Police officers patrol and help and prevent. Ambulance drivers are after a catastrophe has happened. The statement has no similarities at all.Agree? Disagree? Comments?
I cannot claim credit for writing the statement. I transcribed words that somebody uttered, somebody else recorded, somebody else uploaded, etc.
Engaging in crime is a conscious choice, that can be deterred by visible law enforcement. Cancer is a natural failure process in a body, that cannot be directly prevented. There is no connection.Police officers patrol and help and prevent. Ambulance drivers are after a catastrophe has happened. The statement has no similarities at all.
Did you know that Michael Milken and Bernard Madoff were about to receive parking tickets, and when they saw the police officers approaching, each of them made an immediate and full confession? It makes sense. Interrogation can be unpleasant. There are things like waterboarding.Engaging in crime is a conscious choice, that can be deterred by visible law enforcement.
That is a good point. The analogy does not refer to all illnesses, but only to cancer. However, it does refer to crime without limitation. Thus, we could revise the analogy by selecting some specific kind of crime.There is no way to “cure crime” as long as human life remains human.
That sounds like a reason to enact a new law: a criminal is forbidden from turning himself in to the authorities until at least 48 hours after his most recent crime was committed. Naturally, then some human beings will strive to turn themselves in before the 48 hours have elapsed. Many will fail. However, some will succeed, and they will suffer the penalty of paying a $4.80 penalty for confessing too soon, in addition to the penalties for the crime being confessed to.Wherever there is a law, some human beings will strive to break it.
Deterred or delayed? If criminals had reason to believe that there are more plainclothes police officers than uniformed police officers, then criminals would be deterred. If the vast majority of police officers are wearing uniforms, then criminals simply need to have good eyesight and the ability to recognize what uniforms are police uniforms. Also, it seems odd that criminals would be able to obtain guns and ammunition, but not police uniforms.But some crimes can be deterred.
Oh yes, I agree 100%.Agree? Disagree? Comments?
I cannot claim credit for writing the statement. I transcribed words that somebody uttered, somebody else recorded, somebody else uploaded, etc.
Effective policing has consistently been shown to contain and reduce criminal activity.Agree? Disagree? Comments?
I cannot claim credit for writing the statement. I transcribed words that somebody uttered, somebody else recorded, somebody else uploaded, etc.
Community centered policing has been shown to reduce criminal activity and to increase community cooperation with police. Additional police ARE needed to have an effective community police program since departments who are stretching resources have less available for community outreach.Effective policing has consistently been shown to contain and reduce criminal activity.
Additional police may or may not be required to do it.
More ambulance drivers may be very useful in saving lives if accident victims are waiting hours to catch a lift to emergency care. Isolating cancer is a red herring.
Not for everything, look at the drug problem, heroin especially in my area is a HUGE problem, despite the past 4 years of police cracking down, hiring more cops to deal with this problem specifically, even though arrests and convictions go up, overdose and general use rates keep going up.Effective policing has consistently been shown to contain and reduce criminal activity.
Additional police may or may not be required to do it.
More ambulance drivers may be very useful in saving lives if accident victims are waiting hours to catch a lift to emergency care. Isolating cancer is a red herring.
Even if the rate of illegal drug use isn’t changed, if the increased police presence leads to less ancillary crime such as drug related domestic violence or drug related robberies, it’s still a good thing.Not for everything, look at the drug problem, heroin especially in my area is a HUGE problem, despite the past 4 years of police cracking down, hiring more cops to deal with this problem specifically, even though arrests and convictions go up, overdose and general use rates keep going up.
Strong police presence deters SOME crime, but not all types of crime, usually the criminals just find better ways to avoid police detection.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/nypd-low-crime-first-quarter-2016_us_5702b0dae4b0a06d580653e3Actually, former NYC police commissioner William Bratton demonstrated that police can prevent crime instead of just responding to it. He did this by concentrating police presence in crime prone areas, using a stop, question, and frisk policy, maintaining good community relations, and a no tolerance policy for anti-social behavior and police corruption. He was also tough on gangs. But when he was forced to relax the stop and frisk policy, crime increased.
Why not work on prevention?Even if the rate of illegal drug use isn’t changed, if the increased police presence leads to less ancillary crime such as drug related domestic violence or drug related robberies, it’s still a good thing.
Why not do both, especially when we are mostly powerless to stop addiction to drugs.Why not work on prevention?
I think the point of the statement is that investing in programs to prevent people from turning to crime in the first place (such as after school programs for low income neighborhoods) is ultimately more successful than merely throwing money at things which punish crime after it already happens.Agree? Disagree? Comments?
I cannot claim credit for writing the statement. I transcribed words that somebody uttered, somebody else recorded, somebody else uploaded, etc.
Do you have evidence on these programs reducing crime and drug usage?I think the point of the statement is that investing in programs to prevent people from turning to crime in the first place (such as after school programs for low income neighborhoods) is ultimately more successful than merely throwing money at things which punish crime after it already happens.