What’s the percentage chance someone has misunderstood the difference between causation and correlation?
Not saying less cops = less crime, just debunking the classic thin blue line narrative of less cops = more crime
Just to play devils advocate here is crime going down because of underreporting (either from smaller budgets or corruption to boost the image of a town / department)
What’s the source for this claim?
You could maybe argue that if the drop was only in small petty crime. Yeah a shopkeeper may stop reporting shoplifting after the 10th time the police don’t respond. That under reporting goes down as the crime gets more serious. Your probably going to report a home break in to the cops even if you know they won’t do anything since you’re going to need a police report for insurance, home break ins have been steadily declining since 2018 when the police staffing “problem” started. This seriousness holds very true for murders which have dropped 12% over the past year
That’s assuming the victims would be under reporting, if you’re saying the police departments, government etc. Are under reporting then that’s getting into conspiracy territory. Especially because we’re seeing this trend reported across the nation so the conspiracy would have to be massive.
Also if the government had the ability to do this why would they start now? This idea isn’t too complex so someone could have easily come up with it and started doing it a while ago. If that were the case we’d never see crime rates go up as the politicians would just under report every year and make it look like crime is going down. But we have seen reported crime go up, noticeably in 2022 , and instead of hiding that many politicians and police departments showcased it as a reason to Crack down on crime and increase there budgets.
Crime is down because there’s less cops to commit it lmao.
They would say it’s because police are getting better at their jobs or something
Or maybe that fewer police = fewer crimes being caught and tracked for statistic purposes
Crimes aren’t tracked by completion rate, just by report. While staffing rates might be down, that wouldn’t affect total number of crimes reported as nearly all people are covered by third party 911 service.
…and if they can day that with a straight face, give them an Oscar!
(I say this as a kiwi looking from afar)
A big question I ask people is “Why do we feel less safe even though crime is at an all time low?” Not a lot of people have answers, and I think way too many people aren’t aware of that fact. It’s one of the safest times to walk through any downtown core, yet people feel the least safe they ever have.
My ex spouse got an app that gave alerts every time there was anything going down in our neighborhood. They went from cautious to walk around at night to “omg we live in a crime riddled hellhole with people being murdered everywhere” and stopped going outside. People now have access to so much information, often explicitly designed to make you fearful, and we suck at statistics
The answer is the media.
It’s not all of the media, it’s editorialized news, opinion pieces, debate format shows, etc.
The thing is, I don’t feel less safe walking down the street. I can’t really relate to people who do. That drives the divide further.
That’s really the problem. When I friends from small towns come and visit I can see they’re on edge the entire time while I’m just doing what I do every day. Yes there’s a person sleeping there. Yes someone is screaming a block down. There’s traffic noise, and the subway isn’t the cleanest - but it’s normal, that’s what I’m used to. It takes a bit of thicker skin, but once you realize nothing is really unsafe about it it gets easier. Problem is voters from tiny 20,000 population places vote with that fear already, and think that cities are unsafe. We can’t bring everyone to the city and hold their hand.
That’s definitely part of the problem. I had an incident recently where an older family member had a minor panic. Because I left my (mfg in 2006!!) vehicle running in the driveway while I ran inside. During the day. In a very safe suburban neighborhood. Just a flat out absurd concern and she leapt right to it, instantly. She’s always been concerned, she’s a grandma, but she wasn’t pointlessly terrified like this years ago.
I think many of us don’t realize how badly this irrational fear has taken hold, or maybe I should say how effectively this irrational fear has been deployed. Otherwise ~reasonable people are walking around thinking the worst is going to happen everywhere at all times, based on absolutely nothing - worse than nothing, it’s based on weaponized deception.
it’s all vibes, you are way more likely to get hurt from a car crash than crime yet people have no problem driving.
Are there numbers about police staffing being down I can look at?
Police staffing has been going down since black lives matter became a thing. They dont get the same unquestioned respect and love like they used too so no one wants to be a cop any more. This one doesn’t give years but it says 5% over the last couple years. The change is bigger in larger more liberal cities. Chicago is down 13% since 2018 , san francisco which inspired this meme is down 20% since 2017 and all the mayoral candidates are falling over themselves to say they’ll solve it even though crime is down.
⭐
A lot of departments can’t even get qualified applicants, so many positions are there but going unfilled.
Yeah, but the restrictions are also getting loosened to fill some of the positions. So we’re getting the people we never thought should be on the police force either 😬 at least that’s the case in Chicago. It makes for a worse experience over time.
Don’t get me wrong, there is so much reform that’s needed still. If there’s an emergency I am calling the police, and I’d like someone who knows what they’re doing to respond.
veritassium did this fascinating af video mirroring a study on people’s political biases and how it influences reasoning: it seems like the more educated or intelligent you are, the more your biases interfere with your ability to analyze positions that are contrary to your own views and that interference is proportional to your level of education/intelligence and the people who don’t have either are able to reason mostly the same whether or not their biases where challenged.
Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.
Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.
it’s literally a study conducted by Yale; as in the ivy league university: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992
the video reproduces the study in a shortened format suitable for youtube.
Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.
It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.
Yes, they found bias. Cool.
But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks.
I dunno if equating numeracy with intelligence is a fair read, but an interesting study nonetheless.
that’s how he defines numeracy in the video but he used the word “smarter” on youtube. i didn’t think it fit either so i just went with “intelligence” because it means acquiring and using knowledge in a similar way to numeracy; but was still in keeping with the source & the youtube video.
“video mirroring a study”
Lmao
I watched veritassium for a short while, but i can’t take them serious with all the click bait. Can you provide a link to the proper study instead?
it’s in the description of the video: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992
And when there are 0 cops, 0 crimes will be recorded. Brilliant!
You’re definitely on the right track.
The only actual job of the police is to file crime reports.
They do not prevent crime. Protect innocents. Make people show up for court etc. They have no obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect someone being hurt, even if they’re standing right there and could stop it.
Anything in the justice system that you value is either done by someone else, or actually isn’t done at all.
Let’s abolish the police, therefore no one can report crime to the police, but then we see people reporting crimes elsewhere and as it turns out, crimes still happen, even when not reported to the police. This is a very good argument for increased gun ownership! No police, no law enforcement, no law, well I’ll just have to take the “law” into my own hands. Can’t see how that would cause chaos.
Must have dropped out of strawman school…
I don’t think that’s what anyone suggests. However the opposite is what needs to be called out. Why do police departments consistently ask for more and more funding, usually looking for reasons to spend it (see urban assault vehicles, larger and more militarized forces) when crime is down already? If they’re doing fine with the budget they have, why do we need to give them even more money?
“Defund the police” doesn’t mean we have no police. It means they’re overfunded. Let’s see about defunding them and giving some of that money to other people, like mental health advocates or groups that help with homelessness - some of the main causes of crime. Wouldn’t that mean the police can focus on things they are trained for while also cutting crime down at it’s source? If someone is never desperate enough to mug someone in the first place, doesn’t that mean the crime was prevented?
Defund the police doesn’t mean abolish the police
Me:
And when cities get revenue from traffic violations, traffic violations go up. Funny how that works.
Same with covid, if you don’t look for it, you will not find it.
It’s hard to hide some crimes. If someone reports a body, someone reports a body.
And it’s rather easy to hide some other crimes
Jesus christ just think for a fucking second about what you’re saying.
It seems you are better at that than me. What is it I am saying?
That police find crimes? That without police there to stop crime it happens but in secret. But police would only influence traffic infractions. Violent crime relies on civilian reporting. The odds of police just coming across a crime is vanishingly small.
Like white collar crimes that police never go after
