This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
Statistically, from a utilitarian perspective, someone that cares about protecting the most black lives would advocate for finding solutions to gang violence and inner city violence that kills thousands more black people yearly than police overstepping their bounds. Yet, it seems that we have to act like black on black crime is not a real issue, or cop killings are a far bigger issue. In reality, it would protect way more black lives to focus on solving inner city violence to the best of our ability, making these communities safer, and encouraging more graduation and investment
Minneapolis is in the midwest, Florida is in the South, St. Louis is also technically a part of the midwest, but in a state that is aligned with the south
Just based on the data you've provided, funding the police isn't a viable strategy when it comes to the very context we are discussing
Police budgets have to get bigger because they are being asked to handle more than ever before.
So we should divert resources to specialists
Because it’s still cheaper to just have the cops do it all.
Spending resources on a community often brings in more money as a result, local economic multipliers means that more people not only have more money but spend more money, thus creating economic growth
Is it? Is it actually cheaper? And are you looking at the impact to the communities these police are supposed to be helping?
The economists also find troubling evidence that suggests cities with the largest populations of Black people — like many of those in the South and Midwest — don't see the same policing benefits as the average cities in their study.
Mind you, BLM started with the deaths of black people in the south and midwest
It's a complicated issue for sure, but relying on massively funding the police in all situations doesn't directly lead to the benefits you mention.
Because it doesn't make sense to always and only fund police more, defunding the police should be seen as a viable strategy.
That's honestly, usually, an excuse people make to justify corruption
"oh, we wish and you make total sense but that darn bureaucracy... oh well"
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 8 months ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/changemyvie...
This argument is extended but taken out of context
The police ARE in fact massively overfunded while most teachers are not.
If in this analogy, there were teachers who get paid (a LOT) even if they do a bad job, yes, a solution WOULD be to redirect those funds into resources for the students.
After all, there is a problem in academia concerning this same thing, but it's usually at a collegiate level (a level where there is MORE more money).
Because if more teachers fixed the problem, we'd be able to chart that and show that it works. And we can!
However, despite rallies to defund the police, the majority of the police aren't being defunded. Massive efforts to outfit the police into essentially small tiny armies are more common than any attempt to redirect the funds into solutions to poverty which exacerbates crime. So we know more police doesn't equal less crime.