Article : https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unsolved-killings-record-high
Another graph on budgets
There's no money in solving the poors' crimes. So you find some poor schmuch who killed another poor schmuck. Who cares? It's not as if they're actual people.
-The ones in charge, probably.
This is wild because it's gotten so easy to track everything. Everyone has a nearly government mandated tracking device shoved up their ass at all times, everything under the sun has a camera on it and your car is phoning home with your sex acts but apparently knowing what every single human is doing every picosecond of the day isn't enough and they need more tanks.
That said, if I had to guess, at least some of the "clearance" in the past was just picking a random black person and stringing them up then going out for doughnuts
Everyone has a nearly government mandated tracking device shoved up their ass at all times...
Not necessarily. I have a large screen, so I have to carry it under my grundle.
...apparently knowing what every single human is doing every picosecond of the day isn't enough and they need more tanks.
Try to see it from their perspective. What if an Asian college student posted a flyer with your picture, name, and job title in a public area. I bet then you'd be glad about them sending in a drone and 17 armored trucks through a suburban neighborhood to his parents' house, where he doesn't live, but what if there weren't enough funding for all 17? What're they supposed to do, go in with 16? That old, non-white couple could have had pointy sticks and other mystical Kung Fu accoutrements. It would have been a bloodbath.
That said, if I had to guess, at least some of the "clearance" in the past was just picking a random black person and stringing them up...
That's a common misconception. They were actually very inclusive and made every effort to provide equal opportunity for all people who weren't white, Anglo, Evangelical, conservative, cisgendered, heterosexual, English-speaking, non-poor, American citizens to participate in their unwilling scapegoat program at gunpoint.
They were also usually very stringent about due processes, like carefully collecting and preserving the planted evidence, taking each others witness statements until they become consistent, coordinating with coroners (when applicable) to help them achieve the right results, and working with DAs to ensure the defendant exercises their right to a trial so speedy they'll miss it if they blink.
...then going out for doughnuts.
I apologize for being so argumentative, but I feel I must disagree again. Their diets are well known to be extremely diverse and aside from doughnuts include beignets, crullers, bear claws, danishes, eclairs, churros, apple fritters, cinnamon rolls, cinnamon twists, cronuts, long johns, maple bars, berliners, paczkis, tiger tails, malasadas, and doughnut holes, just to name a few.
Edit: formatting
at least some of the “clearance” in the past was just picking a random black person and stringing them up then going out for doughnuts
I think the extra surveillance is stopping this enough for it to be a major source of the trend
Maybe stop giving the murderers more money then?
I did some napkin math on my city's police budget once. The short version is that there was no correlation between the budget and crime rates. Crime was generally going down per capita and that was (seemingly) regardless of how much the budget was increased or decreased for a given year
Police don't prevent crimes, they just punish the poor and ignorant
The police recently had a bond issue in a local election here. The stat I saw mentioned in the debate was that 1 extra police offer was estimated to lower the crime rate by 0.1%. Based on the size of the city or whatever, they think if they added 10 cops, they think they could lower crime by 1%. IDK that seems like you're spending about a million dollars more annually to prevent a fairly small number of crimes. There are probably other things you could spend that million on that would lower crime by 1%.
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.
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.
They get paid to kill, not prevent killing.
But thank God they have tanks and grenade launchers. We can all take solace in that.
These days, if they can't pin the crime on a brown person, they're not even gonna pursue it. Too hard, pig brain too small.
Guy pointing in mirror .jpg
What about when a rich person is murdered? A certain Luigi was arrested pretty fast after he allegedly murdered a CEO.
Wait. They're not using that money to fight crime and solve cases? Weird.
I'm sure Trump probably had this as a campaign promise, too. What a tool.
They should get a fixed amount per crime solved.
Payment varies on the severity of the crime.
Uh unfortunately that would lead to pinning all unsolved murders on homeless people. It would give a financial incentive for a cop to shoot 1 homeless person and blame the other.
You understand why that will incentivize the wrong things, right?
Put another way: take a gander at Japan’s criminal justice system. You don’t want that.
I don't know much about the legal system in Japan but they have a higher clearance rate than US cops right?
Japan has an insanely high conviction rate. And the cops also don’t bother filing a case unless they’re pretty sure it’s a ~~spam~~ (e: lol) slam dunk
Tokyo Vice, while a drama, actually portrays Japanese police work in a roughly accurate sense. And the whole bit with how the yakuza have their tentacles into EVERYTHING is closer to the truth than many would like to believe.
And the whole bit with how the yakuza have their tentacles into EVERYTHING...
Hey I've seen a couple movies like this.
I gotta go back to the sea
"Sprinkle some crack on the body and arrest the nearest homeless person, I've got my eye on a new camaro"
Is that how the justice system works in Japan?
Officially? No.
No because they don't even bother with any case that can't be cleared pretty much immediately, even if that means declaring obvious cases of murder as suicides or accidents. In criminal investigations accuracy is the most important metric not speed or even severity of the crime. You could pay based on conviction rates of course, but whether a conviction happens or not is often more about how stupid the criminal or prosecutor is, and would potentially incentivise faking evidence which is already a problem.