[cryptoquick]

I guess I'm asking a question of crime priority, and whether some crimes are more likely to be punished because a disproportionate amount of policing is put in place towards that sort of crime.

If the same resources that were dedicated to the numerous policing agencies in the US were given to a smaller number of more generalized agencies, those agencies would be allowed to prioritize where their time and resources are best spent protecting the public.

[sokoloff]

I would rather the public collectively decide (assuming an effective representative government) how much we should prioritize X vs Y rather than just giving a giant pile of money and saying to the cops “do with this money whatever you think is best”.

These people have a monopoly on legally sanctioned violence. If you think there is any merit in anti-trust for businesses or that big tech should be broken up, I hope you’d think it even more strongly for policing.

We don’t have a perfectly functional representative process, but we sure do have a way to get influence over the system. Imagine how much resources could have been devoted to the war on drugs if the police could have stopped all other policing. That would be terrible IMO.

It would also be bad (though perhaps less so) if the Dept of Education had no resources to examine its operations for fraud and waste.

[hundreddaysoff]

Agree. What is the point of all these laws on the books if they aren't enforced? That will just encourage people to break them when word gets out.

If the counterargument is that these "crimes" shouldn't actually be crimes, then the solution is to remove the laws, no?

But I suppose that whether removing the laws is feasible is another can of worms.

[banannaise]

> those agencies would be allowed to prioritize where their time and resources are best spent protecting the public.

If you trust the police to decide how to distribute their resources, I have some pretty bad news for you.