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, Interesting) by ollonk on Monday April 03 2017, @08:56PM (18 children)
Thanks for submitting something positive. It's nice to see something about government that isn't divisive or sad.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @09:02PM (13 children)
When I read this, I thought to myself: Those who depend on a violently imposed monopoly must hope and pray for a Dear Leader who is benevolent.
The solutions put in place here will be as transient as the police chief; it would be better to implement the "policing" service with competing service providers within a market of voluntary trade—that would be a true separation of powers.
Fine, fine. Let the "legislators" stroke their egos by allowing them to write the "policing" standards, certification process, etc. But in time, people will see that there's no need for their monopoly on "law" either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @09:05PM
Will we all get a pony too?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday April 03 2017, @09:21PM (11 children)
it would be better to implement the "policing" service with competing service providers within a market of voluntary trade—that would be a true separation of powers.
As soon as you privatize government services, profit becomes the ruling guideline, not service.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 03 2017, @09:49PM (7 children)
I'm looking forward to private police forces fighting over who gets to arrest me, as it will decide which private prison I get sent to, and therefore their bonus check...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @12:10AM (6 children)
I have no idea what a functioning market for "policing" would actually look like; I imagine it would be surprising to both of us—as is often the case for evolutionary solutions to complex problems.
Nevertheless, your scenario indicates that it would be in the interest of competing organizations to establish contractual agreements and protocols, including robust data-collection with regard to policing actions. That might make policing a lot more transparent, and the need to justify actions might temper brutality.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 04 2017, @12:30AM (5 children)
Fuck no. You need a major clue brick to the forehead, whether you're a highly persistent troll or actually fundamentally delusional!
If private prisons paying^W bribing^W offering campaign contributions to judges who send the most people to the slammer isn't enough of a lesson to you, I don't know what will teach you.
Now instead of three city cop cars trying to maintain the peace, you want three private cop cars trying to cover their expenses by arresting or fining anyone they can find in the vicinity? Why would a private cop ever let someone off with a warning?
The ideal societal Demand for policing service is ZERO. Where's the market incentive for private competition to drive towards that goal?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:57AM
Oh don't worry about him. He breathed a few too many chemtrails during the weather war.
He'll find something else to post about in good time as he always does.
Weather war was my favorite. Hopefully he'll do ancient aliens next and tie it in with the Anunnaki.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:41AM (2 children)
We've already tried the private police force route. We called it the local mob. Protection for a price.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by dry on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:09AM (1 child)
Need to go back further to the era of the Pinkerton Private Security Agency. Out numbered the US army at one point.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:59AM
Yeah, I was thinking of that too, but they were soon joined by others who followed a different, uh, business ethic.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:32AM
If private prisons paying^W bribing^W offering campaign contributions to judges who send the most people to the slammer isn't enough of a lesson to you, I don't know what will teach you.
And in case you don't know what Bob is talking about, This is what you get when you privatize the criminal justice system. [wikipedia.org]
There are other examples, but this one is particularly horrendous.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @12:04AM (2 children)
... is if you stole the money from me to pay for it... which is what you do.
In other words, what could you possibly be saying? Certainly, the current system doesn't place "service" as the ruling guideline; that "service" is total trash.
Here's a thought: There is no such thing as a service which isn't profit-driven.
Profit is the only reason any action ever happens—it just so happens that there are very many forms of "profit" (for instance, establishing a safe place to live is an example of profit, provided that the costs of doing so don't outweigh the benefits). So, achieving good "policing" is a matter of establishing the correct incentives; why, oh, why would you ever expect to be able to establish the correct incentives when your solution depends upon a violently imposed monopoly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @03:21AM
I got your "violently imposed monopoly" right here, moron.
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:46AM
... is if you stole the money from me to pay for it... which is what you do.
Don't like it? There are a bunch of places that don't have, as you put it, "violently imposed monopolies" (which is disingenous at best). Places like Somalia, the Pakistan/Afghanistan borderlands and the high seas, to name a few.
Why don't you go to one of those places and live out your fantasy?
There are no "violently imposed monopolies" in those places. There's just a whole raft of violent factions. Why don't you negotiate some detailed, fine-grained contracts with them. I'm sure that would work out swimmingly.
The best part is that I wouldn't need to see you posting the same thing over and over and over again.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it:
The more you post your unrealistic (and mostly untenable) pipe dreams, the more I wonder if you're one of these whack jobs [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @09:07PM (2 children)
Positive?? You don't seem to realize approximately 50% of the country sees this as the epitome of all that's wrong with America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @10:59PM (1 child)
The other 48 percent sees it as what's right.
That 4 percent left over is 1 percent ruling class, 2 percent IDGAF, 0.9 percent stoners, and 0.1 percent suitcase packers :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:00PM
The other 48 percent sees it as what's right.
That 4 percent left over is 1 percent ruling class, 2 percent IDGAF, 0.9 percent stoners, and 0.1 percent suitcase packers :)
That adds up to 102%, friend. I'm glad you decided to include all the illegals who voted for Hillary Clinton!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:26AM
Shame about the AC comments to this story though.