135
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
135 points (98.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8283 readers
608 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Now that we have cameras everywhere, and stuff like dna testing... you would think it would be easier now.
It's much more difficult to "catch a murderer" when there's an expectation of real evidence.
In 1965 they were probably able to pin every murder on the nearest minority with less pushback.
I imagine its mainly a matter of 1) expertise, and 2) priorities.
My car got broken into when I was in highschool, and I learned the lesson that US cops aren't going to help you, and probably don't know how to solve even simple crimes like petty theft. It gains them nothing to help you, and that's not what they're being paid to do.
Even with an exceptionally well trained team of detectives, getting a 90%+ clearance rate seems very suspicious. It is more likely that rather than having better detectives then than we have now, it's that the police now have to go up against better science and technology that can help keep innocent people from being convicted. Bank teen the police just needed to take a few pieces of evidence and create a believable story from it, but now they need that story to match DNA, surveillance, and the right size glove.
Cops in the past were still cops. They didn't care about accurately solving a murder of a poor person, they just wanted to be able to find someone they could punish for it so they could move on to the next thing.