United States | News & Politics

308 readers

7 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

An Early Warning That Policing May Be in Decline | Police departments across the country are solving far fewer crimes than they did before 2020. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/usa@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While headlines tend to focus on falling clearance rates in large liberal cities, the decline occurred nationwide in both red and blue cities, counties and states. The violent crime clearance rate, for example, fell considerably between 2019 to 2022 in big cities, which tend to be led by Democrats, as well as in small cities and suburban and rural counties, which tend to be led by Republicans.

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

It's not necessarily the case though that fewer crimes are being actually "solved," in the most precise sense of the term.

It could be that the current heightened interest in police oversight and focus on investigation of (and huge lawsuit payouts as a consequence of) wrongdoing by the police has made it less likely that people will be railroaded/framed for crimes they didn't actually commit, so the rate at which crimes are marked as solved has declined, even as the rate at which they actually are solved hasn't.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's definitely a big chunk of the drop in case clearance rates since the 1960s. It's not as clear that there have been actual changes to police honesty recently though.

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It struck me after I posted that that modern technology and investigative techniques would also contribute to such a decline.

It's undoubtedly more difficult to falsely convict someone (whether deliberately or not) in the era of GPS, cell phone records, video surveillance and DNA tests.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's a famous example of how improvements in understanding of burn patterns resulted in concluding that a bunch of people were falsely convicted for arson:

Due to the extensive publicity the case received, and because the murder charge carried a potential death sentence, the prosecution hired Lentini and John DeHaan, who had coauthored a fire investigation textbook, to evaluate other theories of how the fire may have started. One possible explanation was that one of the children, playing with matches, had ignited a sofa.

Fortunately, two doors down from the Lewis’ residence was an almost identical house. Lentini and DeHaan received funds and permission to furnish that house with the same type of furniture and carpeting as in Lewis’. Then they wired the structure with sensors, lit the sofa on fire and recorded the results. Within minutes the house was an inferno, due to a flashover. A flashover occurs when a burning object generates hot combustible gasses that ignite and engulf an entire area in flames.

To the general amazement of everyone involved, Lentini and DeHaan discovered the same burn marks on the floor of the test house that prosecutors thought indicated arson. But rather than having resulted from a liquid accelerant, the marks were caused by flashover. Prosecutors quickly dropped the charges. “That case opened my eyes,” Lentini said. “There were all these rules of thumb you can find in the literature at the National Fire Academy that are just wrong.”

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago

Don’t credulously accept the testimonies of expert witnesses. Examples of “the science” proving years later to have been pseudoscience abound.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ding ding ding ding ding! This is exactly the case.

The police are merely getting away with less corruption and misconduct. The metric "solving crimes" has ALWAYS been a red herring.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While this certainly sounds plausible, even rational and perfectly logical, it's also the exact sort of argument that could easily be spurious. Now, i'm not making that accusation (nor do mean to imply it), but do you happen to have any data backing up this assertion?

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Eh?

I said that it's "not necessarily the case that" one thing and "it could be that" something else.

Logic and plausibilty are all that's necessary.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

when asking for evidence, i didn't expect equivocation and, "it's just a guess, bro," hand-waving in response-- see, this is why i was skeptical and asked.

Logic and plausibilty [sic] are all that’s necessary.

no. evidence is necessary. otherwise, it's just speculation, and that's just not good enough.

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck are you on about?

It's not necessarily the case though that fewer crimes are being actually "solved," in the most precise sense of the term.

It could be that the current heightened interest in police oversight and focus on investigation of (and huge lawsuit payouts as a consequence of) wrongdoing by the police has made it less likely that people will be railroaded/framed for crimes they didn't actually commit, so the rate at which crimes are marked as solved has declined, even as the rate at which they actually are solved hasn't.

That's everything I said, right there. What part of it are you not understanding?

evidence is necessary. otherwise, it’s just speculation

Of course it's fucking speculation! What the fuck else did you think it was?!

i didn’t expect equivocation

It would be equivocation if there was a disjunct between the intended meaning of what I said at one point and the intended meaning of the same thing at some other point.

But I've been entirely consistent in what I've said. The disjunct is between what YOU thought I meant and what I actually said, and that's your fucking problem - not mine.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I’m not reading that hissy fit. When you make assertions, back it up with evidence. If it’s just a guess, say so.