduce the police.

It's a knee-jerk reaction for people who have experienced criminal behavior to want more police and harsher sentencing. Often times it helps to shake them out of it to discuss efficacy. To ask "what if more police and harsher sentencing doesn't work, or has the opposite effect?" Ultimately, you seem to want the same thing as me - less crime, less violent crime. So why not support things that are more likely to work over things that are less likely to work?

Even if you cut the budget in half you are going to have a really hard time funding and finding people like social workers that want to do that job at 3am.

You're not going to have a hard time finding/training social workers, and they tend to make less than half of what police officers do in most states. They actually spiked really high unemployment rates a few times, and the low demand and low wages of social work is the only thing keeping people from pivoting to that field. You are right about one thing. Social workers are actually required to be properly trained, unlike police (who often don't even know the law they're supposedly enforcing). But I guarantee if the funding showed up, the workers would as well.

There is a part 2 to that of course. There are a lot of people who would more readily spend $1b in police than $1m in social work because "poor people don't deserve anything for free". But you talked like you care about violent crimes not happening, and you aren't getting that by maintaining the current huge police spend.

I am getting crushed because I said not all cops are monsters I definitely think the system needs to change.

I don't like the term "crushed". I expanded upon you saying "Cool let’s not have cops" with pointing out the value of changing from a police-oriented society to a solution-oriented society. Your points were:

1. With fewer police, crime will go unsolved, to which I pointed out that only a tiny percent of police are tasked with solving crimes and pointing out that "solving crimes" means we failed to prevent those crimes from happening

2. That you've seen horrible things, therefore we need to support police. To which I tried to dismantle that and show you that the police did not, and do not, prevent those horrible things from happening, including referencing (without citation I'm afraid. I was tired/lazy) studies that showed reduction in police funding does not actually increase crime rates.

I'm sure other people are giving you more harsh replies, but I'm sticking to just the facts of the situation. In most (but not all) situations, the need for police represents failure by society to do something, something they could have done cheaper without the police. The #1 such failure is insufficient welfare and safety nets, that benefit far more per-dollar to reduce crime than police ever will.

A small "response" crew dealing with volitile situations like a domestic disturbance being escalated beyond the scope of a social worker, and a smaller "combat" crew dealing with things like hostage situations and ultra-high-risk situations... that's mostly all the police need/do that could effectively protect us. Hell, you don't even need a guy with a gun to handle most common infractions like DUIs.