• whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Yes, there was a really good time to study this in New York 2014/2015 during a police work slowdown (equivalent of a strike when protected by police unions but can’t technically strike). They saw a significant decrease in major crimes during that time.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5

    One study on one event doesn’t support a trend, but it is interesting and directly counters traditional appeals to more police or police funding means more community safety often espoused by wealthy politicians and police organizations. It’s possible you just need a small group of dedicated people to work on serious crimes, the rest of the ticketing and quotas may just be security theatre and making the problem worse not better.

    • Gaja0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Doesn’t this imply they just saw less crimes with less officers? Like less covid cases when we stopped reporting on it?

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah people were still reporting crime, the police just slow rolled their job to let major crime go up but it didn’t

          “The results challenge prevailing scholarship as well as conventional wisdom on authority and legal compliance, as they imply that aggressively enforcing minor legal statutes incites more severe criminal acts.”

          Where the contradicting conventional wisdom was more aggressively policing the smaller things led to less crime overall, ala broken windows, they found the opposite actually happens.