Sep 27, 2023·edited Sep 27, 2023Liked by Fabio Rojas
No surprise. But this movement did have two accomplishments. First, it handed rightists a top talking point: Democrats want to abolish policing. This might have faded by now, except that in many places Democrats actually have cranked back considerably on enforcing laws on what we used to call petty crime -- shoplifting, traffic offenses, vandalism, and so on. City attorneys, understanding that the those charged with these crimes included a disproportionate share of people of color, did not have the resources or time to transform America into a society that shares its resources more broadly. But they could fix the optics.
In my city this has led to a near-abandonment of traffic laws, too often used as a pretext for harassing POC and an opportunity to assault and even kill them. It's hard not to draw a line between this decision and a near-tripling of pedestrian and cyclist deaths over the last three years. As a cyclist I see the results in motorist behavior daily. As a homeowner I hear a significant increase in street racing and hot rodding.
Making America a better place where, presumably, people do not commit crimes as much as they do now may be a laudable goal, but strikes me as a very inefficient way to prevent crime. This campaign would take many years to kick in, would require a vast restructuring of many institutions, cost a great deal, and would spread the benefits over many millions of people, only a small share of whom might have become criminals. What's wrong with all of the other reasons?
No surprise. But this movement did have two accomplishments. First, it handed rightists a top talking point: Democrats want to abolish policing. This might have faded by now, except that in many places Democrats actually have cranked back considerably on enforcing laws on what we used to call petty crime -- shoplifting, traffic offenses, vandalism, and so on. City attorneys, understanding that the those charged with these crimes included a disproportionate share of people of color, did not have the resources or time to transform America into a society that shares its resources more broadly. But they could fix the optics.
In my city this has led to a near-abandonment of traffic laws, too often used as a pretext for harassing POC and an opportunity to assault and even kill them. It's hard not to draw a line between this decision and a near-tripling of pedestrian and cyclist deaths over the last three years. As a cyclist I see the results in motorist behavior daily. As a homeowner I hear a significant increase in street racing and hot rodding.
Making America a better place where, presumably, people do not commit crimes as much as they do now may be a laudable goal, but strikes me as a very inefficient way to prevent crime. This campaign would take many years to kick in, would require a vast restructuring of many institutions, cost a great deal, and would spread the benefits over many millions of people, only a small share of whom might have become criminals. What's wrong with all of the other reasons?