Hacker News Reader

Comment by lopmotr | Hacker News Reader

Isn't it the police's responsibility to prevent violent crime? Perhaps they just need more policing. How does a shop prevent a person from shooting somebody else in its carpark? Even then, won't they just shoot each other in the street outside the carpark instead? Without the shop, won't they shoot each other at home? It's hard to see that it's causing crime rather than just being the place where inevitable crime happens more often.

View on HN

| Isn't it the police's responsibility to prevent violent crime?

There have been several Supreme Court cases that have answered that question with a hard “No”

While it may not be job of the police, it is definitely in the mandate of the local government. How they achieve it is their own problem. You are owed security in the streets not by the PD, but by the mayor.

Through what means?

Community outreach, mental health care and drug rehabilitation programs have all been proven effective at reducing violent crime.

However, education is even more effective on a per-dollar and quality of life basis.

Ohio used to have one of the best public school systems in the region.

Now, there’s a saying in Ohio: “We cut our schools so much, our neighbors are making fun of us, and out neighbors include Kentucky and West Virginia!”

The saying popped up when both those states started beating Ohio on standardized tests, if I remember right. It was partly because those states improved their schools, but largely because Ohio slashed funding.

> There have been several Supreme Court cases that have answered that question with a hard “No”

No, they cannot be sued for failing to prevent crime. You are not guaranteed a crime free life by the presence of or even reports to the police force.

> prevent violent crime?

well, i don't think that's ever the mandate of the police - they are there to punish after the fact, not prevent before the event.

This is like saying the health authorities have no interest in what you eat, they just treat you after you show up with a heart attack.

This is an overly simplistic view. If law enforcement isn't a deterrent, even in principle, why do it?

The fact that the view leads you to ask “why do it?” does not mean that it is an overly simplistic view.

What a nonsensical belief.

A belief upheld by the supreme court:

Warren v. District of Columbia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...

Nope. Just that police are not liable for failing to prevent crime.

How are those different in practice?

(Genuine question, no snark intended)

If I blow up a production system through an error, my employer can fire me. They generally cannot sue me for the costs of their losses.

There can still be consequences, just not compensation for losses.

If you are not liable for failing to do some thing then by definition you are not responsible for doing that thing.

No. I cannot be reasonably sued for blowing up my company's software systems for a failure on my part as an employee. It doesn't mean I am not responsible for keeping them up and running.

You can fire me. You cannot successfully sue me for the costs of my failure.

The fact that a police department technically has the option to fire a police officer for not acting to prevent crime (but the public has no recourse if the department does not do this) is hardly what I would consider to be genuine responsibility on the part of police to prevent crime.

You realize that the court case in question was about the police refusing to deal with a crime in progress, correct? If the police cannot be held accountable for their job, then what exactly is their role?

They can be held accountable through the democratic process and fired. They cannot be sued.

Exactly what democratic process are you talking about? We don't elect our cops, they're usually part of a strong union that prevents them from being fired and as you mentioned they cannot be sued.

So...how exactly do you expect them to be held accountable? These court cases were examples of the 'democratic process' and the court ruled that the cops have no duty to help you.

> Isn't it the police's responsibility to prevent violent crime?

It seems that Walmart is of the opinion that all crime, no matter how lowly, should be handled by Police[1]

[1] https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2016/public-safety/wa...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com