I’m sure this is a complex subject with a lot of facets, but isn’t one of them that, in th 1960s, police could just pin crimes on vagrants, immigrants, and/or minorities?
In a time before DNA evidence, you can bet they “solved” them alright.
I often forget that DNA evidence has been much more important regarding wrongful conviction than any other facet.
Reminder that DNA evidence is nowhere near as flawless of an instrument as portrayed by crime shows and the news media. Like all other forensics, it’s a matter of interpretation and likelihoods, far less reliable than you might think. Here’s a good overview of the many issues with it:
https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/
And for flaws in the public perception of non-DNA related forensic science, last week’s Behind the Bastards.
Yea, first thing I thought of too. Minorities at the top of that list.
This was way too far down the article and is the main reason why:
The real reasons are more disturbing. Lack of cooperation from witnesses and victims’ families, especially in high-crime communities, points to a profound breakdown of trust between the police and the public they are sworn to serve and protect.
When citizens no longer believe the police will deliver justice, they will not risk their own safety to assist in investigations. And the challenges in investigating certain types of murders, such as those involving drugs, gangs, or domestic violence], is a damning admission that police have essentially ceded entire neighborhoods to the rule of the gun and the knife.
It’s as simple as that. Crimes aren’t getting solved because people don’t trust cops anymore.
Well, that and there’s a lot more exonerating evidence so the cops can’t just say “this Black drifter did it” as much anymore.
I grew up just outside south Detroit. Those network television shows were nuts. It was the 90s. Crime was everywhere in Detroit. This was the era of hundreds of buildings being burned on devils night, and every single crime was done by the same guy. I remember his description clearly. 5’9-6’. Short hair. Between the ages of 20-35.
I grew up in “north Detroit” (Oakland County 🤣) and remember the same things. It’s amazing that Devil’s Night isn’t a thing anymore.
Also, being from Oakland County, you can imagine how people reacted when I went to Wayne State.
The landlords all got to burn their worthless properties and cash in in the insurance money. What’s left to do now?
But remember, it can’t rain all the time.
It is not that simple. There is also the fact that police have a harder time blaming minorities for everything, because society has become less overtly racist, and that means difficult cases without witnesses are also harder to solve.
Hence my saying that’s the main reason and not the only reason. The article’s links back that up.
It’s because police can’t be trusted. And wile that was probably always the case, they lost all pretense of protect and serve now.
I don’t disagree. I remember poor Rodney King.
The beatings will continue until cooperation improves.
Crimes aren’t getting solved because people don’t trust cops anymore.
The issue is blaming anyone except our cops…
And unless you haven’t noticed, cops werent the nicest to some people back in the 60s either.
But back then cops (and our judicial system) were even more problematic.
Sure, they were arresting people for murder, but we don’t know if they were arresting murderers. No DNA and no cell records made it harder to catch criminals, but it made it really really hard to clear an innocent person’s name.
You can’t just look at surface numbers and take them at face value
But in “drugs, gangs, and domestic violence” areas, people never trusted the cops. Domestic violence was considered a private matter between husband and wife. Gangs have always ruled entire neighborhoods. People involved with drugs are usually hard to get to because they’re protecting their supply, their freedom, or their income. Is the author basing this opinion on some idealized Adam-12 / Dragnet view of the past? Because I lived through it, and it certainly wasn’t like that.
Plus, a number of older gangs originally started as neighborhood groups to protect neighborhoods that the police wouldn’t bother going to and turned to drugs later to fund themselves.
Your quote from the article contains a faulty premise:
Police are not obligated to protect the public.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
Edit:
Edit 2: it was pointed out the quote was SPECIFICALLY about what police officers “swear”.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm#:~:text=do solemnly swear (or%20affirm,and%20impartially%20discharge%20the%20duties
That varies, but in Arizona, no, you don’t swear to protect people.
So, to say that police officers swear to protect people? Some do make that oath. But the general statement is false by way of counter example.
But, with the links supplied, the courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that, despite the oath that some officers take, there is no such legal duty.
So, anyone who parrots lines about the police protecting you are just perpetuating a fictional notion so engrained that people are shocked to hear otherwise.
Don’t accidentally bootlick. Don’t ever let that statement go unchallenged.
Mises? Yeah, not giving those libertarian fucks a single click.
Ok here is a paywalled NYT article then.
See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
-
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
-
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
Ok, fair, I apologize.
-
“Solved”
Putting someone in jail is not the same as solving the case. Given our horrendous desire to run trials like a sporting event, I’m going to take their 90% number with a grain of salt.
How many were never discovered in the first place, though?
A ton were never tracked because the police didn’t start cases about people they did not care about (minority victims).
Articles like this are madding to me. The author painstakingly catalogues why policing doesn’t work now, and never worked in the past. What’s the problem: Incompetence laziness. (personal moral failings) What’s the solution: reform. (of course)
Implied is the idea that policing is necessary. That society will just fall apart if we don’t pay salaries to armed, unaccountable, and violent street thugs. What could undermine this childish faith more than the fact that pigs, in fact, don’t do the core service we “require” them for?
The answer is that pigs do a great job, it’s just that protecting the public isn’t part of it. They’re job is to uphold the social order and protect the property of the ownership class.
Whew, good for me I guess.
deleted by creator
Did the killers get smarter or the police dumber?
