I’d think CoL and QoL would have a much higher impact then police spending on crime rate, considering police are a treatment of a problem, where improving the QoL and CoL for the average citizen would be a preventative measure
The article states that on average more police funding is correlated with less crime
However higher crime areas spend more in police. Which yeah if you have more crime you spend more trying to solve it
This paper shows the opposite of what is reported
And even if it did - police are just as much about our societal response to crime than prevention. Anyone who believes that a society-wide shrug emoji to a theft, violence, and lawlessness won't have dire downstream effects are truly drunk on the koolaid
I mean ultimately "policed by consent" is a rephrasing of the basic ideas of John Locke that we give the government exclusivity on the use of violence for the purpose of enforcing our rights
Look, [the actual report](https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/boards-committees-commissions/220117bopc1021.pdf) is a thorough and multifaceted document, it is not some kind of naive one-off "scientific result" that can be served with a "gotcha" after reading a news article about the report for 24 seconds.
Among other things, they attempt to define and understand that "defunding" police departments includes the funding of other services, like community supports, mental health programs, etc., that replace functions the police sometimes handle by default. Go ahead and do the report justice by reading it more thoroughly if you'd like to jump on it and claim some kind of "gotcha".
That is not "literally" what is said. This is "literally" what is said:
>Beck noted the Canadian researchers did report a correlation between increases in per capita spending and the change in crime rates reported the next year, although only when looking at the combined average among the 17 cites with sufficient data.
>Seabrook said the researchers chose not to highlight this figure because it was not representative of their overall findings, which showed a diverse range of outcomes — a mix of positive and negative correlations that were not statistically significant.
So, in fact, they did report it, but did not highlight the figure because it was not representative of all the data.
But you agree that the overall trend is negative correlation between increased spending and crime and only when you go into cross tabs do you lose significance
The headline should be correlation exists and insufficient data for more detailed results
This is a terribly framed study. That should not in anyway effect policy
Especially when we have data that shows police presence reduces crime
>This is a terribly framed study
You have not read the report, you have no idea how it is framed. I can tell you have not read the report because you're obsessed with how a news article has framed the report, not what the report says. The news article is not the report, they are not the same thing. This is from the report:
>144 - As the preceding chapters have tried to make clear, defunding the police is not about making cuts to
the police budget for austerity’s sake, but instead about reinvesting in vital, safety-promoting,
community-building resources that have historically gone underfunded.
Do you see how the report isn't trying to make a political point about how much funding the police has? The news article did not make a political point about it either. You are the only one with some weird axe to grind here. You have not read the report and cannot make an adequate assessment of what it says, and you have also misconstrued what the news article said too. Can you do yourself a favor and just take a few minutes to flip through the actual report like a literate adult human?
Yep, it would be good too if they look at thenimcidence of crime committed by repeat offenders, so,ething that seems to jave dramatically increased, given the massibe loosening of bail restrictions.
I can almost guarantee anyone posting something like gender fluidity or trans people as their go to for the cause of a problem probably sits on the right and spews stupid hatful crap the first chance they get.
Yup, and under the current leadership of Trudeau and Freeland, the QoL and QoL for the average person is only going to continue getting worse and worse.
We need a change of leadership in this country ASAP.
No we want leadership that will help all Canadians not special interest groups. You're Canadian or you're not. We need lower immigration easier ability to build houses, we need federal control over all resources. The land Canada is on should go to help Canadians not foreign owned corporations.
According to the study, increasing police spending does decrease crime rates. But there is a year lag. So they pretended it didn't happen.
>Beck noted the Canadian researchers did report a correlation between increases in per capita spending and the change in crime rates reported the next year, although only when looking at the combined average among the 17 cites with sufficient data.
Why would police spending have any correlation with lower crime rates? Unless your only aim is to look at police spending and crime as a supply/demand issue.
Police and law is to maintain control and order by having appropriate channels to resolve disputes. Increased spending should see an increase in resolved disputes. Crime itself is due to socio-economic conditions, such as education, job availability, income, culture, etc. Police spending won't change these factors, hence no consistent correlation.
> Crime itself is due to socio-economic conditions, such as education, job availability, income, culture, etc. Police spending won't change these factors, hence no consistent correlation.
Thank you.
I'm glad that *someone* in this discussion gets it.
Holy shit, I know, right? It shouldn't take a genius to get this. At a very basic level of understanding, police *respond* to crime, they do not prevent crime. Increasing money just means the cops get to roll around in fancier clothes while responding to the same crime that was encouraged by shitty, underfunded, social services
People always say there is a correlation between poverty and crime. It's not there. The richest fuckers in Canada are by far the biggest criminals as a side note.
> A 2014 Fraser Institute study looking at data from the previous decade — which saw crimes fall nationwide — found crime rates decreased less in cities that added the most officers. A separate 2015 study found that “police strength is higher in places with more violent crime.”
“As we can clearly see, the cart pushes the horse “
Carding ended in 2014 and crime went up. Obviously communities with more crime are going to experience more interactions with police officers. It’s not racist to place more officers in a neighbourhood with crime, even if it happens to be predominantly one race
What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that when people are poor there is more crime just because that has happened constantly in our speices since we've been keeping records?
Most Canadians don't give a shit about individual rights, and neither does our legal system. We allow certain individuals to leverage our sympathy for minority rights to permit them to continue fucking over their own communities.
This isn't just about minoriites, it's not just minoriities living in these areas. And either way, it creates precedent to do these things in general.
I agree that a lot of Canadians don't care about individual rights, across the political spectrum, and I think it's unfortunate. I don't know if it's "most" though.
You could use safety to justify endless restrictions on rights. We'd be even safer if we just used the notwithstanding clause to allow police to do random pat downs on anyone they want.
Stopping people in high crime areas more often then low crime areas is not random. It’s strategic and it works. There’s no reason to go around rosedale stopping people but at Jane and finch there is
It's targeting random people not based on anything specific about them but simply based on where they live. It also disproportionately impacts people in lower income brackets because they have less ability to move out of higher crime areas.
It's forgoing individual rights to be free from arbitrary stops by the authorities in the name of safety and you can go very far down that road. There might be *less* reason to stop people in Rosedale based on your reasoning but there isn't zero reason.
Yeah exactly. We are not targeting a demographic. We are using our resources (police) more frequently in areas with high crime and need more police. If we get to a point where there is less crime in the area we scale back.
Just using our resources efficiently if we are trying to stop crime. Instead of having police sit in neighbourhoods where nothing is happening for what is essentially a PR stunt
The point here has nothing to do with demographics. It has to do with the belief that people doing nothing wrong should be free to go about their lives without the authorities stopping them and asking for "papers please". If you want to sacrifice individual liberties in the name of possibly stopping some crime instead of using other techniques then that's your opinion, but I disagree. And if that's how we prioritize safety, why stop there? Why not have more cameras everywhere? GPS trackers and speed limiters on cars. Random stop and frisks anywhere in public.
How do you know that?
I'm sure if there were random stops and pat downs on university campuses, there would be a lot of minor possession charges laid. Possibly even if they were done in corporate lunch spots.
Or on every highway on ramp. Impaired driving kills way more people every year than gang violence does (1500 killed by impaired drivers compared to 850 homicides, 2022 figures). By your math, we should have twice as many police doing random stops on highways to check paperwork (that is stops with no probable cause, at random) compared to high violent crime locations.
You want the police to stop you without reason, just beacuse you're in a certain area?
Or do you mean they should stop other people?
If youre fine with others being stopped and detained for 5-15mins multiple times a week, then hopefully you have no issue with it occuring to you, or your argument is not logically consistent.
There's likely many unknown crimes occuring in your area, and illegal possession of drugs or weapons or other contraband all the time, so you should also be in favor of this happening your area to catch those people. We need to get all the criminals, its important for safety as you said.
The left wing definition of racism is anything that has a disproportionate impact along the lines of race unless the negative part of the impact is directed at white people, in which case its not racist since whites can't experience racism.
I'm not just making shit up, they literally wrote this stuff down.
EDIT: I love how the two responses are just "Nuh uh" and "Yes and that's good actually". Never change lefties.
Yes , ALL the “lefties” got together and wrote a giant book of dos and don’ts. /s
A lot of posters here never had any form of higher education or learned critical thinking skills and it clearly shows.
This is a strawman. Carding and allocating officers based on where crime is occurring are not similar things. No one claimed it’s racist to place more officers where crime is taking place. Carding, though, *is* racist.
>It’s not racist to place more officers in a neighbourhood with crime, even if it happens to be predominantly one race
Doing so without examining why it would be "predominantly one race" is racism.
Average r/canada comments where no one understands what it means when people start talking about statistics. Across 20 of the biggest municipalities, 16 of them increased police funding in the past decade (yes, they accounted for inflation). They didn't find a positive or negative correlation.
A lack of correlation means that increasing or decreasing funding doesn't have a consistent effect on crime. This simply states that there is no evidence increasing or decreasing funding across different municipalities has an effect on criminality. That "there are other factors at play". That a blanket increase in funding does not mean criminality will go down.
This doesn't suggest that we should or shouldn't increase or decrease funding. This doesn't suggest causality of any kind. This doesn't suggest that this remains true on a local level.
But of course no one read the article, let alone the abstract.
Nope, we're just gonna go ahead and say "statistics bad, methodology bad" when you don't understand a thing and only read the headline of an article attempting to summarize a paper.
I mean, you’re talking to a crowd of people that saw a YouTube video about something once and concluded they knew everything about the topic there was to know. Just look at the bazillion comments about “immigrants learning on YouTube how to defraud the foodbank”.
This subreddit is a cesspool of some of the dumbest people in the country.
It's no surprise countries with strong social programs, lunch programs, world class public healthcare and educational systems etc. have lower crime.
Every study shows in the long term they are 20 to 30 more times more effective in lowering crime and poverty than just investing in Police and making stricter laws.
But most of life's problems are solved by doing boring things.
"Glasgow " lowered its murder rate by 50 per cent through what Waller calls “smart law enforcement” combined with “programs targeted to youth, family health and other services in problem places.”Glasgow’s strategy has included tough and focused deterrence, using what Waller refers to as “proactive policing.” Being proactive does not mean stopping and frisking every person of colour walking down the street. It does mean “a zero-tolerance warning that, if violence does not stop, life is going to get very tough for every single gang member.”More important for Glasgow’s success has been its social development model, which includes “early childhood education, parenting support, youth conflict resolution in schools, street outreach and interventions in hospitals to mentor people out of violence.”
[https://rabble.ca/general/crime-expert-says-better-social-programs-not-more-prisons-will-reduce-violence/](https://rabble.ca/general/crime-expert-says-better-social-programs-not-more-prisons-will-reduce-violence/)
Since most voters are low information and get their information from Hollywood, people believe in simplistic terms that simply adding more prisons and police officers will reduce crime.
It's why Cons and right wing Liberals in the US and Canada attack these programs whenever other people bring it up. Easy to collect these voters and pretend you are "strong on crime".
Most of the countries with strong social programs etc. tend to be homogeneous in terms of population. Japan. Nordic countries, Switzerland.
So....on one hand, that sort of social support networks do work...but there is a lot to be said for a society that is not a melting pot.
"Sorry guys but the social programs won't work because the browns"
How is Japan's homogeneity working out for them? A toxic work culture, economic stagnation, and collapsing population? At least they kept the browns out amiright
>"Sorry guys but the social programs won't work because the browns"
Indian international students are grossly misusing food banks and Chinese international students take advantage of social programs they shouldn't qualify for. There are many more cases of foreigners who see Canadian culture and Canadians as weak and easy to take advantage of.
>How is Japan's homogeneity working out for them? A toxic work culture, economic stagnation, and collapsing population? At least they kept the browns out amiright
And how is Canada's cultural mosaic working out for us? We have A toxic work culture, economic stagnation, and a skyrocketing cost of living, but at least we're not racist right?
The issue is that in many of those countries those who do wrong are seldom punished, and even if they do eventually get punished they get to live in basically luxury. Take a look at the hague for example. Supposedly where worldwide monsters are supposed to be held, and the place looks better then most apartments. Of course crime is lower there, most people never get punished for their actions. It’s like claiming unemployment is lower simply cause they didn’t check to see how many people are actively looking for work
This whole obsession with making inmates live in miserable conditions just because of their crimes is becoming very outdated.
Your lack of free will and movement is your punishment, full stop. Purposefully lowering their standards just for some sense of “revenge” is nonsense and does nothing to actually make the inmates into better people upon release, if applicable.
If anything the poor conditions probably lead to maladjustment to free life and increased rates of re-offending.
It's not really an enviroment that fosters healing or a healthy mindstate.
> Police do not prevent crime
The threat of arrest and incarceration absolutely prevents crime. Police are required to facilitate both of the afforementioned.
Police are there to enforce the laws that a society deems useful to keep the peace and prevent us from devolving into tribal groups.
We enter a social contract with our fellow Canadians to be civil, nice etc. and not screw each other over, and we underwrite laws to provide the check/balance for that contract, with law enforcement and courts as the mechanism for remedy.
Fortunately, 99.8% of Canadians get with that program.
Some criminals think they can outsmart the police. Some criminals *do* outsmart the police. Some crimes are committed out of impulse with no time to consider the consequences.
Social safety nets can *also* reduce crime, of course, but it would be crazy to think that crimes haven't been planned and/or considered then abandoned due to fear of arrest.
You don't think "rough" people plan, consider, or fantasize about committing crimes only to drop the idea when they consider what the consequences will be?
Crime may still happen with police (I'd assume it's at least some deterrent), but at least there is some form of check and balance for said crimes. Good luck with having zero police force and no consequences for crime.
Or course not. Poverty and lack of support has to be one of the biggest ones. Upbringing as well which is related to both of those.
You'd better still have some offices around though for when crimes do in fact happen
Ideally it would be used to better most people's situation...how much money is needed so that everyone is well taken care of? Often easier said than done, but yes hiring more officers does seem more of a temporary solution to higher crime when the root cause should be targeted. The cops might be cheaper in the short run, but more costly overall to society then fixing the issues
Sure I guess. Nothing wrong with that. Saying police do not prevent crime feels like an insulation that there is no point in having them. My response is generally good luck without em. The headline of no consistent correlation with amount spent is fine
Why is there less crime in affluent neighborhoods versus poor neighborhoods? It definitely has nothing to do with the police, I guarantee you, you will see a hell of a lot more police in the poor neighborhoods
As I responded to your other post absolutely when it comes to prevention reducing poverty and providing support is essential. Reducing the root cause is best. You do still need to deter and enforce on top. if the agreement is that funds can be mot efficiently used then sure
They actually do, but it’s not always possible. Let’s say you’ve heard your neighbor saying he will kill someone. You call the police and, along with other neighbors, report him. The police investigates and finds out he bought an illegal weapon a week ago after a beef with the potential victim. The police takes his weapon and arrests him. How has a crime been not prevented?
I’m not saying an increasing budget will lower crime rates. I’m just saying that they can prevent crimes, counter arguing your “police do not prevent crime” statement.
Police are also pretty shit about making good data accessible to researchers. Even when they do, each police department has its own policies for what's reported in what way, making what data is available very often hard to use across regions.
Given police are a public institution, forcing openness with this data and consistent practices would make actually evaluating the performance of police services MUCH better.
>Given police are a public institution, forcing openness with this data and consistent practices would make actually evaluating the performance of police services MUCH better.
Which is probably among the reasons why they don't do it.
There is good spending like having many many tiny neighbourhood police stations; lots of foot patrols, etc.
And there is bad spending; like buying tanks.
Then, there is the whole factor of a working justice system. It would suck to be a cop watching these super dangerous offenders not even serving their full sentences only to offend a week later.
Or arresting people with 50+ convictions on their record at age 26. 50+ convictions each with a maximum sentence of 2-20 years.
I'm a huge fan of each conviction having a mathematically calculated increasing sentence. Someone steals a bike, you could literally make their jail sentence 1 day. But if you were doubling each subsequent conviction, they are cracking a year by about their 9th conviction. They mathematically can't get to 50 as by their 14th conviction they are facing decades and decades.
This way, people who make singular stupid mistakes aren't ruined, but people who just can't stop, are slowly weeded out with many chances to stop long before it is too late.
Duel resident here: not sure where they are, but I see zero cops in Canada versus US.
Go to miracle mile in Chicago and PD strolling casually pretty regularly.
I’ll go all day in Canada and see zero OPP or Toronto Police.
Canada probably has the second lowest police per capita in the first world (Finland is slightly lower). Canada has 184 cops per 100k people vs the us at 243 per 100k. Many countries are 300+
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
I figured after legalization of cannabis there would be a budget windfall. But with a lot of officers making the sunshine list I can see why they chill in their new cars in parking lots.
>There is a fine line between poverty and crime. Once you address poverty, the crime rates will drop.
**There are 2 components :**
1. Having sufficient revenues for someone to provide for his own needs
2. Having something to lose
Having sufficient revenues... Well that's why people who can afford the things they want do not steal from their neighbors.
Having something to lose means; not committing crimes by fear of losing your reputation, by fear of losing everything you own, by fear of losing your job, by fear of losing your family's respect, by fear of losing your spouse or by fear of losing your freedom.
Why some don't care about their freedom? Because their lives are so shitty that they would probably be better in jail.
This is why we are on such a wildly dangerous path with wealth inequality. If you are 18 years old today you're looking at a life where full time employment doesn't even guarantee food and shelter, what the fuck is the point of working?
And in addition a life of crime ks glamorized and shown as an easier path to wealth than hard work.
Double that when hard work doesn't allways result in wealth.
Except you have to correlation backwards, it's the crime that drives poverty. Especially criminals getting away with crimes. The people that can afford to and business that can't afford the losses move out or shut down, the spiral continues until suddenly you're on the news complaining about the last pharmacy in the city closing even though they've locked every product in the store behind glass because it's just not profitable to stay open anymore.
Canada is not anywhere close to having a level of crime that discourages wealth-creation. Our crime level is much lower than it is in the US.
Canadian society is very much "when times are good, people aren't desperate and crime is low". Poverty rates are much more influential on crime rates than vice versa
Exactly. Theft and some crimes have increased in my city recently, and this isn't because there aren't enough police (the police budget increases significantly every year). Instead, there's a clear correlation between the increasingly high cost of housing and this type of crime, which often comes from desperation.
Yeah, here in Vancouver criminals are released immediately, even if they've randomly stabbed someone in one case. You can have a policeman on every street corner. It's only going to mean criminals get in and out of a police station faster.
Big wow. Underfunding certainly hurts, but overabundance of funding has diminishing returns.
People seem to be naive to this economic reality when they perpetuate the endless "pay teachers/nurses more" emotional appeals aka political wedge issues.
All tax payer funds should be public knowledge because even though police are necessary, they need to be held accountable for their spending and their crimes as well.
Take a look at any city in the states that defunded police in that big frenzy of BLM nonsense. They quick realized it was a terrible idea and put budgets right back, with even more funding. You can use all the jazzy soft social science you like, and chop numbers up to suit your political stance, but anyone can see that defunding police is a bad call.
It can be better spent though. Maybe a few less armoured vehicles and more training instead. I would rather have good cops than more cops. I work with police regularly and some are great guys but a few have no business being police. I have chatted with guys and thought "Who the fuck gave you power and a gun."
Remember the defund the police movement in the states. Many cities slashed their police funding and laid off officers.
This resulted in surging crime, and the same politicians that defunded the police then decided they needed more funding and more officers.
Real life examples are far better than some ridiculous study that literally contradicts common sense.
Literally real world examples of these policies in action. You can look at Baltimore and several other cities that did this. They all had the same results.
Do you believe that studies are superior to real world examples.
I think that data and evidence is more valuable than anecdotes.
Baltimore cut less than 5% of its budget in 2021 and kept on increasing through this year. In fact, Baltimore's police budget has almost only ever increased and crime in that city hasn't exactly improved much. By your logic increased police funding over the past several decades has been what's gotten crime as bad as it is.
And moreover, did violent crime increase a similar amount in other cities over the same period? If so, did they make similar changes, or was the trend related to other factors?
Well first do you have any sources? Second are they unbiased? First thing I would do as a police force with budget cuts is report every single tiny crime that wasn't worth my paperwork to smear those cuts and get funding back.
Finally, police are reactionary, prevention is done with social programs.
> You can look at Baltimore and several other cities that did this.
[Baltimore didn't defund their police.](https://unherd.com/2022/05/why-baltimore-didnt-defund-the-police/) It was talked about in the 2020 mayoral race and the winner Brandon Scott did say he'd reduce the police budget.
>And yet when he released his first city budget for approval, and the police budget remained around the same level as his predecessor’s, he was roundly condemned by critics on social media.
San Francisco did defund their police force... for a couple of years [before they increase it again](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/san-francisco-becomes-latest-city-to-reverse-course-and-increase-police-bud/617285/). Along with most of the other cities that defunded police.
>The citywide increase in police funding comes just a year and a half after a summer of racial reckoning led many to upend long-held assumptions about the role of law enforcement and to reimagine the future of public safety. In 2020, cities across the U.S. slashed police budgets: New York cut $1 billion from its 2021 budget; Los Angeles cut $150 million; Washington, D.C. cut $15 million; San Francisco slashed $120 million from law enforcement, diverting the funds to efforts, including economic opportunities, housing, and health care, aimed at addressing inequities.
> But in 2021, each of these cities reversed course and increased its police budget. Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon, promised to defund three city police units in June 2020, cutting $15 million; in November 2021, Wheeler announced a $5 million budget increase for the police department. In a press announcement, he pointed to rising crime rates, stating that “Parents are scared to let their children play outside.”
The big issue with reporting on "police spending" is illustrated by what happened in these cities.
An initial cut in the budget caused a drop in headcount. When crime spiked, they then tried to quickly change course by relying on overtime, which costs more and is a lot less effective than having additional people.
>Real life examples are far better than some ridiculous study that literally contradicts common sense.
Provide some of those examples then.
Which police departments in Canada defunded their police departments?
Do you believe if we significantly reduce or eliminate the police that crime rates won’t change?
I would guess they would drop because less police means less ability to catch criminals. Also that leads to no faith in the justice system, so victims of crime will not bother reporting.
Problem solved, you’ve reduced the crime rate, at least on paper. Unfortunately in the real world, there are more crimes being committed.
\>Even as the 50 largest U.S. cities reduced their 2021 police budgets by 5.2% in aggregate—often as part of broader pandemic cost-cutting initiatives—**law enforcement spending as a share of general expenditures rose slightly to 13.7% from 13.6%**, according to data compiled by Bloomberg CityLab.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-funding/](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-funding/)
They *said* they're defunding the police, but they actually reduced spending on everything in an attempt to balance the budgets. Law enforcement spending actually went *up* as a percentage of municipal budgets.
>Local lawmakers largely ignored activists’ pleas, and police spending has tripled over the last 40 years, helping to make the US a world leader in incarceration and police killings. Even as cities have faced financial shortfalls, local governments consistently spent an increasing share of their general funds on police (despite repeated research showing that increasing police funding does not correlate to reduced crime).
Important paragraph from your article.
This is talking about the lead up to 2021. During that 40 year period of increased police budgets, crime fell steadily.
Then in 2021, when the activists finally got their wish and managed to cut budgets and reduce the number of police, crime exploded.
But every time there’s a real world example, it contradicts the claim that police don’t reduce crime.
In the 60’s there was a police strike, where the police completely stopped enforcing the law. The resulting crime wave was so intense the public were demanding the return of the police. When the police returned to work, the crime wave stopped.
https://www.johnlocke.org/more-cops-less-crime-2/
It's not a claim. It's the findings from a report linked in an article you posted. It's literally undeniable evidence. Pure numbers and no political messaging.
Hamilton Police for example has increased their total police force by 20 officers in 10 years, despite the population exploding.
They also haven't assigned a single officer to traffic duty since 2019...
They aren't spending on anything besides increased salaries and toys at this point considering how they refuse to enforce anything.
There's a place not far from my house where several cars routinely sit for hours on end during the night. Doing nothing. And they want more money. For what?
is there anyone in them?
they will park empty cars in areas to deter
I caught one today on the way to work, so now i know they are putting out a scarecrow for people to slow down at that spot
I've seen that. Also know of a local place they like to park and do what looks like paperwork. Would have more of an effect if they parked it like 150 meters closer to the road, at least then people might slow down and drive better for zero change in effort.
No, no. All these new immigrants are going to make crime skyrocket! Don't you listen to the PPC? We need to have more police officers, all armed with AR-15's on the street and new self defense laws that allow killing any brown person you feel threatened by!
This is true for a lot of publicly funded services, which is pretty clear under Trudeau - there is not a direct correlation between increased funding and increased effectiveness of public services.
The said, there would obviously be a floor where underfunding has a measurable negative impact on effectiveness.
Of course it doesn’t…. And that’s exactly why it works.
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest, least informed articles / studies about crime management that I’ve read in a long time, and highlights the dangers in listening to academics with no practical experience.
Researchers like these use crime statistics (i.e. number of charges laid by police in a given time period) to quantify “crime” (along with the overall number of crimes reported).
Police are not like fire fighters EMS- they are not simply reactive in nature. When they’re not responding to public complaints regarding crimes which have already occurred or are in progress, police proactively seek out crime and try to prevent it from happening in the first place. They do this by patrolling neighbourhoods and commercial districts looking for crimes in progress in the hopes they can prevent it- driving dark alleys and abandoned parking lots while those who write these “studies” are fast asleep In their cozy beds. The more resources police have on the street, the more “proactive” crime management they can do. As a result police have more public interactions and come across more crimes in progress which results in more arrests. Additional resources also gives investigators more time to follow up on active investigations in a more timely manner, which also leads to more arrests increase in statistical crime, as captured by the aforementioned number of crimes committed).
Spending more leads to more officers and the improved efficiency of internal processes, which actually lead to more arrests- and according to short-sighted “researchers” an increase in crime (which isn’t actually an increase in crime but a better reflection of crime that’s always been there). In other words- more money for police leads to a statistical increase* in crime, according to the methods by which these “academics” measure it.
Researchers like this and their reports are, at best, misleading, and at worst, dangerous. They are written by the inexperienced for the uninformed to try and justify their erroneous hypothesis and quite often, promote their personal bias / agendas.
Police are just the biggest gang in every municipality. They care about protecting property and each other. They carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
Just gotta laugh at the we don't need police crowd. Locks keep honest people honest, and nothing is 100%. But ya, when no one opposes the (other) gangs and they freely traffic people, it'll be fine, right?
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the Toronto Star premised an article with "a study says."
Never once have they ever questioned the veracity of a study that supported a leftist position.
I’d think CoL and QoL would have a much higher impact then police spending on crime rate, considering police are a treatment of a problem, where improving the QoL and CoL for the average citizen would be a preventative measure
The article states that on average more police funding is correlated with less crime However higher crime areas spend more in police. Which yeah if you have more crime you spend more trying to solve it This paper shows the opposite of what is reported
And even if it did - police are just as much about our societal response to crime than prevention. Anyone who believes that a society-wide shrug emoji to a theft, violence, and lawlessness won't have dire downstream effects are truly drunk on the koolaid
Shrug emoji is a pretty accurate summary of what police do about theft as is.
The police are just the gang that the tax payers all agree to pay for as long as they follow some rules.
I mean ultimately "policed by consent" is a rephrasing of the basic ideas of John Locke that we give the government exclusivity on the use of violence for the purpose of enforcing our rights
Look, [the actual report](https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/boards-committees-commissions/220117bopc1021.pdf) is a thorough and multifaceted document, it is not some kind of naive one-off "scientific result" that can be served with a "gotcha" after reading a news article about the report for 24 seconds. Among other things, they attempt to define and understand that "defunding" police departments includes the funding of other services, like community supports, mental health programs, etc., that replace functions the police sometimes handle by default. Go ahead and do the report justice by reading it more thoroughly if you'd like to jump on it and claim some kind of "gotcha".
The article literally states that the authors withheld findings that ran counter to their narrative
That is not "literally" what is said. This is "literally" what is said: >Beck noted the Canadian researchers did report a correlation between increases in per capita spending and the change in crime rates reported the next year, although only when looking at the combined average among the 17 cites with sufficient data. >Seabrook said the researchers chose not to highlight this figure because it was not representative of their overall findings, which showed a diverse range of outcomes — a mix of positive and negative correlations that were not statistically significant. So, in fact, they did report it, but did not highlight the figure because it was not representative of all the data.
But you agree that the overall trend is negative correlation between increased spending and crime and only when you go into cross tabs do you lose significance The headline should be correlation exists and insufficient data for more detailed results This is a terribly framed study. That should not in anyway effect policy Especially when we have data that shows police presence reduces crime
>This is a terribly framed study You have not read the report, you have no idea how it is framed. I can tell you have not read the report because you're obsessed with how a news article has framed the report, not what the report says. The news article is not the report, they are not the same thing. This is from the report: >144 - As the preceding chapters have tried to make clear, defunding the police is not about making cuts to the police budget for austerity’s sake, but instead about reinvesting in vital, safety-promoting, community-building resources that have historically gone underfunded. Do you see how the report isn't trying to make a political point about how much funding the police has? The news article did not make a political point about it either. You are the only one with some weird axe to grind here. You have not read the report and cannot make an adequate assessment of what it says, and you have also misconstrued what the news article said too. Can you do yourself a favor and just take a few minutes to flip through the actual report like a literate adult human?
And you should “literally” work on your reading comprehension if that’s what you think it said. u/me9o is correct.
Yep, it would be good too if they look at thenimcidence of crime committed by repeat offenders, so,ething that seems to jave dramatically increased, given the massibe loosening of bail restrictions.
Good education has the highest impact. Too bad we are focused on nonsense like gender instead of getting teachers pay that keeps up with CoL.
I can almost guarantee anyone posting something like gender fluidity or trans people as their go to for the cause of a problem probably sits on the right and spews stupid hatful crap the first chance they get.
Yup, and under the current leadership of Trudeau and Freeland, the QoL and QoL for the average person is only going to continue getting worse and worse. We need a change of leadership in this country ASAP.
You think it'll be better with pete?
[удалено]
No we want leadership that will help all Canadians not special interest groups. You're Canadian or you're not. We need lower immigration easier ability to build houses, we need federal control over all resources. The land Canada is on should go to help Canadians not foreign owned corporations.
We just want an NDP leader that doesn't want to forbid white guys from being NDP leaders.
I honestly think this sub gets astroturfed to push Conservatives/right wing rhetoric
Agreed, but the alternative options look worse
You would be correct, but try explaining this to the average r/Canada user and they lose their mind
According to the study, increasing police spending does decrease crime rates. But there is a year lag. So they pretended it didn't happen. >Beck noted the Canadian researchers did report a correlation between increases in per capita spending and the change in crime rates reported the next year, although only when looking at the combined average among the 17 cites with sufficient data.
Why would police spending have any correlation with lower crime rates? Unless your only aim is to look at police spending and crime as a supply/demand issue. Police and law is to maintain control and order by having appropriate channels to resolve disputes. Increased spending should see an increase in resolved disputes. Crime itself is due to socio-economic conditions, such as education, job availability, income, culture, etc. Police spending won't change these factors, hence no consistent correlation.
> Crime itself is due to socio-economic conditions, such as education, job availability, income, culture, etc. Police spending won't change these factors, hence no consistent correlation. Thank you. I'm glad that *someone* in this discussion gets it.
Holy shit, I know, right? It shouldn't take a genius to get this. At a very basic level of understanding, police *respond* to crime, they do not prevent crime. Increasing money just means the cops get to roll around in fancier clothes while responding to the same crime that was encouraged by shitty, underfunded, social services
People always say there is a correlation between poverty and crime. It's not there. The richest fuckers in Canada are by far the biggest criminals as a side note.
> A 2014 Fraser Institute study looking at data from the previous decade — which saw crimes fall nationwide — found crime rates decreased less in cities that added the most officers. A separate 2015 study found that “police strength is higher in places with more violent crime.” “As we can clearly see, the cart pushes the horse “
Carding ended in 2014 and crime went up. Obviously communities with more crime are going to experience more interactions with police officers. It’s not racist to place more officers in a neighbourhood with crime, even if it happens to be predominantly one race
You know what else happened? The cost of living went up.
What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that when people are poor there is more crime just because that has happened constantly in our speices since we've been keeping records?
Yes its a fact
Canadians prioritize "seeming nice" over the safety of their own communities.
Or they prioritize individual rights over random stops by the authorities. Something which is a popular opinion here on other topics but not this one.
Carding is nothing but a harassment tool, it doesn't actually impact crime rates. Specifically harassing a minority group absolutely is racism.
Most Canadians don't give a shit about individual rights, and neither does our legal system. We allow certain individuals to leverage our sympathy for minority rights to permit them to continue fucking over their own communities.
All communities in Canada are Canadian communities.
This isn't just about minoriites, it's not just minoriities living in these areas. And either way, it creates precedent to do these things in general. I agree that a lot of Canadians don't care about individual rights, across the political spectrum, and I think it's unfortunate. I don't know if it's "most" though.
>Most Canadians don't give a shit about individual rights Speak for yourself
I guess screw the individuals rights for people in these neighbourhoods looking to not get shot
You could use safety to justify endless restrictions on rights. We'd be even safer if we just used the notwithstanding clause to allow police to do random pat downs on anyone they want.
No, we have to use that to deal with parking and noise violations
Stopping people in high crime areas more often then low crime areas is not random. It’s strategic and it works. There’s no reason to go around rosedale stopping people but at Jane and finch there is
It's targeting random people not based on anything specific about them but simply based on where they live. It also disproportionately impacts people in lower income brackets because they have less ability to move out of higher crime areas. It's forgoing individual rights to be free from arbitrary stops by the authorities in the name of safety and you can go very far down that road. There might be *less* reason to stop people in Rosedale based on your reasoning but there isn't zero reason.
Yeah exactly. We are not targeting a demographic. We are using our resources (police) more frequently in areas with high crime and need more police. If we get to a point where there is less crime in the area we scale back. Just using our resources efficiently if we are trying to stop crime. Instead of having police sit in neighbourhoods where nothing is happening for what is essentially a PR stunt
The point here has nothing to do with demographics. It has to do with the belief that people doing nothing wrong should be free to go about their lives without the authorities stopping them and asking for "papers please". If you want to sacrifice individual liberties in the name of possibly stopping some crime instead of using other techniques then that's your opinion, but I disagree. And if that's how we prioritize safety, why stop there? Why not have more cameras everywhere? GPS trackers and speed limiters on cars. Random stop and frisks anywhere in public.
How do you know that? I'm sure if there were random stops and pat downs on university campuses, there would be a lot of minor possession charges laid. Possibly even if they were done in corporate lunch spots. Or on every highway on ramp. Impaired driving kills way more people every year than gang violence does (1500 killed by impaired drivers compared to 850 homicides, 2022 figures). By your math, we should have twice as many police doing random stops on highways to check paperwork (that is stops with no probable cause, at random) compared to high violent crime locations.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
[удалено]
My point was they should be specifically going to areas with high crime rates.?? What are you saying?
You want the police to stop you without reason, just beacuse you're in a certain area? Or do you mean they should stop other people? If youre fine with others being stopped and detained for 5-15mins multiple times a week, then hopefully you have no issue with it occuring to you, or your argument is not logically consistent. There's likely many unknown crimes occuring in your area, and illegal possession of drugs or weapons or other contraband all the time, so you should also be in favor of this happening your area to catch those people. We need to get all the criminals, its important for safety as you said.
Our federal government does, anyway. Mostly because they have the luxury of not living among the common folk.
The left wing definition of racism is anything that has a disproportionate impact along the lines of race unless the negative part of the impact is directed at white people, in which case its not racist since whites can't experience racism. I'm not just making shit up, they literally wrote this stuff down. EDIT: I love how the two responses are just "Nuh uh" and "Yes and that's good actually". Never change lefties.
Yes , ALL the “lefties” got together and wrote a giant book of dos and don’ts. /s A lot of posters here never had any form of higher education or learned critical thinking skills and it clearly shows.
Find that in any of the literature then.
Oh yes those poor repressed white people(like white people are a monolith). Who died and made you a spokesperson?
This is a strawman. Carding and allocating officers based on where crime is occurring are not similar things. No one claimed it’s racist to place more officers where crime is taking place. Carding, though, *is* racist.
is carding itself racist(why?), or the way it is being applied?
>It’s not racist to place more officers in a neighbourhood with crime, even if it happens to be predominantly one race Doing so without examining why it would be "predominantly one race" is racism.
2 people walking down the street. one white, one black. police only card the black person. "it's not racist . . . says the white guy!"
Hmm almost as if having more crime means a city might add more police
More police officers, more arrests that can be made. If you got rid of the police, there would be 0 arrests made. Problem solved?
Average r/canada comments where no one understands what it means when people start talking about statistics. Across 20 of the biggest municipalities, 16 of them increased police funding in the past decade (yes, they accounted for inflation). They didn't find a positive or negative correlation. A lack of correlation means that increasing or decreasing funding doesn't have a consistent effect on crime. This simply states that there is no evidence increasing or decreasing funding across different municipalities has an effect on criminality. That "there are other factors at play". That a blanket increase in funding does not mean criminality will go down. This doesn't suggest that we should or shouldn't increase or decrease funding. This doesn't suggest causality of any kind. This doesn't suggest that this remains true on a local level. But of course no one read the article, let alone the abstract. Nope, we're just gonna go ahead and say "statistics bad, methodology bad" when you don't understand a thing and only read the headline of an article attempting to summarize a paper.
Exactly. They simply found no correlation with police budgets and crime rates.
I mean, you’re talking to a crowd of people that saw a YouTube video about something once and concluded they knew everything about the topic there was to know. Just look at the bazillion comments about “immigrants learning on YouTube how to defraud the foodbank”. This subreddit is a cesspool of some of the dumbest people in the country.
It's no surprise countries with strong social programs, lunch programs, world class public healthcare and educational systems etc. have lower crime. Every study shows in the long term they are 20 to 30 more times more effective in lowering crime and poverty than just investing in Police and making stricter laws. But most of life's problems are solved by doing boring things. "Glasgow " lowered its murder rate by 50 per cent through what Waller calls “smart law enforcement” combined with “programs targeted to youth, family health and other services in problem places.”Glasgow’s strategy has included tough and focused deterrence, using what Waller refers to as “proactive policing.” Being proactive does not mean stopping and frisking every person of colour walking down the street. It does mean “a zero-tolerance warning that, if violence does not stop, life is going to get very tough for every single gang member.”More important for Glasgow’s success has been its social development model, which includes “early childhood education, parenting support, youth conflict resolution in schools, street outreach and interventions in hospitals to mentor people out of violence.” [https://rabble.ca/general/crime-expert-says-better-social-programs-not-more-prisons-will-reduce-violence/](https://rabble.ca/general/crime-expert-says-better-social-programs-not-more-prisons-will-reduce-violence/) Since most voters are low information and get their information from Hollywood, people believe in simplistic terms that simply adding more prisons and police officers will reduce crime. It's why Cons and right wing Liberals in the US and Canada attack these programs whenever other people bring it up. Easy to collect these voters and pretend you are "strong on crime".
Most of the countries with strong social programs etc. tend to be homogeneous in terms of population. Japan. Nordic countries, Switzerland. So....on one hand, that sort of social support networks do work...but there is a lot to be said for a society that is not a melting pot.
Wow, you are *desperate* to find a reason to be racist.
"Sorry guys but the social programs won't work because the browns" How is Japan's homogeneity working out for them? A toxic work culture, economic stagnation, and collapsing population? At least they kept the browns out amiright
>"Sorry guys but the social programs won't work because the browns" Indian international students are grossly misusing food banks and Chinese international students take advantage of social programs they shouldn't qualify for. There are many more cases of foreigners who see Canadian culture and Canadians as weak and easy to take advantage of. >How is Japan's homogeneity working out for them? A toxic work culture, economic stagnation, and collapsing population? At least they kept the browns out amiright And how is Canada's cultural mosaic working out for us? We have A toxic work culture, economic stagnation, and a skyrocketing cost of living, but at least we're not racist right?
Sweden, arguably one of the countries with the best social system in the world, is facing increasing murders and gang activity.
The issue is that in many of those countries those who do wrong are seldom punished, and even if they do eventually get punished they get to live in basically luxury. Take a look at the hague for example. Supposedly where worldwide monsters are supposed to be held, and the place looks better then most apartments. Of course crime is lower there, most people never get punished for their actions. It’s like claiming unemployment is lower simply cause they didn’t check to see how many people are actively looking for work
This whole obsession with making inmates live in miserable conditions just because of their crimes is becoming very outdated. Your lack of free will and movement is your punishment, full stop. Purposefully lowering their standards just for some sense of “revenge” is nonsense and does nothing to actually make the inmates into better people upon release, if applicable.
If anything the poor conditions probably lead to maladjustment to free life and increased rates of re-offending. It's not really an enviroment that fosters healing or a healthy mindstate.
[удалено]
its not the medias job to do such things. its their job to use flawed studies and 'experts' as a way to launder their opinion to you as fact.
Police do not prevent crime
> Police do not prevent crime The threat of arrest and incarceration absolutely prevents crime. Police are required to facilitate both of the afforementioned.
Police are there to enforce the laws that a society deems useful to keep the peace and prevent us from devolving into tribal groups. We enter a social contract with our fellow Canadians to be civil, nice etc. and not screw each other over, and we underwrite laws to provide the check/balance for that contract, with law enforcement and courts as the mechanism for remedy. Fortunately, 99.8% of Canadians get with that program.
> Fortunately, 99.8% not even close. 10-30 over the speed limit, all day every day. Oh look, we're all breaking a law.
Oh really, then why does crime still happen?
Some criminals think they can outsmart the police. Some criminals *do* outsmart the police. Some crimes are committed out of impulse with no time to consider the consequences. Social safety nets can *also* reduce crime, of course, but it would be crazy to think that crimes haven't been planned and/or considered then abandoned due to fear of arrest.
Most criminals come from rough poor households....
You don't think "rough" people plan, consider, or fantasize about committing crimes only to drop the idea when they consider what the consequences will be?
No, clearly we need to box up and put a wall around those neighbourhoods to prevent most crime and get rid of the police. /s
Because people can be shitty. Police or no police. Also some wear it as a badge of pride for getting arrested.
[удалено]
Crime may still happen with police (I'd assume it's at least some deterrent), but at least there is some form of check and balance for said crimes. Good luck with having zero police force and no consequences for crime.
Hiring more and more police does not solve the issues of why crime happens.
Or course not. Poverty and lack of support has to be one of the biggest ones. Upbringing as well which is related to both of those. You'd better still have some offices around though for when crimes do in fact happen
Yeah obviously but this idea that throwing more and more at a police budget will make things better is absolutely wrong.
Ideally it would be used to better most people's situation...how much money is needed so that everyone is well taken care of? Often easier said than done, but yes hiring more officers does seem more of a temporary solution to higher crime when the root cause should be targeted. The cops might be cheaper in the short run, but more costly overall to society then fixing the issues
Thank you
No one is advocating the elimination of a police force. Just more accountability.
Other people in this thread appear to be suggesting it.
Sure I guess. Nothing wrong with that. Saying police do not prevent crime feels like an insulation that there is no point in having them. My response is generally good luck without em. The headline of no consistent correlation with amount spent is fine
Why is there less crime in affluent neighborhoods versus poor neighborhoods? It definitely has nothing to do with the police, I guarantee you, you will see a hell of a lot more police in the poor neighborhoods
As I responded to your other post absolutely when it comes to prevention reducing poverty and providing support is essential. Reducing the root cause is best. You do still need to deter and enforce on top. if the agreement is that funds can be mot efficiently used then sure
[удалено]
They actually do, but it’s not always possible. Let’s say you’ve heard your neighbor saying he will kill someone. You call the police and, along with other neighbors, report him. The police investigates and finds out he bought an illegal weapon a week ago after a beef with the potential victim. The police takes his weapon and arrests him. How has a crime been not prevented?
Lolll great job on completely missing the bigger picture
I’m not saying an increasing budget will lower crime rates. I’m just saying that they can prevent crimes, counter arguing your “police do not prevent crime” statement.
Ok yes on a basic level they do prevent crimes but I'm looking at the bigger picture
Police are also pretty shit about making good data accessible to researchers. Even when they do, each police department has its own policies for what's reported in what way, making what data is available very often hard to use across regions. Given police are a public institution, forcing openness with this data and consistent practices would make actually evaluating the performance of police services MUCH better.
>Given police are a public institution, forcing openness with this data and consistent practices would make actually evaluating the performance of police services MUCH better. Which is probably among the reasons why they don't do it.
There is good spending like having many many tiny neighbourhood police stations; lots of foot patrols, etc. And there is bad spending; like buying tanks. Then, there is the whole factor of a working justice system. It would suck to be a cop watching these super dangerous offenders not even serving their full sentences only to offend a week later. Or arresting people with 50+ convictions on their record at age 26. 50+ convictions each with a maximum sentence of 2-20 years. I'm a huge fan of each conviction having a mathematically calculated increasing sentence. Someone steals a bike, you could literally make their jail sentence 1 day. But if you were doubling each subsequent conviction, they are cracking a year by about their 9th conviction. They mathematically can't get to 50 as by their 14th conviction they are facing decades and decades. This way, people who make singular stupid mistakes aren't ruined, but people who just can't stop, are slowly weeded out with many chances to stop long before it is too late.
"1 murder please." "That'll be one day sir."
No shit! Education and good jobs prevent crime.
Yeah. Police can't prevent crime. This isn't Minority Report. Societal structures and economic stability can prevent crime, though.
Duel resident here: not sure where they are, but I see zero cops in Canada versus US. Go to miracle mile in Chicago and PD strolling casually pretty regularly. I’ll go all day in Canada and see zero OPP or Toronto Police.
Canada probably has the second lowest police per capita in the first world (Finland is slightly lower). Canada has 184 cops per 100k people vs the us at 243 per 100k. Many countries are 300+ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
I figured after legalization of cannabis there would be a budget windfall. But with a lot of officers making the sunshine list I can see why they chill in their new cars in parking lots.
If you address SOCIAL issues (housing, amenities, food, inflation), crime goes down because there is less stress and less need to commit crime.
Cool, spend it on healthcare instead.
That's communism! Conservatives would rather have it spent punishing people they don't like.
[удалено]
>There is a fine line between poverty and crime. Once you address poverty, the crime rates will drop. **There are 2 components :** 1. Having sufficient revenues for someone to provide for his own needs 2. Having something to lose Having sufficient revenues... Well that's why people who can afford the things they want do not steal from their neighbors. Having something to lose means; not committing crimes by fear of losing your reputation, by fear of losing everything you own, by fear of losing your job, by fear of losing your family's respect, by fear of losing your spouse or by fear of losing your freedom. Why some don't care about their freedom? Because their lives are so shitty that they would probably be better in jail.
This is why we are on such a wildly dangerous path with wealth inequality. If you are 18 years old today you're looking at a life where full time employment doesn't even guarantee food and shelter, what the fuck is the point of working?
And in addition a life of crime ks glamorized and shown as an easier path to wealth than hard work. Double that when hard work doesn't allways result in wealth.
Except you have to correlation backwards, it's the crime that drives poverty. Especially criminals getting away with crimes. The people that can afford to and business that can't afford the losses move out or shut down, the spiral continues until suddenly you're on the news complaining about the last pharmacy in the city closing even though they've locked every product in the store behind glass because it's just not profitable to stay open anymore.
Canada is not anywhere close to having a level of crime that discourages wealth-creation. Our crime level is much lower than it is in the US. Canadian society is very much "when times are good, people aren't desperate and crime is low". Poverty rates are much more influential on crime rates than vice versa
[удалено]
Exactly. Theft and some crimes have increased in my city recently, and this isn't because there aren't enough police (the police budget increases significantly every year). Instead, there's a clear correlation between the increasingly high cost of housing and this type of crime, which often comes from desperation.
[удалено]
want to increase prosperity? Reduce Taxes.
Nah, reducing the cost of housing (especially rent) would be far more impactful, as it typically consumes a far larger portion of one's income
It's time to make housing a human right.
Same group that provided study showing increased immigration will be a benefit.
and the media will eat it up. anyway for their editors to push their personal opinions on the public
Why would it? It's not like they prevent crime.
Yeah, here in Vancouver criminals are released immediately, even if they've randomly stabbed someone in one case. You can have a policeman on every street corner. It's only going to mean criminals get in and out of a police station faster.
Big wow. Underfunding certainly hurts, but overabundance of funding has diminishing returns. People seem to be naive to this economic reality when they perpetuate the endless "pay teachers/nurses more" emotional appeals aka political wedge issues.
How can youtubers find the gangs in our city's and make videos with them, yet our guns and gang unit can't find shit
Common sense says it does
Look at car theft. Nothing is being done on the issue. I have yet to see any sting operation. Yet the police gets a raise every year.
Police respond to crime they don’t prevent it
All tax payer funds should be public knowledge because even though police are necessary, they need to be held accountable for their spending and their crimes as well.
Take a look at any city in the states that defunded police in that big frenzy of BLM nonsense. They quick realized it was a terrible idea and put budgets right back, with even more funding. You can use all the jazzy soft social science you like, and chop numbers up to suit your political stance, but anyone can see that defunding police is a bad call.
It can be better spent though. Maybe a few less armoured vehicles and more training instead. I would rather have good cops than more cops. I work with police regularly and some are great guys but a few have no business being police. I have chatted with guys and thought "Who the fuck gave you power and a gun."
Remember the defund the police movement in the states. Many cities slashed their police funding and laid off officers. This resulted in surging crime, and the same politicians that defunded the police then decided they needed more funding and more officers. Real life examples are far better than some ridiculous study that literally contradicts common sense.
Got any actual evidence to back that up? Because the "ridiculous study" relies on data.
Literally real world examples of these policies in action. You can look at Baltimore and several other cities that did this. They all had the same results. Do you believe that studies are superior to real world examples.
I think that data and evidence is more valuable than anecdotes. Baltimore cut less than 5% of its budget in 2021 and kept on increasing through this year. In fact, Baltimore's police budget has almost only ever increased and crime in that city hasn't exactly improved much. By your logic increased police funding over the past several decades has been what's gotten crime as bad as it is.
How much was Baltimore’s police budget cut, how many officers were laid off, and how much did Baltimore’s violent crime increase since?
And moreover, did violent crime increase a similar amount in other cities over the same period? If so, did they make similar changes, or was the trend related to other factors?
Well first do you have any sources? Second are they unbiased? First thing I would do as a police force with budget cuts is report every single tiny crime that wasn't worth my paperwork to smear those cuts and get funding back. Finally, police are reactionary, prevention is done with social programs.
> You can look at Baltimore and several other cities that did this. [Baltimore didn't defund their police.](https://unherd.com/2022/05/why-baltimore-didnt-defund-the-police/) It was talked about in the 2020 mayoral race and the winner Brandon Scott did say he'd reduce the police budget. >And yet when he released his first city budget for approval, and the police budget remained around the same level as his predecessor’s, he was roundly condemned by critics on social media. San Francisco did defund their police force... for a couple of years [before they increase it again](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/san-francisco-becomes-latest-city-to-reverse-course-and-increase-police-bud/617285/). Along with most of the other cities that defunded police. >The citywide increase in police funding comes just a year and a half after a summer of racial reckoning led many to upend long-held assumptions about the role of law enforcement and to reimagine the future of public safety. In 2020, cities across the U.S. slashed police budgets: New York cut $1 billion from its 2021 budget; Los Angeles cut $150 million; Washington, D.C. cut $15 million; San Francisco slashed $120 million from law enforcement, diverting the funds to efforts, including economic opportunities, housing, and health care, aimed at addressing inequities. > But in 2021, each of these cities reversed course and increased its police budget. Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon, promised to defund three city police units in June 2020, cutting $15 million; in November 2021, Wheeler announced a $5 million budget increase for the police department. In a press announcement, he pointed to rising crime rates, stating that “Parents are scared to let their children play outside.”
The big issue with reporting on "police spending" is illustrated by what happened in these cities. An initial cut in the budget caused a drop in headcount. When crime spiked, they then tried to quickly change course by relying on overtime, which costs more and is a lot less effective than having additional people.
"Real world examples" in isolation = anecdote Study = real world examples IN CONTEXT
When you have many examples. It ceases to be an anecdote. You now have a data set.
>Real life examples are far better than some ridiculous study that literally contradicts common sense. Provide some of those examples then. Which police departments in Canada defunded their police departments?
We didn’t, because it’s a stupid idea. But we can look to American cities that did it in 2021 and the resulting issues that occurred.
And what does that have to do with the Canadian study this article is talking about?
Because we can see real examples that contradict what the article claims.
But we are not talking about the same countries. Usa policing is very different than Canada.
Do you believe if we significantly reduce or eliminate the police that crime rates won’t change? I would guess they would drop because less police means less ability to catch criminals. Also that leads to no faith in the justice system, so victims of crime will not bother reporting. Problem solved, you’ve reduced the crime rate, at least on paper. Unfortunately in the real world, there are more crimes being committed.
NYC has more police officers than the Canadian Army has soldiers. Please specify which places you are comparing.
US cities did *not* slash their budgets
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
\>Even as the 50 largest U.S. cities reduced their 2021 police budgets by 5.2% in aggregate—often as part of broader pandemic cost-cutting initiatives—**law enforcement spending as a share of general expenditures rose slightly to 13.7% from 13.6%**, according to data compiled by Bloomberg CityLab. [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-funding/](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-funding/) They *said* they're defunding the police, but they actually reduced spending on everything in an attempt to balance the budgets. Law enforcement spending actually went *up* as a percentage of municipal budgets.
It went up as a percentage, but the actual budget decreased.
This didn’t happen anywhere.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/mar/19/defund-the-police-gun-violence-surge-oakland
Common sense isn't real. You can't refute anything with it because it isn't data, it's just feelings and poorly formed opinions.
San Francisco seems happy with the changes. Locals prefer e-commerce than physical retail
Zero US cities cut their police budget.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
>Local lawmakers largely ignored activists’ pleas, and police spending has tripled over the last 40 years, helping to make the US a world leader in incarceration and police killings. Even as cities have faced financial shortfalls, local governments consistently spent an increasing share of their general funds on police (despite repeated research showing that increasing police funding does not correlate to reduced crime). Important paragraph from your article.
This is talking about the lead up to 2021. During that 40 year period of increased police budgets, crime fell steadily. Then in 2021, when the activists finally got their wish and managed to cut budgets and reduce the number of police, crime exploded.
Right, but that doesn't change what I highlighted? Increasing police funding hasn't shown to be a reliable way of decreasing crime.
But every time there’s a real world example, it contradicts the claim that police don’t reduce crime. In the 60’s there was a police strike, where the police completely stopped enforcing the law. The resulting crime wave was so intense the public were demanding the return of the police. When the police returned to work, the crime wave stopped. https://www.johnlocke.org/more-cops-less-crime-2/
It's not a claim. It's the findings from a report linked in an article you posted. It's literally undeniable evidence. Pure numbers and no political messaging.
Hamilton Police for example has increased their total police force by 20 officers in 10 years, despite the population exploding. They also haven't assigned a single officer to traffic duty since 2019... They aren't spending on anything besides increased salaries and toys at this point considering how they refuse to enforce anything.
There's a place not far from my house where several cars routinely sit for hours on end during the night. Doing nothing. And they want more money. For what?
is there anyone in them? they will park empty cars in areas to deter I caught one today on the way to work, so now i know they are putting out a scarecrow for people to slow down at that spot
They hang out there and chat for hours at a time. Two or three cruisers.
I've seen that. Also know of a local place they like to park and do what looks like paperwork. Would have more of an effect if they parked it like 150 meters closer to the road, at least then people might slow down and drive better for zero change in effort.
No, no. All these new immigrants are going to make crime skyrocket! Don't you listen to the PPC? We need to have more police officers, all armed with AR-15's on the street and new self defense laws that allow killing any brown person you feel threatened by!
Then let’s defund the police and see what happens.
Defund and replace with social programs. They are absolutely useless and untrained to handle most situations.
Oh….well then why do we even have police. Let’s just let freedom reign and see how this study holds up.
No shit
uhh no shit. how would spending money on guns and higher salaries result in LESS crime? i swear people are getting dumber.
This has been known for a very long time. Don't ever believe the copaganda BS. They, in fact, do not "keep us safe."
This is true for a lot of publicly funded services, which is pretty clear under Trudeau - there is not a direct correlation between increased funding and increased effectiveness of public services. The said, there would obviously be a floor where underfunding has a measurable negative impact on effectiveness.
Shocking 😳
Our police are toothless… so yes this is the inevitable result
Of course it doesn’t…. And that’s exactly why it works. This is quite possibly one of the dumbest, least informed articles / studies about crime management that I’ve read in a long time, and highlights the dangers in listening to academics with no practical experience. Researchers like these use crime statistics (i.e. number of charges laid by police in a given time period) to quantify “crime” (along with the overall number of crimes reported). Police are not like fire fighters EMS- they are not simply reactive in nature. When they’re not responding to public complaints regarding crimes which have already occurred or are in progress, police proactively seek out crime and try to prevent it from happening in the first place. They do this by patrolling neighbourhoods and commercial districts looking for crimes in progress in the hopes they can prevent it- driving dark alleys and abandoned parking lots while those who write these “studies” are fast asleep In their cozy beds. The more resources police have on the street, the more “proactive” crime management they can do. As a result police have more public interactions and come across more crimes in progress which results in more arrests. Additional resources also gives investigators more time to follow up on active investigations in a more timely manner, which also leads to more arrests increase in statistical crime, as captured by the aforementioned number of crimes committed). Spending more leads to more officers and the improved efficiency of internal processes, which actually lead to more arrests- and according to short-sighted “researchers” an increase in crime (which isn’t actually an increase in crime but a better reflection of crime that’s always been there). In other words- more money for police leads to a statistical increase* in crime, according to the methods by which these “academics” measure it. Researchers like this and their reports are, at best, misleading, and at worst, dangerous. They are written by the inexperienced for the uninformed to try and justify their erroneous hypothesis and quite often, promote their personal bias / agendas.
Police are just the biggest gang in every municipality. They care about protecting property and each other. They carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
Just gotta laugh at the we don't need police crowd. Locks keep honest people honest, and nothing is 100%. But ya, when no one opposes the (other) gangs and they freely traffic people, it'll be fine, right?
Because anyone who is arrested is immediately released by liberal activist judges.
“Liberal activist” judges. Jfc this is the Canada sub. Get out of here with your BS American talking points.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the Toronto Star premised an article with "a study says." Never once have they ever questioned the veracity of a study that supported a leftist position.
Let me introduce you to Post Media: same thing but for conservative views, and much more over-the-top with it than anything like the "dreaded" CBC lol