zlacker

There are basically two things that the police do:

1> Patrol public spaces to deter illegal behavior in those places, direct traffic, punish traffic offenders, offer directions to tourists, etc

2> Respond to calls from citizens, investigate the crimes that those calls are about, locate and apprehend the associated criminals.

I've only lived in places sparsely populated enough that <1> is mostly impractical except along highways and around major construction sites.

The VAST majority of the value provided to people by the police clearly comes from <2> - it's the reason that no sane person would mug me (or kill me) for $40 cash on an unpatrolled country road, or invade my home and take up residence there against my will. 99.9% of citizens benefit from <2>, as it's the main deterrent to any antisocial person coming and taking whatever they have of value.

It seems to me (though I don't have data) that most (nearly all?) the mistreatment of (maybe mainly black) citizens by police that has been garnering media attention over the past decade or so, happens during the course of <1>.

>>mac010+(OP)
Only 60% of murders are solved. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/24/17896034/murder-crime-clearanc...

>>aaronb+Y3
Are you suggesting that, because of this, the existence of the police is not the main deterrent to crime?

>>mac010+74
a few years ago, I getting a beer after work with a colleague. we had become friends and talked about quite a bit outside of work. As the topic of religion had come up in the past, it was not unusual for us to discuss. He was a devout Christian (some kind of protestant) and I am a self-described "athiest Catholic". At a certain lull in the conversation after a couple beers, he leaned in to me and asked in a hushed tone: "so, if you don't believe in hell, why be a good person?" I put my drink down and looked him in the eye and said "that's the scariest thing I've ever heard."

Plainly, I don't believe in deterrence as effective or a substantial reason why most people don't engage in bad behavior.

>>aaronb+SK
It's not _most people_ that I'd. worry about, though.

>>mac010+oL
with 60% of _murders_ going unsolved, do you think the 'deterrent effect' is really preventing the remainder from engaging in antisocial behavior?

>>aaronb+c31
Probably not, but those who are already willing to be criminals in situations where they won't be caught would now be able to act with wild abandon, or execute much grander schemes with relative impunity.

60% of murders go unsolved because a sane murderer does not commit a murder that would be easy to solve. I'm sure many tempting, high-reward murders do not happen because they can't be committed without an ensuing police investigation.

Suppose 1% of people are currently criminals (I don't know the real number). Without an authority investigating and punishing crimes, that number might increase to 1.1% or even 2%. But a small fraction of those would likely increase their criminal behavior by an order of magnitude.