The American way of killing...

Crime prevention versus Punishment and Incarceration, which is your preference?

  • I like the US method. Let them do the crimes and then punish them harshly.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

QP!

Verified User
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Comparing budgets and choices between First world countries the finding is that while the US and other jurisdictions spend similar TOTAL amounts between Policing and Prisons, the US actually spends half on policing and double on prisons of the other first world nations.


-----

Gladwell explicitly emphasizes that the primary difference between the two regions isn't how much money they have and spend, but how they choose to allocate their public safety budgets. [1]


The Core Mechanics of Gladwell's Argument - The American Way of Killing

  • The Equal Spending Baseline: Gladwell states that as a share of GDP, Western European nations and the United States spend exactly the same amount of money on overall public safety. [1, 2]
  • The Polar Opposite Splits:
    • The U.S. Strategy: The United States commits the overwhelming majority of its budget to prisons and penalization after a crime has occurred, scrimping significantly on active policing.
    • The European Strategy: Western European nations do the exact opposite. They spend heavily on policing, prevention, and police-adjacent social services, while spending very little on prisons. [1, 2]
  • The Per Capita Staffing Gap: Because of this different funding mechanism, Gladwell points out that Western European cities consistently have twice as many police officers per capita as comparable American cities. [1, 2]

Gladwell's Real-World Example

To illustrate this split, Gladwell frequently highlights the contrast between two similarly populated cities: [1]
He uses this data to argue that the U.S. is severely "under-policed" and "over-prisoned," framing the issue as a choice between funding proactive crime prevention or funding reactive punishment. [1, 2]
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Comparing budgets and choices between First world countries the finding is that while the US and other jurisdictions spend similar TOTAL amounts between Policing and Prisons, the US actually spends half on policing and double on prisons of the other first world nations.


-----

Gladwell explicitly emphasizes that the primary difference between the two regions isn't how much money they have and spend, but how they choose to allocate their public safety budgets. [1]


The Core Mechanics of Gladwell's Argument - The American Way of Killing

  • The Equal Spending Baseline: Gladwell states that as a share of GDP, Western European nations and the United States spend exactly the same amount of money on overall public safety. [1, 2]
  • The Polar Opposite Splits:
    • The U.S. Strategy: The United States commits the overwhelming majority of its budget to prisons and penalization after a crime has occurred, scrimping significantly on active policing.
    • The European Strategy: Western European nations do the exact opposite. They spend heavily on policing, prevention, and police-adjacent social services, while spending very little on prisons. [1, 2]
  • The Per Capita Staffing Gap: Because of this different funding mechanism, Gladwell points out that Western European cities consistently have twice as many police officers per capita as comparable American cities. [1, 2]

Gladwell's Real-World Example

To illustrate this split, Gladwell frequently highlights the contrast between two similarly populated cities: [1]
He uses this data to argue that the U.S. is severely "under-policed" and "over-prisoned," framing the issue as a choice between funding proactive crime prevention or funding reactive punishment. [1, 2]
Policing and prevention while the left calls for defunding the police?
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Comparing budgets and choices between First world countries the finding is that while the US and other jurisdictions spend similar TOTAL amounts between Policing and Prisons, the US actually spends half on policing and double on prisons of the other first world nations.


-----

Gladwell explicitly emphasizes that the primary difference between the two regions isn't how much money they have and spend, but how they choose to allocate their public safety budgets. [1]


The Core Mechanics of Gladwell's Argument - The American Way of Killing

  • The Equal Spending Baseline: Gladwell states that as a share of GDP, Western European nations and the United States spend exactly the same amount of money on overall public safety. [1, 2]
  • The Polar Opposite Splits:
    • The U.S. Strategy: The United States commits the overwhelming majority of its budget to prisons and penalization after a crime has occurred, scrimping significantly on active policing.
    • The European Strategy: Western European nations do the exact opposite. They spend heavily on policing, prevention, and police-adjacent social services, while spending very little on prisons. [1, 2]
  • The Per Capita Staffing Gap: Because of this different funding mechanism, Gladwell points out that Western European cities consistently have twice as many police officers per capita as comparable American cities. [1, 2]

Gladwell's Real-World Example

To illustrate this split, Gladwell frequently highlights the contrast between two similarly populated cities: [1]
He uses this data to argue that the U.S. is severely "under-policed" and "over-prisoned," framing the issue as a choice between funding proactive crime prevention or funding reactive punishment. [1, 2]
Law enforcement and social services is one answer. Another problem in the US is “for-profit prisons”.


 
Policing and prevention while the left calls for defunding the police?
Ya but you are stupid Yakuda so you accept empty talking points while ignoring reality.

REALITY is the Dems CONSISTENTLY give MORE funding for policing at all levels while the Republicans CONSISTENTLY push in budget cuts causing cuts in policing.




Direct Budgetary Comparison

To illustrate the nuances of how both parties actually approach law enforcement funding on the federal level, consider the following policy divides:

Funding CategoryMainstream Democratic ApproachRepublican Approach
Local Police Hiring (COPS)Consistently Expansionary: Seeks federal grants to place 100,000 more officers on the streets.Targeted for Cuts: Aims to eliminate the federal COPS office to reduce federal oversight and spending.
Federal Law Enforcement (FBI/DOJ)Increase Spending: Looks to expand federal law enforcement budgets to prosecute white-collar crime, gun trafficking, and civil rights violations.Decrease Spending:Proposes cuts to federal agencies, expressing concern over the perceived "weaponization" of the justice system.

Emergency Community AidBroad Packages: Uses sweeping federal aid bills (like ARPA) to inject billions into local municipal budgets, including police.Fiscal Opposition: Votes against massive omnibus or relief bills, arguing that federal cash infusions drive up national debt and inflation.


[1, 2, 3]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
[1, 2, 3]
[1, 2]
[1, 2, 3]
 
Law enforcement and social services is one answer. Another problem in the US is “for-profit prisons”.



Yup.

The profit in the Industrial Prisons complex lobbying and pitch to politicians that these prisons provide good jobs plays a huge roll.

It also follows, in large part, from the end of slavery, where incarceration was weaponized against freed slaves as a way to keep them controlled and in slavery for decades after. That has carried over in how many States view their communities of people of color.
 
Ya but you are stupid Yakuda so you accept empty talking points while ignoring reality.

REALITY is the Dems CONSISTENTLY give MORE funding for policing at all levels while the Republicans CONSISTENTLY push in budget cuts causing cuts in policing.




Direct Budgetary Comparison

To illustrate the nuances of how both parties actually approach law enforcement funding on the federal level, consider the following policy divides:

Funding CategoryMainstream Democratic ApproachRepublican Approach
Local Police Hiring (COPS)Consistently Expansionary: Seeks federal grants to place 100,000 more officers on the streets.Targeted for Cuts: Aims to eliminate the federal COPS office to reduce federal oversight and spending.
Federal Law Enforcement (FBI/DOJ)Increase Spending: Looks to expand federal law enforcement budgets to prosecute white-collar crime, gun trafficking, and civil rights violations.Decrease Spending:Proposes cuts to federal agencies, expressing concern over the perceived "weaponization" of the justice system.
Emergency Community AidBroad Packages: Uses sweeping federal aid bills (like ARPA) to inject billions into local municipal budgets, including police.Fiscal Opposition: Votes against massive omnibus or relief bills, arguing that federal cash infusions drive up national debt and inflation.

[1, 2, 3]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
[1, 2, 3]
[1, 2]
[1, 2, 3]
Irrelevant now that they want to defund the police you shit eating donkey fucker
 
Irrelevant now that they want to defund the police you shit eating donkey fucker
"now" what the fuck does now mean to you, you mental midget?

I just showed you with DATA and FACT, that while their is rhetoric on the far left of defunding the police for decades now the REALITY and FACT is the Democrats when they ACTUALLY HAVE POWER ALWAYS pour lots of money at ALL levels into policing when they have power.

I also showed you that while Republicans and now Magats PRETEND they support and will fund the Police, when they ACTUALLY HAVE POWER, they defund the police at all levels using sweeping budget cuts.
 
Yakuda reads the above ^^^ and replies 'I do not care what they actual do... i only care about talking points, even if they are lies'.
 
Back
Top