> Simply ignore all rights -- something this admin is getting really eager to do -- and then dump enormous, completely irrational amounts of resources into it.
Criminology studies have shown that you in fact do not need a hyper-resourced police state to achieve this. The Pareto rule applies very strongly in criminality; the majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny fraction of the population[0]. About 90% of prisoners have been arrested more than three times[1].
You do not understand the difficulty in obtaining a criminal conviction in this country (a result of the common law tradition coming down from Blackstone) and the degree to which local policy in places like DC outright favors the rights of the criminals over the rights of the innocents that must live near them. There's a lot of room to improve the lives of the law-abiding before there are "snipers on every roof".
> should every town increase the police budget by 50x? Is that actually a solution for anyone?
DC isn't just any town; it has such a high homicide rate that were it a country, it would rank in the top 20 most murderous. In 2024 alone, it had over 5000 cars stolen in a place that only has 350k cars. That's more than one in a hundred.
Perhaps every town whose crime rate is at this level should increase the police budget by 50x, or try some other radical thing? Because this isn't working out.
> You do not understand the difficulty in obtaining a criminal conviction in this country
The US has almost 2 million people in prison. It has one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet.
US - 541 per 100,000
Canada - 90
Germany - 68
Japan - 33
Doesn't seem like it's that hard to get a conviction. The US has a sociology problem, not a difficulty getting convictions problem.
> It has such a high homicide rate that were it a country, it would rank in the top 20 most murderous.
It has the 19th highest murder rate for US cities. It sits behind Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1/4 the rate of St. Louis, Missouri. Still a terrible murder rate, and it shouldn't be normalized, but there is utterly nothing exceptional about DC. And it's miles safer than virtually anywhere in methville, Appalachia.
As to car thefts, it sits at 61st among US cities, behind Nashville TN, Savannah GA, and Lexington, KY. Eh.
>Perhaps every town whose crime rate is at this level should increase the police budget by 50x
In the ultra-low tax US of A? Har. Ignoring that its crime rate is not remotely exceptional relative to other cities, already the vast majority of US cities are barely solvent, and policing is already the most expensive line items for city budgets.
Should there be a massive restructuring of policing? Yes, absolutely. Should career criminals face fewer reprieves? Absolutely. Does the US have a catastrophic sociological probem? Absolutely.
Is this an easy fix that Big Brain Trump is going to solve? LOL, no, give me a break.
> Doesn't seem like it's that hard to get a conviction. The US has a sociology problem, not a difficulty getting convictions problem.
There are more people in prisons in America because more people commit crimes in America, compared to those other places. And more people commit crimes than are caught and convicted. If the US was in fact a police state, those incarceration rates would be even higher.
> there is utterly nothing exceptional about DC
The subject under discussion is Trump having the National Guard to perform law enforcement duties. DC is indeed exceptional in that it is the only jurisdiction where he could do that.
> it's miles safer than virtually anywhere in methville, Appalachia
Factually untrue. The state of West Virginia, the archetype of "Methville, Appalachia", has a lower homicide rate than its vastly richer neighbor Virginia (almost twice as high of a median household income).
> Should career criminals face fewer reprieves? Absolutely.
> Is this an easy fix that Big Brain Trump is going to solve? LOL, no, give me a break.
Given what we know of recidivism, Trump's brain does not need to be all that big to make a noticeable difference. In fact, you already touched upon the solution: just don't keep releasing multiple-times convicted violent criminals back into the population. A tiny fraction of the population is responsible for the majority of violent crimes. Just keep them away from the rest of society and you'll have made a big difference in the lives of the less well-off who, for the most part, have to live next to these people.
Criminology studies have shown that you in fact do not need a hyper-resourced police state to achieve this. The Pareto rule applies very strongly in criminality; the majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny fraction of the population[0]. About 90% of prisoners have been arrested more than three times[1].
You do not understand the difficulty in obtaining a criminal conviction in this country (a result of the common law tradition coming down from Blackstone) and the degree to which local policy in places like DC outright favors the rights of the criminals over the rights of the innocents that must live near them. There's a lot of room to improve the lives of the law-abiding before there are "snipers on every roof".
> should every town increase the police budget by 50x? Is that actually a solution for anyone?
DC isn't just any town; it has such a high homicide rate that were it a country, it would rank in the top 20 most murderous. In 2024 alone, it had over 5000 cars stolen in a place that only has 350k cars. That's more than one in a hundred.
Perhaps every town whose crime rate is at this level should increase the police budget by 50x, or try some other radical thing? Because this isn't working out.
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/arrest-history-pers...