• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Police solve something like less than 2% of reported crimes.

    Even a libertarian can see this is fucking stupid, imagine a restaurant that gets 2% of its orders correct and served in a timely manner.

    Police do not primarily exist to solve crimes.

    They primarily exist as a goon/thug class to protect property and capital, all other behaviors and effects are ancillary.

    If Police wanted to actually lessen crime, they’d either attack its root causes and use significant parts of their budgets to fund affordable housing and public schools, or massively reorient toward pursuing white collar crime, which is often of such a huge financial scale that it basically directly impoverishes society at a large scale.

    • FarraigePlaisteaċ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      41 minutes ago

      That figure is a little misleading, but I understand how you picked it up because it’s everywhere.

      Police “clear” crimes to be progressed for prosecution.

      Prosecutors “prosecute” crimes. It’s this that the 2% figure is aimed at. The clearance rates (the job done by the police) is higher.

      According to this article[1], 22% of reported serious crimes led to arrests. 4% (of reported serious crimes) led to convictions. They then halve both of those numbers to account for unreported crimes. The article still uses the 2% figure in the headline despite the nuance in the article.

      That might sound academic given the overall point you make still stands. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

      1: https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes-143878