So if you know crime is down, why don't you explain why it's down. I'll start you off by saying this. The increase in incarceration has shown to have only very small influence on the reduction in crime.There are several theories as to why crime is down. Incarceration is generally thought to account for 10-20 percent of the overall reduction. Clinton increased funding in the 90s for police and departments across the country were able to put more cops on the street. Simply having more cops on the beat likely had an effect on the rates declining. Certain tactics like broken windows and hot spot policing have also been effective when they are used. Hot spot, when it was studied, actually worked AND it didn't simply move the crime to other areas. In other words, it wasn't a false reduction, it actually improved.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
There are several theories as to why crime is down. Incarceration is generally thought to account for 10-20 percent of the overall reduction. Clinton increased funding in the 90s for police and departments across the country were able to put more cops on the street. Simply having more cops on the beat likely had an effect on the rates declining. Certain tactics like broken windows and hot spot policing have also been effective when they are used. Hot spot, when it was studied, actually worked AND it didn't simply move the crime to other areas. In other words, it wasn't a false reduction, it actually improved.You make good points, and it appears hot spot policing should be expanded.
Different tactics have worked in different cities, but while they may all reduce crime, some can lead to mistrust between the police and the community they're policing. New York City, for example, saw a large drop in crime due to stop and frisk but that tactic created an adversarial relationship between the community and the police who were patrolling that community. So was it worth it? DC saw a significant decline using community-based policing and concentrated on building trust with the citizens. Other big cities have seen declines and didn't achieve it by putting more cops on the beat, but through a combination of community-based policing and the broken windows approach.
There's no one way to reduce crime. Each community is unique and several large cities have seen a drop and they all used different tactics. Originally Posted by WombRaider
Have you all had any more of that Ferguson style " redistribution of wealth " and "ghetto urban renewal " since last year ? Originally Posted by Rey LenguaFerguson is in the other side of the state, but no with a black mayor, and police chief not as much between police and citizens. The blacks are just busy shooting each other, and drive by's. Seven of the ones killed were sixteen and under.
There are several theories as to why crime is down. Incarceration is generally thought to account for 10-20 percent of the overall reduction. Clinton increased funding in the 90s for police and departments across the country were able to put more cops on the street. Simply having more cops on the beat likely had an effect on the rates declining. Certain tactics like broken windows and hot spot policing have also been effective when they are used. Hot spot, when it was studied, actually worked AND it didn't simply move the crime to other areas. In other words, it wasn't a false reduction, it actually improved.Although Police are using different tactics that seem to reduce crime, it's not just what police are doing that reduces crime, but also the overall changes in our society's demographics. It's always been said that young people account for most of the crime in America. The median age in America is rising, in the 90's the median age was 32 years old in the early 2000's it was 35 years old. Government intervention is another crime reducer. The number of people receiving Government benefits has spiked over the past twenty years. Believe it or not even Social Media has even played a part in reducing crime.
Different tactics have worked in different cities, but while they may all reduce crime, some can lead to mistrust between the police and the community they're policing. New York City, for example, saw a large drop in crime due to stop and frisk but that tactic created an adversarial relationship between the community and the police who were patrolling that community. So was it worth it? DC saw a significant decline using community-based policing and concentrated on building trust with the citizens. Other big cities have seen declines and didn't achieve it by putting more cops on the beat, but through a combination of community-based policing and the broken windows approach.
There's no one way to reduce crime. Each community is unique and several large cities have seen a drop and they all used different tactics. Originally Posted by WombRaider
Originally Posted by WombRaiderWrong AGAIN GLORYHOLE GURU ! Once AGAIN, you try to read into someone else's statement what YOU want it to say. Back to the 'holes with you, EUNUCH ! Go practice your rimming and rusty trombone playing ! You're so fucked up in your feeble cum drunk mind, that you'll probably advertise your rusty trombone playing as a jazz concert !
Wrong AGAIN GLORYHOLE GURU ! Once AGAIN, you try to read into someone else's statement what YOU want it to say. Back to the 'holes with you, EUNUCH ! Go practice your rimming and rusty trombone playing ! You're so fucked up in your feeble cum drunk mind, that you'll probably advertise your rusty trombone playing as a jazz concert !There has got to be a slimy one in there somewhere?