From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 02-Aug-14 16:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 02-Aug-14 12:45, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   >>>>>The main factor [in crime rates] today is the number of cops   
   >>>>>per capita.  For instance, among large cities, NYC has the most   
   >>>>>cops per capita and the lowest murder rate, while Dallas has   
   >>>>>the fewest cops (1/2x NYC) and highest murder rate (2x NYC).   
   >>>>>And the number of cops is determined by tax/economic policies,   
   >>>>>so again it boils down to money.   
      
   >>>>Do New York cops walk beats, or are they pulled away for special   
   >>>>events and traffic, and all too often just acting like security   
   >>>>guards and spooks? Cop walking a beat, if he's useful, may have   
   >>>>some effect on crime, but the rest of it is window dressing.   
      
   >>>Cops walking/driving a beat increases the _perception_ that   
   >>>criminals will be caught, changing the subconscious risk/reward   
   >>>analysis.   
      
   >>Not what I'm getting at. Cops walking a beat can establish rapport   
   >>with people who live and work there;   
      
   >Right, NYC cops "establish a rapport" with people by stopping and   
   >frisking them even though there is no reason to suspect them of being   
   >criminals other than having the "wrong" skin color.   
      
   Of course not; that's police state tactics. There are USEFUL ways to   
   walk a beat.   
      
   >>>Just as important, though, are the detectives who investigate   
   >>>crimes and _actually_ catch the offenders.   
      
   >>Investigation is about punishment, not prevention. The vast majority   
   >>of offenders, in the heat of the moment committing a violent crime,   
   >>aren't considering the consequence of punishment for themselves.   
      
   >Crimes of passion aren't logical, I'll agree, but very little crime   
   >falls into that category.   
      
   Robbing a liquor store isn't a crime of passion; the offender isn't   
   thinking about consequences, doesn't think about the possibility of   
   getting caught later by a detective.   
      
   >And once someone gets away with one crime because there aren't enough   
   >cops to catch or even look for them, what do you think happens?  They   
   >commit more crimes.  OTOH, if you lock up criminals, that seriously   
   >reduces their ability to commit more crimes--and even when they're   
   >released, it makes it easier to convict them the next time and put them   
   >away for even longer.   
      
   Yes, I agree with that.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)