| > The homicide division doesn't prevent murders, they solve them. I don't think larrys was suggesting otherwise, just that it'd be interesting to know if the homicide division was reduced in line with the homicide rate. Similarly, what has happened to the percentage of cases being solved and successfully prosecuted? > 'community policing' [...] turns out to be more effective at stopping crime It's known as "policing by consent" by the British, where officers are meant to follow the "Peelian Principles" from 1829 [1] Of particular relevance here: 2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions. 3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. [1] http://independentpolicecommission.org.uk/peelian-principles |
Exactly.
My feeling is that under the "work expands to fill the time available for completion" Parkinson's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law we would find that the size of that division didn't drop as much as it could (ratio wise) since a detective can always follow more leads. And if those leads led to arrests the labor would be justified. Without regard to whether the extra work was the reason or not.
All this of course assumes also that the staffing level was appropriate to begin with. No way to really know that. After solving crimes in NY Metro is not the same as solving crimes in a different geographic area (travel time or other support resources could be different).