What has you rejecting a much simpler hypothesis that strict law enforcement makes cities safe? pursing, arresting, and severe punishment of criminals.
You've just blended all of justice system into a single metric that is too basic.
If you want 'tough on crime' that actually works, but you have to be tough on all crime, including crime in the police. And make sure the entire justice process works.
UK has a 'tough on crime' government, they've increased severity of sentences, but have cut funding to the police. The rate of prosecution, i.e. how likely you are to get caught, fell off a cliff. Also now that police is poorly paid, we have corruption in the police.
Research shows that certainty of punishment is far more important than severity of punishment. Criminals are chancers.
Then we have to make sure that suspects get proper legal council. The current plea bargain system in US is absurd. You can prosecute some poor shmuck for a crime, they can't afford a lawyer, and state lawyer sucks, so they take the plea. Taxpayer pays for their imprisonment, police reports great success. Meanwhile real criminal goes free to commit more crimes with more experience. And they will be harder to catch next time.
Most european countries do not have severe punishment of criminals, yet crime rates aren't crazy.
I havent been to US, so i am not sure about any Bay Area shenanigans
> Research shows that certainty of punishment is far more important than severity of punishment.
So we completely agree because I’m pretty sure that is all that actually matters.
The issue in US currently is a deranged political fade has taken hold that sees criminals as victims of their circumstances and has started not punishing criminals.
It can be simultaneously true that criminal behavior is often a result of bad circumstances AND that it requires consistent punishment, not that the first point negates the 2nd. Instead social programs need to focus on improving circumstances that lead to criminal behavior not removing punishments.
This political fade is a bankrupt flawed ideology that is effectively mass social psychosis or insanity.
> It can be simultaneously true that criminal behavior is often a result of bad circumstances AND that it requires consistent punishment, not that the first point negates the 2nd. Instead social programs need to focus on improving circumstances that lead to criminal behavior not removing punishments.
The problem is there’s another flawed political ideology that tells us that—investing in social programs to improve the circumstances that lead to criminal behavior—is bad because communism.
The fact that many US cities have very strict law enforcement and yet they're on the list. Meanwhile, I really wouldn't say we have as strong law enforcement here in EU as it is in the US.
UK is regarded as extremely highly policed state by other Europeans and yet it's less safe than here in mainland Europe.
The street police doesn't carry guns, but what about all these cameras? That'd be considered a serious breach of privacy and personal freedom where I live.
My police is approachable and I don't care about the gun on their belt. I saw them use it for protection of the citizens - I appreciate they have it and don't consider it over-policing, it's not moving that scale anywhere.
It's not about the gun, it's about the rights of the police. The police here carries a gun but has zero rights/power against citizens not breaking any laws. They can't even stop you and ask for your ID - that would be considered "communism" here (same with the cameras, that's a "communist practice").
