I have no problem decriminalization ****, liberalizing drug laws, etc. And yes, that would greatly reduce the number of arrests.
But, even if you make those things completely legal, even if you eliminate all laws dealing with "victimless" crimes (****, homelessness, drugs/alcohol), you have still only eliminated ~40% of all arrests. (That's a big chunk, and its certainly worth exploring, but its certainly not the majority. And that's being generous, because the statistics contain a large number of "other" crimes that i am lumping in here.) On the other hand, ~60% of all arrests were not victimless (this includes assault/murder, fraud in various forms, theft/robbery, etc.).
That's not true. Decriminalizing or even legalizing drugs, for example, means you're cutting down on violent crimes (assaults, robberies, murders) associated with the illicit drug trade.
Most drug arrests were for simple possession.
And, I should say, I have been the victim of both assault and robbery (separate incidents), as well as identity theft. In none of these cases were drugs an overriding factor in the crime. They were criminals who decided not to follow the general rules of society.
You do realize that's like the vast majority of policing now is just showing up after the fact.
Yes, the cops probably don't "catch them in the act" very often. But that doesn't necessarily mean that its a smart idea to totally give up the capacity to try such a rapid response.
And just out of curiosity, how exactly is your "get rid of cops and only investigate crimes after they're committed" supposed to work for things like impaired or dangerous driving? After all, if you don't catch them in the act, its rather difficult to build a case against them.
Home
Contact
Login
Register