As "defunding the police" continues to pick up steam, I think it may be helpful to appreciate the relatively minor role formal enforcement actually plays, and thus why investing in alternatives makes so much sense.
Start here: ~50% of violence, 65% of prop crime NEVER REPORTED.
Start here: ~50% of violence, 65% of prop crime NEVER REPORTED.
Next: of those crimes that do get reported, about 30% to 40% of violent crimes, 15% of property crimes yield an arrest.
So we are at 20% of viol victims see an arrest, 5% of prop crimes see an arrest.
Only a fraction of crimes enter the system at all.
So we are at 20% of viol victims see an arrest, 5% of prop crimes see an arrest.
Only a fraction of crimes enter the system at all.
Now, to be clear, clearance rates (like 911 calls) are not a complete picture of police efficacy.
Officers standing at the corner, walking the beat, etc., may prevent all sorts of crimes without needing make an arrest. In fact, that's likely their most effective impact.
Officers standing at the corner, walking the beat, etc., may prevent all sorts of crimes without needing make an arrest. In fact, that's likely their most effective impact.
Moving along.
The data here is... messy... but for felony arrests, looks like about 30% of felony cases get dropped without a case (tho that doesn't always mean completely gone).
We have no real data for misdemeanors.
Still, approach 10% of violence see a case.
The data here is... messy... but for felony arrests, looks like about 30% of felony cases get dropped without a case (tho that doesn't always mean completely gone).
We have no real data for misdemeanors.
Still, approach 10% of violence see a case.
Finally, of those charged--almost all of whom are convicted--about 40% see the inside of a prison, another 30% a brief stint in jail.
So total lockup for violence likely below 10%, for property below 1%.
So total lockup for violence likely below 10%, for property below 1%.
Yet despite these remarkably LOW levels of contact at every level of the system, we are experiencing crime still at near-historic lows.
Which means that much of what prevent crime must be something more social, less crim justice.
Perhaps we should invest more in that.
Which means that much of what prevent crime must be something more social, less crim justice.
Perhaps we should invest more in that.
The logic is clear:
The criminal justice system only snags a small fraction of cases, and that fraction shrinks significantly at every level.
But if we, say, focus on helping someone manage their anger or address excessive drinking, that effect operates all the time.
The criminal justice system only snags a small fraction of cases, and that fraction shrinks significantly at every level.
But if we, say, focus on helping someone manage their anger or address excessive drinking, that effect operates all the time.
Again, to be clear: to the extent the system deters, its deterrent impact doesn't show up in raw CJ data, since (by definition) those who are deterred avoid contact with the system.
But still: unlikely that the CJ's low-prob random interactions are what really shape behavior.
But still: unlikely that the CJ's low-prob random interactions are what really shape behavior.
These interventions are not irrelevant, but they are not as central as the police and more traditional views would have us think.
Most social control is coming from somewhere else. Defunding is about emphasizing funding those (non-CJ) institutions/approaches.
Most social control is coming from somewhere else. Defunding is about emphasizing funding those (non-CJ) institutions/approaches.
