![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There are no quick solutions
Jul. 22nd, 2020 10:11 amAgain, just writing down some thoughts re. police reform debate.
I hear a lot of arguments. "We need more police" vs "we need to defund police".
I guess it depends on where you're coming from. I grew up in a good place that was going through some really shitty times - let's say, the things I see in bad parts of Oakland do not shock me at all. I've seen worse when I was a kid - at least we don't see mafia-style hits using military grade explosives or RPGs in Oakland or Chicago right now - and when I was growing up it was a semi-regular thing in my 'hood.
However, I've seen that it is possible to change things - but it takes a really long time to do it. It takes decades - from what I've seen the problem is multi-layered.
1) You have hardened criminals. Most of them will never be reformed completely. No matter how much police you put in the neighborhood, they will be in and out of jail, bringing violence and crime with them - just because they don't know what else to do.
2) You have opportunistic criminals. That's a majority of population - if you don't have a clear cut path to normal life and if police don't provide you guaranteed safety, eventually you're going to fall into this category.
Better schools, less oppressive policing and more jobs benefit the second category - but it takes at least a decade or more to see first signs of the changes. You need to build trust and you literally need to wait for a new generation to finish the school.
On the other hand, hardened criminals require immediate actions. Is it possible to strike a balance?
IMO, yes. I've actually seen it work in 90-s in Ukraine. There were no shootings during a routine traffic stop (though we had heavily fortified checkpoints in my town - think walls with battlement-style openings). Cops were extremely corrupt but it was mostly a peaceful kind of corruption. You get stopped, you pay "on-a-spot fine", you move on. Every gangster knew a traffic cop won't shoot him - so there was no need to shoot back. However, everybody knew that when the cavalry (a couple of well-trained and well-armed squads) shows up - it's game over.
This kind of balance worked - it was not ideal, but it worked. If patrol and traffic cops perform only limited functions - such as picking up drunks and writing up traffic tickets, there is no need for criminals to get nervous during a routine traffic stop. And for really bad guys you can always call the cavalry that shoots first and ask questions later. This way regular citizens almost never interact with trigger-happy militarized "pit-bull cops" - and don't get killed by them.
But again, it took almost a decade to see first changes. So I am not getting my hopes up - even if police reform starts today.
I hear a lot of arguments. "We need more police" vs "we need to defund police".
I guess it depends on where you're coming from. I grew up in a good place that was going through some really shitty times - let's say, the things I see in bad parts of Oakland do not shock me at all. I've seen worse when I was a kid - at least we don't see mafia-style hits using military grade explosives or RPGs in Oakland or Chicago right now - and when I was growing up it was a semi-regular thing in my 'hood.
However, I've seen that it is possible to change things - but it takes a really long time to do it. It takes decades - from what I've seen the problem is multi-layered.
1) You have hardened criminals. Most of them will never be reformed completely. No matter how much police you put in the neighborhood, they will be in and out of jail, bringing violence and crime with them - just because they don't know what else to do.
2) You have opportunistic criminals. That's a majority of population - if you don't have a clear cut path to normal life and if police don't provide you guaranteed safety, eventually you're going to fall into this category.
Better schools, less oppressive policing and more jobs benefit the second category - but it takes at least a decade or more to see first signs of the changes. You need to build trust and you literally need to wait for a new generation to finish the school.
On the other hand, hardened criminals require immediate actions. Is it possible to strike a balance?
IMO, yes. I've actually seen it work in 90-s in Ukraine. There were no shootings during a routine traffic stop (though we had heavily fortified checkpoints in my town - think walls with battlement-style openings). Cops were extremely corrupt but it was mostly a peaceful kind of corruption. You get stopped, you pay "on-a-spot fine", you move on. Every gangster knew a traffic cop won't shoot him - so there was no need to shoot back. However, everybody knew that when the cavalry (a couple of well-trained and well-armed squads) shows up - it's game over.
This kind of balance worked - it was not ideal, but it worked. If patrol and traffic cops perform only limited functions - such as picking up drunks and writing up traffic tickets, there is no need for criminals to get nervous during a routine traffic stop. And for really bad guys you can always call the cavalry that shoots first and ask questions later. This way regular citizens almost never interact with trigger-happy militarized "pit-bull cops" - and don't get killed by them.
But again, it took almost a decade to see first changes. So I am not getting my hopes up - even if police reform starts today.