Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More cops, and better educated and equipped cops: A solid economy helped attract better applicants and increased levels of training. Those same dollars helped fund computer-aided dispatch systems, hand-held radios, in-car computers and video, etc.
First, there’s budget. Cuts to operating budgets of 10% and even 20% are common nowadays. Some smaller agencies have gone out of business altogether. Depending on whom you ask (and I’ve asked a lot), the number of officers in this country has decreased by approximately 100,000 or more during the last three years. Decreased staffing means fewer investigators, crime scene techs and task forces—all of whom are responsible for running down the worst bad guys. Special enforcement efforts funded by overtime have been gutted. Slashed budgets also mean that training and equipment are cut or eliminated.
Second, the public servant is now commonly vilified as being over-compensated. Pension benefits are being reduced and salaries, which determine the ultimate pension benefit, are being cut. Not surprisingly, those who can leave are doing so, resulting in some of the most experienced people heading for the exits.
But now...
Second, the public servant is now commonly vilified as being over-compensated. Pension benefits are being reduced and salaries, which determine the ultimate pension benefit, are being cut. Not surprisingly, those who can leave are doing so, resulting in some of the most experienced people heading for the exits.
People don't seem to want to believe that "you get what you pay for" applies to public servants. When you start paying cops peanuts, you are going to wind up with people who will take graft in higher percentages. It's also easier to wind up with a "so what" attitude in regards to loosing a low paying job. IMO you will find less corruption in an organization where you would be afraid of loosing your job and benes.
A few prisons are closing here in CT due to the low crime, etc. It was a concern of the COs, that by closing prisons and moving inmates to already over crowded prisons, the risk of fights, riots, etc, goes up. Well, sure enough, there was a fight and 6 COs got hurt. Personally, I dont know how people can say crime is going down, when Hartford, CT, the capital city just about 10 or so min. north of me, has gunfire and shootings on a nightly basis.
Everything is a rush to save money, but IMO, by cutting back, its causing a serious risk to public safety as well as the safety of the officers.
Tough sentencing laws: Our society said, “Put them in a box.” It’s hard to reoffend when you’re in prison.
Third, our prisons are on the verge of releasing thousands of prisoners because they can no longer afford to keep them for their full sentences. Meanwhile, parole funding has been dramatically cut, so monitoring of those released will be minimal at best. When good citizens are having a hard enough time finding employment, what does that mean for convicted felons?
From the article:
A factor in why crime is down:
BUT...
Your thread title says it all, mate. Aye, a gathering storm indeed. It's not easy to see where the solution lies when everyone is crying out for cuts, understandable with the debt burden of the country, but noone wants to pay any taxes to pay for retaining levels of service.
It's simple economics - you want an infrastructure then you have to stump up the cash for it. It's part of why I get so 'head-butting-the-wall' with the short-sighted position that only looks at cutting expenditure.
Your thread title says it all, mate. Aye, a gathering storm indeed. It's not easy to see where the solution lies when everyone is crying out for cuts, understandable with the debt burden of the country, but noone wants to pay any taxes to pay for retaining levels of service.
It's simple economics - you want an infrastructure then you have to stump up the cash for it. It's part of why I get so 'head-butting-the-wall' with the short-sighted position that only looks at cutting expenditure.
I know our local paper has quit putting the crime stats in our paper.How much of this is affected by media coverage (or lack of it)?
I'm kind of surprised at the crime and the stuff LEOs do that doesn't make the papers. Is this creating a perception that fewer police are needed?
How much of this is affected by media coverage (or lack of it)?
I'm kind of surprised at the crime and the stuff LEOs do that doesn't make the papers. Is this creating a perception that fewer police are needed?