If indeed additional funding is provided to police departments in an effort to address "High Crime" areas within a city, based on that city's level of need, more officers, more overtime and increased police presence, then it should stand to reason that by reducing the level of criminal activity within a "High Crime" area by increased policing that police departments in effect would be cutting there own funding, by eliminating the very nessecity for more officers, more overtime and an increased police presence, and thereby no longer justifing the additional funds or funding.
2007-03-26 16:41:00 · 9 answers · asked by The Romantic Warrior 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
While that sounds good in theory, when ever they have had lets say a prostitute street sweep, what has happened to the prostitutes. The prostitutes don't say "oh my goodness, we're not wanted here, lets go get jobs at McDonald's." No they move to another neighborhood. So after concentrating on cleaning up crime in a high crime area, there is probably plenty left for the police to do.
2007-03-26 16:54:21 · answer #1 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-03 23:56:00 · answer #2 · answered by Isaac 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's funny. Regardless, of how flooded an area is w/ police officers there are stupid criminals that will continue to commit crime in those same areas. Crime will never be abolished. Human beings are responsible for crime and unless they're all taught morals and personal responsibility, it will always exist. When the high crime areas are flooded w/ police officers crime is notably lower. Unfortunately, the crimes will be committed elsewhere if it can't be committed at the location. So now you have a new high crime area. It is quite naive to think that police can stop all crime. How many people are there in these locations vs. how many police officers? Police officers CANNOT be everywhere, nor can they look at someone and know for sure they are about to commit a crime. That's where UF 250's come in. Stop people ask questions, get information and try to stop crimes. BUT, thank the politicians for thinking it's all BS. The police officer's hands are tied in many ways; dept procedure, our own laws. I could go on and tell you more but you've probably stopped reading this by now.
2007-03-26 16:55:13 · answer #3 · answered by uknowme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're missing another key (maybe two keys) to this scenario.
First is the political pressure exerted on the chief of police by the mayor, council members and other elected officials. They're spending taxpayer money hiring extra cops and paying overtime. If the force doesn't deliver by lowering crime rates, then the next thing that would happen would be to fire the police chief...
All the overtime pay in the world won't help the police chief find another job after he is fired.
2007-03-26 16:52:08 · answer #4 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One big probelm with the so called funding. The city I previously worked for asked the citizens to vote on a sales tax to help funding the police department and more officers. The estimated revenue was around 250,000.00 at that time. Once the citizens voted and approved it the city council and mayor cut the police budget by 250,000.00 so nothing was gained for the so called, more police."
2007-03-26 17:00:28 · answer #5 · answered by Thunderhawk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police departments don't get all the money in the community no matter how dire the need. The politicians have X number of dollars to spread among the service departments in the city. Everybody wants more cops, more firefighters, more sanitation workers, more street repair crews, etc.
Nobody gets everything they want.
2007-03-26 17:44:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police officers would be happy to have crime go down. I do not know a single police officer that goes in to the job for the money.
2007-03-26 16:51:08 · answer #7 · answered by eric l 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First those of direction are no longer the standards, so that is a faux fee. The police have no longer something to do with incarcerating the criminal, they only catch them and grant the courtroom device DA with the info. As such then the judges have the administration over the sentence. Catching the criminal is the 1st subject, finding the stolen property may be secondary to finding the guy. maximum crimes are in no way solved ( guy or woman convicted, or perhaps arrested)
2016-12-15 09:44:17 · answer #8 · answered by hergenroeder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some are, but there are also some who are just biding their time until it is time to get off work.
2007-03-27 05:45:20 · answer #9 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋