SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes:
Camden, New Jersey is a very low income neighborhood. According to this NY Times article, until recently it had typical low income policing--heavy on corruption and violence and low on compassion.
But now they have a new chief and things have changed --
"Handing a $250 ticket to someone who is making $13,000 a year" — around the per capita income in the city — "can be life altering," Chief Thomson said in an interview last year, noting that it can make car insurance unaffordable or result in the loss of a driver's license. "Taxing a poor community is not going to make it stronger."
Handling more vehicle stops with a warning, rather than a ticket, is one element of Chief Thomson's new approach, which, for lack of another name, might be called the Hippocratic ethos of policing: Minimize harm, and try to save lives.
Officers are trained to hold their fire when possible, especially when confronting people wielding knives and showing signs of mental illness, and to engage them in conversation when commands of "drop the knife" don't work. This sometimes requires backing up to a safer distance. Or relying on patience rather than anything on an officer's gun belt.
While not out of the woods yet, it sounds like there is hope for Camden and maybe it won't just continue to be written off as a war zone.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:21PM (2 children)
Here in my state (US), we tried "reasonable and prudent" for a highway speed limit, twice. Both times, the legislature bowed to outside pressure and replaced it with numerical limits.
The first numerical limit was imposed under the threat of the withholding of federal highway funds, so the legislature "enforced" the limit with a US$5 fine, which could be paid to the ticketing officer on the spot. Motorists would often keep a few fivers in the glove box, just in case.
The second limit was instated after the state's restoration of "reasonable and prudent" was roundly mocked on late-night talk shows, especially after a noted racer sped across the state, and successfully argued that, due to his experience and skills, he was within the "reasonable and prudent" limits. Now our limits and fines are in line with surrounding states.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:13PM (1 child)
Here in my state (US), we tried "reasonable and prudent" for a highway speed limit, twice. Both times, the legislature bowed to outside pressure and replaced it with numerical limits.
Were the "reasonable and prudent" times long enough to get any meaningful incident rate data?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday April 07 2017, @02:22AM
Sorry it took so long to respond--its been a busy week.
"Reasonable and prudent" [missoulian.com] was in place until 1974, and then for 5 years from 1995-99, and traffic fatalities went down [motorists.org] during the latter period; however, statistics at the time weren't fine-grained enough [missoulian.com] to definitively show that the policy was responsible. [mediatrackers.org]
I haven't been able to find statistics prior to 1978 online, and none of the stories I've seen about the policy talk about the period before 1974, so I can't tell you the effect of the first "reasonable and prudent" period.