I would add that -- just speaking as someone who hasn't actually looked into it -- one more reason this seems to happen is that it seems like in many places the police have either just decided that, like, they just don't care about certain people? Or even that their job is to make thing harder for people they don't like. This overlaps with #1 and #3 of course. Of course it doesn't explain a *general* failure to solve crimes... O_o
I completely agree with your point that violating civil liberties does not make is safer. But most people I know that think we should have more policing do not want more civil liberty violations, they want to increase funding police departments and hire more cops. Your 3rd point touches on whether that is effective, but now I'm curious if anyone has done studies on whether more police per capital leads to mlre safety and/or more safety violations?
Either way, in a city like Oakland, police reform is much more valuable than increasing funding.
This is very well said. The trouble is I don't know what to do about it. At a policy level, for me, policing is a dial—I can vote for the politician who will hire more police and be tougher on crime, or I can vote for the politician who will hire fewer police and have them do less enforcement. AFAIK there is rarely a "make the police actually do a good job" candidate (or, both the previously-mentioned politicians will claim to be that candidate, but their actual policies boil down to "more police/more enforcement" or "fewer police/less enforcement").
Eloquent crank Mencius Moldbug tried to use the term "anarcho-tyranny" to describe this kind of situation: people get hassled by law enforcement over relatively trivial things (the "tyranny" part) and also lack protection from serious crimes (the "anarcho-" part).
Well said!
I would add that -- just speaking as someone who hasn't actually looked into it -- one more reason this seems to happen is that it seems like in many places the police have either just decided that, like, they just don't care about certain people? Or even that their job is to make thing harder for people they don't like. This overlaps with #1 and #3 of course. Of course it doesn't explain a *general* failure to solve crimes... O_o
I completely agree with your point that violating civil liberties does not make is safer. But most people I know that think we should have more policing do not want more civil liberty violations, they want to increase funding police departments and hire more cops. Your 3rd point touches on whether that is effective, but now I'm curious if anyone has done studies on whether more police per capital leads to mlre safety and/or more safety violations?
Either way, in a city like Oakland, police reform is much more valuable than increasing funding.
Is there a typo in the third sentence? Should it say crime goes _un_punished?
This is very well said. The trouble is I don't know what to do about it. At a policy level, for me, policing is a dial—I can vote for the politician who will hire more police and be tougher on crime, or I can vote for the politician who will hire fewer police and have them do less enforcement. AFAIK there is rarely a "make the police actually do a good job" candidate (or, both the previously-mentioned politicians will claim to be that candidate, but their actual policies boil down to "more police/more enforcement" or "fewer police/less enforcement").
Eloquent crank Mencius Moldbug tried to use the term "anarcho-tyranny" to describe this kind of situation: people get hassled by law enforcement over relatively trivial things (the "tyranny" part) and also lack protection from serious crimes (the "anarcho-" part).
Edit: It wasn't Moldbug. Apparently it was paleoconservative Samuel T Johnson who coined the term in 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state#Anarchy_and_tyranny