Thread: Lately, a number of normally thoughtful people on this site have been committing a version of the “if we had some ham we could have ham-and-eggs if we had some eggs” fallacy in response to concerns about increases in (some) violent crime rates.
They call enlarging they footprint of the criminal justice system—including particularly police—on the premise that this will help reduce crime, especially homicides and gun assaults. And it probably would. But at what cost? That’s a question most of these folks studiously avoid.
I don’t believe I’ve seen a single one of the “Moar police!” folks try to grapple in any serious way with just how deeply pathological, immoral, and counterproductive so much of our criminal legal system has become.
Whether it’s destroying people’s lives for preferring the “wrong” not-particularly-harmful intoxicant, or stealing people’s property under the guise of civil forfeiture, or staging military raids on families in the dark of night…
Or coercing people into pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, or fighting tooth and nail against post-conviction relief even though we know false convictions happen routinely, or invoking various judge-made immunity doctrines in order to avoid accountability, etc., etc.—
Our criminal justice system is fundamentally rotten. cato.org/blog/americas-…
So yes, putting more cops on the street can reduce murder rates—as does cold weather, after-school activities, Superbowls, and ending prohibitory drug and alcohol regimes. But again—at what cost? And could some of that money be more effectively spent elsewhere? (Spoiler: yes)
If you prefer serious analysis that eschews statist handwringing and tackles hard questions like police violence and plummeting confidence in law enforcement head-on, here’s an edifying piece: newrepublic.com/article/162634…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
