I imagine a lot of the reduction in crime comes just from being visible as much as anything the cops are actually doing. I certainly drive more carefully when I see a cop car or when I drive by places where there are frequently cop cars. I imagine other criminals do the same.
Your suggestion of requiring college degrees for cops is in tension with your general advocacy for "legalizing work" by (among other things) reducing credentialism. This may be a worthy exception, but: do we have evidence, or a plausible theory, for the better behavior of degreed cops being an effect of the educational process rather than a selection effect?
Also, while prioritizing violent offenses is absolutely right in general, we should not ignore the real costs of nonviolent property crimes-- says the resident of a city where you can no longer get many kinds of laundry and personal care products off an unlocked shelf at a store, as you easily could 10 years ago, because stores have all had to lock them up due to the prevalence of consequence-free shoplifting.
I didn’t mean to imply college degrees should be required. Just prioritized in hiring (tho I’m very uncertain on this and open to changing my suggestion for the reasons you stated and more). I also think depts should fund education for cops on the job.
I do think cops should investigate more than the 8% of reported crimes the SFPD investigated when I last looked. But/also the priority should be on serious crimes.
So I have a suspicion that most “hotspots“ are going to be in largely majority minority areas. So, if focusing on those areas is important in reducing crime, which I accept that it is, how do you deal with the charges of prejudice and or race schism.
A focus on deterrence rather than bashing skulls after the fact might help. Also more time spent on investigating and solving more serious crimes rather than heat of the moment run-ins.
I imagine a lot of the reduction in crime comes just from being visible as much as anything the cops are actually doing. I certainly drive more carefully when I see a cop car or when I drive by places where there are frequently cop cars. I imagine other criminals do the same.
That’s what I’ve heard as well. I think cops being visible and NOT doing proactive policing and building trust would go a long way.
Your suggestion of requiring college degrees for cops is in tension with your general advocacy for "legalizing work" by (among other things) reducing credentialism. This may be a worthy exception, but: do we have evidence, or a plausible theory, for the better behavior of degreed cops being an effect of the educational process rather than a selection effect?
Also, while prioritizing violent offenses is absolutely right in general, we should not ignore the real costs of nonviolent property crimes-- says the resident of a city where you can no longer get many kinds of laundry and personal care products off an unlocked shelf at a store, as you easily could 10 years ago, because stores have all had to lock them up due to the prevalence of consequence-free shoplifting.
I didn’t mean to imply college degrees should be required. Just prioritized in hiring (tho I’m very uncertain on this and open to changing my suggestion for the reasons you stated and more). I also think depts should fund education for cops on the job.
I do think cops should investigate more than the 8% of reported crimes the SFPD investigated when I last looked. But/also the priority should be on serious crimes.
So I have a suspicion that most “hotspots“ are going to be in largely majority minority areas. So, if focusing on those areas is important in reducing crime, which I accept that it is, how do you deal with the charges of prejudice and or race schism.
A focus on deterrence rather than bashing skulls after the fact might help. Also more time spent on investigating and solving more serious crimes rather than heat of the moment run-ins.
Agree