Class, lately, particularly in response to the fatigue over the extralegal uses of force by police, there has been a lot of talk of defunding police, abolishing police, reimagining justice, etc. Is it possible to curb violence without police intervention? Please read this report (also found under the readings tab on OpenLab). After reading the article please name two findings from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like. (Please also discuss anything else that comes to mind).
Please be sure to respond to at least *two* other student posts.
*Be sure to review the discussion board grading rubric found under Course Materials to know the expectations for participation*
55 thoughts on “DISCUSSION POST – WK 12”
It is not possible to curb violence without police intervention especially with the gang-related issues nowadays. After reading the article, two findings from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like is how the physical environment is going to change drastically and how to strengthen anti-violence social norms and peer relationships are going to increase. Some effective methods for preventing violence take years to reach their maximum effect and without policing during those years, the rate at which violence is going to be will increase in the community. Take Chicago for example, without policing people will not even feel safe coming out of their homes because of the high rate of gun violence in the state. Even now with police intervention, there is still gun violence around there, now imagine how high it would be if police are not intervening in shooting situations. The only thing that needs looking at is how police respond to situations and how new tactics could be used to de-escalate situations. Politicians in support of abolishing policing “do not care about the people”, they just acting in disguise because technically they themselves have their own personal security that they spend thousands of dollars on to protect them but except people like us not to be protected by the police. Also, imagine defunding/abolishing the police and expect that the domestic violence rate will go down. No, it is not going to go down, in fact, it will increase. We just have to come up with a way of giving officers proper training that will benefit everyone in society. This is just my opinion.
Partially, I agree with you that abolishing the police is not the best solution. However, as far as I am concerned, at least one method in the article is extremely useful, which is to increase pro-social bonds and anti-violence norms across communities.
Since I am Asian American, my mom always values education. However, I am not like those smart Asian kids who are able to play several instruments or calculate numbers showing on the screen. When I was a kid, my family member always spent a lot of time watching me doing my homework. Sometimes, they would mad at me because of my slowness but they never ignore me or give up on me. One thing I think it’s really important is that they taught me “practice makes perfect so that God will reward hardworking.”
Also, they always sacrifice their leisure time for their children. And children are busy doing something meaningful or at least not harmful. In reality, almost every Asian family’s parents will do that. I think somehow Asian communities are examples in real life that why education is useful and why increasing pro-social bonds and anti-violence norms across communities are a necessary alternative way to reducing violence without police.
Hey Jingyue, I see your point, and I understand where you coming from but most people can not just shut down their violent ways without police intervention. Even with police intervention people still tend to commit crimes. Let’s take the correction system for example(prisons/jails), it is supposed to be meant to rehabilitate people from seeing what they did wrong is bad and that they have to change when they get out but when most of them get out, they get back into their old ways. Reducing violence is not something that can be easily done.
Hi Chima, I agree with you on how you said it can be hard to curb violence without police intervention especially with the gang related issues nowadays but it is not impossible. If people are taught and shown how to respect one another rather than use violence as a source of action, the community can change very much and make the world a better place to live in. To add on I like how you gave an example oh how in Chicago people would be scared to leave their homes since without policing people will not even feel safe because of the high rate of gun violence in the state. In addition like I mentioned if people are being taught the right way at home and school which is to be respectful and treat others with equality, people wont have to use guns or even use violence as a source of action. Lastly, You did a great job writing this discussion board this week, keep up the great work!
Hey Chima Okereke,
I agree with what you have stated, it is not possible to curb violence without police intervention especially with what has been going on now such as gang-related issues. Now in days, gangs are rising which means violence is rising as well. The article does mention that in order to avoid much police intervention, the author of the article did include many strategies. I think that having these strategies can be a way of lessening the crimes and not having much police intervention. For example, guns are one of the issues and reasons why crime has been increasing. Now in days, anyone can go and purchase cause that’s how easy it is for anyone to get their hands on a gun. As long as you look over 18 and look stable, there you go, you got a gun, something like that should not happen. People that have mental issues are able to get their hands on a gun. Shootings are happening everywhere, whether in schools, grocery stores, places that should be safe, isn’t safe anymore. If we put a stricter law regarding guns, I believe crimes might decrease. Not only that but I also agree with what you said about politicians speaking about this matter and that they are well protected themselves. It simply doesn’t affect them. But the general public has to live in fear of not only criminal activities but also police brutality. Police officers are simply not given proper training to treat people in such a harsh way. People wouldn’t be losing their lives if they were trained properly. Gun control is a must if we want to reduce violence without police intervention.
I agree with you I believe it is not possible to curb violence without police intervention. I believe police intervention is the main reason overtime crime is reduced and is the main reason most communities are considered safe. I believe police intervention is important as it is there main focus to reduce crime and keep everyone safe. Eliminating this will be very chaotic and crime may increase. I agree with your statement “Some effective methods for preventing violence take years to reach their maximum effect and without policing during those years, the rate at which violence is going to be will increase in the community”.
I completely agree with your side on it not being possible to curb violence without police intervention. I also like how you go on to have Chicago as an example. You go on to state “without policing people will not even feel safe coming out of their homes because of the high rate of gun violence in the state. Even now with police intervention, there is still gun violence around there, now imagine how high it would be if police are not intervening in shooting situations. ” This statement is completely true gun violence in Chicago has always been at an all time high even with police intervention and if they were not intervening Chicago would be a Warzone.
Hi, Chima I love your post. It was absolutely beautifully written, and I’m stuck now. I don’t know how to feel about this situation and topic after reading your post.
I was very strongly firm on this can be fixed on our own, but you’re right it’s not that we don’t want police is that we don’t want the police as they are so then we feel like if they are going to treat us like shit, we might as well abolish them and get them out of here. People are not against the police people are against how police treat people in certain communities and with certain faces. That’s something we don’t quite match, and a lot, it’s like liking a person and being able to ship. Still, they don’t treat you the way you’re supposed to be treated, so you might as well break it off even though you love them dearly, not saying we love the police dearly, but you know you rather your have your peace over stress.
Hi Chima, in my opinion i feel like abolishing policing isn’t the way to go. Most crime rates are high in places guns are illegal. Take texas as an example, you don’t hear much about shootings or mass shootings because everyone own a gun.
The article, “Reducing Violence Without Police: a Review of Research Evidence”, reviews and summarizes several alternative ways to reducing violence without police by improving the physical environment, strengthening anti-violence social norms and peer relationships, engaging and supporting youth, reducing substance abuse, mitigating financial stress, reducing the harmful effects of the justice process, and confronting the gun problem.
There are two approaches that I feel significantly useful. The first one is to increase pro-social bonds, long-term investment, and anti-violence norms across communities. When reading this article, the James Bulger case came to my mind. The one reason why Venables and Thompson committed the crime is that they lack support and education. Venables and Thompson regularly played truant from school. However, their school did not check with their families or try to stop them. Because of the lack of support and education, Venables and Thompson do not understand what deviance is. Similarly, in many public schools, overcrowding and a lack of resources, including but not limited to after-school programs, and sports activities, encourage disengagement and dropouts of “problem pupils”, which create more unengaged students. Since nobody teaches them what is right and what is wrong, they might do not know how to behave like a decent person. Therefore, in the future, maybe, the government will provide more free education opportunities from age 3 to age 25, including more full-day schools and more after-school programs. Also, the government will make home detention illegal.
Secondly, I think it is necessary to have more substance laws because individual interventions for substance abuse may reduce violence. In the future, maybe, the government will decrease the license for the liquid stores and increase access to substance abuse treatment. However, I do not support decriminalizing the possession of small quantities of marijuana. One of my friends died in 2018 because he was under the influence of marijuana. I still remembered his last words to me is that “I am a superman.” To be honest, I don’t know whether his marijuana is pure or not, but I will never touch any marijuana and other illegal drugs because of this evitable tragedy.
Hi Jingyue, I agree with you when you said by increase pro-social bonds, long-term investment, and anti-violence norms across communities can help society become a better place if less police intervention would be conducted. To add on I do agree with you when you said by school helping educate students more in class can help them learn more new strategies and can keep many kids out the streets. In addition by teachers helping at home meaning by making sure everything is okay with every student homes is also very important and I’m glad you mentioned it, because if there are kids that are being abuse at home that can have a huge negative effect in their life. Furthermore, I do believe that by having after school programs can help students have an activity to do, have some fun time and allow them to find peace in life at a young age rather that having students go home and being stuck in a room for the rest of the day. Lastly, you did a great job writing this discussion board this week, keep up the great work!
Hello Jingyue Gao,
I agree with what you have stated. This article basically summarizes many alternative ways in order to reduce violence without any police intervention. Such ways by improving the physical environment, strengthening anti-violence social norms and peer relationships. In my opinion, if we all these listed strategies we would be able to make an improvement and there will be fewer crimes committed. I also like how you gave examples. When you mentioned the James Bulger case, that will give an example to everyone as to why people tend to commit crimes. They lack support from family, friends and most do not even get their full education. It is hard to receive a full education especially coming from a lower class level family. I agree with what you have stated, “the government will provide more free education opportunities from age to 3 to age 25, including more full-day schools and more after-school programs”.
Defiantly. A lack of resources tends to make individuals turn violence resulting to committing crimes
Hello Chima this is a prefect example I love how you went into detail .about correction system it’s true that no matter how much rule you set for a prisoner they will either come out and do a more bigger crime and go right back .so reducing violence is not something that just happen and we forget about it , it’s just there violent way and with our without police intervention it’s still will be the same .
After reading the article The last paragraph Quoted “uniform gun police can decrease the use of firearms in violent acts”. I agree with this because I feel like police always react faster and do not take time to understand or solve the situation and guns are used for safety but must be used when needed too. Gun violence is dangerous and used daily by individuals causing death or tragedy. Their job at the end of the day should make sure they help someone. The community has to trust and help one another to avoid moving to bad neighborhoods.People have their own reason why they act the way they do. It can be because of hardships, frustration, stress and even domestic abuse all build up in them to lose control.The neighborhoods that I live in have high crime that is why cameras are set up to seek what is going on and faster ways to get bad people off the street . then we can reduce violence by volunteer program jobs and school programs . We need the police to give us consequences because we will have war with these people and make them feel that the public is unsafe . It’s the second amendment saying firearms are lawful as self defense most of the time people are likely to be killed with guns. So cannot get rid of police intervention we need law and should obey them.
Hey Hansranie I see your point and I agree with you, most of the time people are likely to be killed with guns that why we need more police intervention to reduce the gun violence rate. We also need police intervention to enforce the law and make sure people are following them. I feel like if we can’t easily reduce violence outside with police intervention, how can we reduce violence inside “Domestic violence” without police intervention where there are no cameras. Overall we need police intervention, they just need to change their tactics in approaching situations.
I def agree with you officers have experience with crime and go up against violence that we aren’t accustom to. With their experience they know how to work in certain situations were we will be afraid and walk away from the crime rather than stopping it
Yes. Police officers should be assigned to specific communities to build a bond. Once trusted by the community, there would be a high crime rate because the community would feel bad for the assigned officer.
Several evidence based strategies can reduce violence without the need to involve police, according to the John Jay Research and Evaluation Center. Chief among them are improving the physical environment strengthening anti violence behavioral norms, and providing youth structure and opportunity the Center reported in a wide ranging review of research on programs and strategies known to reduce community violence without police involvement. The review was conducted by members of the John Jay College Research Advisory Group on Preventing and Reducing Community Violence, and supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Most previous studies of anti violence programs are heavily skewed towards altering police behavior or practice, but that’s largely a reflection of government research priorities or funding. Studies of policing interventions i.e., hotspots policing and focused deterrence are strongly supported by public and private funding bodies. To add on there are several so called place based interventions that are sustainable and cost effective and that have been proven to decrease violence. Such interventions include adding green space like parks and trees to vacant areas, improving the quality of houses and other buildings, and ensuring that public spaces are well. The advisory group based their recommendations on a burgeoning body of research known as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, which suggests that the physical design of neighborhoods can promote the protection of communal spaces, informal social control, and pro social behavior.
However after reading the article, two findings from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like is how the physical environment is going to change drastically and how to strengthen anti violence social norms and peer relationships are going to increase. Many effective methods can take years to work since it conducts a lot of practice and making sure the technique works. To add on without policing during those years, the rate at which violence is going to be will increase in the community but research is beginning to produce strong evidence for intervention models that see violence as behavior shaped by social norms and the relationships people share with their peer networks. Programs using this approach include Cure Violence based in Illinois and Advance Peace from California. Both programs operate in numerous locations across the country and increasingly around the world. These and similar models rely on two key interventions which are community outreach and direct interruption or mediation off neighborhood conflicts by trained people known to the neighborhood and trusted by the residents. This shows how with the help of the government they can teach people how to respect each other and properly train citizens with programs that many people can benefit from. To add on the government can teach police officers how to properly train in certain situation and teach them how violence is not the answer at all in no matter the situation, police officer are there to help others in danger and the one committing the crime so they can make sure everyone is safe. Lastly according to the article one of the most obvious place based interventions to reduce crime and violence without policing is the creation of green space, such as adding parks, planting trees, and revitalizing vacant lots. Nature is believed to reduce crime by having a neuro-therapeutic effect that reduces aggression and creates an inviting space for local residents to congregate and become more invested in their relationships with each other and their surroundings. In fact natural experiments in Chicago demonstrated that increased greening and greater tree canopy in public housing areas were associated with significantly less violent crime and reports of aggression by residents. Meaning by having the environment cleaner, fresher, and greener it would definitely help the environment grow and help the people see the real beauty to life instead of committing illegal crimes.
The study done about Green spaces is something I personally never thought about but it makes sense why it would be beneficial so I find it great when you make an emphasis on it in your response. When you pointed the connection between nature and having therapeutic effect I can’t help but remember how every time I have gone out since COVID I try to make an effort to take it all in around me. To sniff at the air, feel the sun on my face and to feel the wind. The space in which we are surrounded by is such an important aspect in the spirits of everyone. The separation brought on by the urban community is something that weighs heavily on the mind of individuals. So to have a few parks can be really relaxing and can give us a feeling of inebriation.
I believe that without police intervention it is not possible to curb violence. However, after reading the article I now think it can be possible. With many strategies and ideas that have been listed. Such strategies like improving the environment. According to the Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence, “improving the quality of neighborhood buildings and housing, and creating public spaces with ample lighting suitable for pedestrian traffic can be cost-effective ways of decreasing community violence”. Another one of the ideas is the anti-violence social norms and peer relationships should be strengthened. The article stated, “Outreach workers, a key part of these interventions, form supportive and confidential relationships with individuals at the highest risk of becoming perpetrators or victims of violence, connecting them with social resources and working to shift their behavior and attitudes toward non-violence. Evaluation suggest these programs may help reduce neighborhood violence”. In order to reduce crimes, building a relationship, that is on the verge of being a perpetrator or even the victim of violence, and be able to like connect them with resources is a way of starting to make a change. Yet another strategy that needs to be looked at and one of many ways violence can curb without police intervention is the gun problem. Now in days, it is easy to get a gun without going through training and having your mental state checked. Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence stated, “Violence has been reduced by policy mechanisms that limit access to guns and increase restrictions for individuals with violent crime backgrounds, reduce access to guns by young people, impose waiting periods, and increase required training”. By limiting gun access for young adults and increasing the requirements for people with a history of violent crime, having mandatory training can all result in reducing violence. Violence is one of many reasons for police intervention. But by following all these strategies that were listed, we may not need much police intervention.
I completely agree with you when you talk about how important it is to strengthen relationships. By creating these relationships these people become familiarized with each other and no longer have that look of just “a stranger.” This could make a huge impact for less police intervention. You also said something that caught my attention about limiting gun access. Depending on which area in the United States you are in, gun access can he hard but it can also be easier. The United States seems to have gotten itself into a predicament by they way state laws are set about gun control. What is key is also that when limiting gun control laws, the people who suffer the most are minorities. We have all been aware of proud boys and how they tote their guns like badges imposing themselves against minority groups and acting like bullies. Now when gun control is so limited the harder it will be for minority groups to feel safe with guns being held towards their heads.
Before reading the article I had also believed and agree with you that without police intervention it may not be possible to curb violence. However, reading the article made me more susceptible to believing that maybe little or no police intervention is possible to curb violence in different ways. One of the ways that was mentioned in the article and by you was that “improving the quality of neighborhood buildings and housing, and creating public spaces with ample lighting suitable for pedestrian traffic can be cost-effective ways of decreasing community violence”. I can see how this would be beneficial to the community and reduction of crime because by reshaping certain aspects of the physical environment, it can reduce opportunities for violence, prevent the possession of illegal guns, lower rates of gun violence, and etc. Thus, the reduction in stress and fear may also occur.
One of the findings that speak to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like is reducing substance abuse. Several study results showed that interventions to reduce harmful substance abuse are associated with lower rates of community violence. For example, policies to enforce age limits on alcohol access or restriction on alcohol sales have decreased violent crimes. Another finding is that place-based, structural, scalable, and sustainable interventions have been shown to reduce violence. Improving the quality of neighborhood buildings can be cost-effective ways of decreasing community violence. It will help improve the community’s state of life that can result in lessening the temptation to be engaged in violent crimes.
I agree with your findings in the articles I also believe one of the best strategies proposed is the Reducing Substance Abuse as studies have shown that it reduces crime in the communties. I believe it is not possible to curb violence without police intervention because the main purpose of police intervention is to reduce crime and ensure the safety of others.
I agree with you that both reducing substance abuse and alcohol sales are necessary ways to decrease violent crimes. I think the government should limit the chance for teenagers to exposure to substances and alcohol by restricting liquor stores. Now, the state liquor agency is prohibited from approving an application within 500 feet of a public or parochial school or the principal campus of a college, university, or seminary. However, I don’t think it is enough. I watched a lot of scenes in the series, such as Gossip Girls, that high school kids are celebrating or having parties with beers or alcohols. Therefore, I think the government should punish those media that encourage teenagers to believe drinking is a cool thing.
I agree you with that stopping substance using would cut the amount of violence that happens in neighborhoods.
I agree, and possibly more drug programs accessable to everyone.
There have been many speculations on wether or not it is possible to curb violence without police intervention. After reading the article “Reducing Violence without Police: A review of research Evidence” published by the John Jay research and evaluation center two methods out of the seven strategies I found to be very interesting. The first method being the Reduce Substance Abuse strategy which essentially introduces the idea to focus on reducing harmful substance abuse in a community which according to studies shows that the results can cause lower rates of community violence. The second strategy being targeting the Gun problem which is essentially focusing on reducing gun access for young individuals and doing cohesive background checks before allowing someone to have access to a gun. Overall, I believe it is not possible to reduce violence without police intervention. I believe police intervention is the main reason why crime overtime reduces and in certain communities is little to no crime. I believe police intervention is important in our communities as their main focus is to reduce crime and keep everyone safe.
I couldn’t agree more with the substance abuse because due to the affect of the substance on a person it causes behavior changes. The gun access to youth is something that I see would make a difference because at an older age they will still work up to cause violence.
Before reading the article I was a firm believer that it is completely possible to curb violence without the involvement of police. After reading this piece, my stance on the subject still completely stands. The section titled ‘Non Policing Approach’ helped strengthen my stance. In that section, there are two points which I would like to emphasize. The first point would be the improvement of the environment. It talks about the idea of tackling the problem of these areas at the root rather than enforcing more police and hoping that form of deterrence would be enough to get people to commit less crimes. Rather, they talk about how poverty is a factor and once you tackle that area where you might find these individuals jobs and the such, crime rates would drop. A lack of school resources is also an issue. When schools have nothing to offer, students get bored and start feeling like they are being treated much differently than other kids who are more privileged than they are. Another ‘root cause of violence’ is this idea of Freudian psychoanalysis. Mental health is important, and it is a major issue in the lives of many people around the world. So when you have something as dangerous as Freudian psychoanalysis which focuses so heavily on the Oedipus triangle and narrows itself only to that realm making followers to a facist system, individuals are told that they must change in order to meet the needs of their government and that if they feel differently they are diagnosed with being the problem and scum of society. That is why the sort of mental health one is given is so important to the community as a whole. The second finding that I found interesting in the strengthening of anti-violence and social norms and peer relationships. Police have not been around forever, they arose at a certain time and have been an ever growing dominant force. It makes sense that we could also be the ones to educate and build strong relationships through connections and education. It is not like humans are stuck forever in one category of thinking, matter of fact, stances of justice and equality have shifted through history. I believe the same can be done about the stance of police. Instead, group relations can be built from the ground up and can do away with the need of police through the forces of education. I understand that to say “everyone will get along” is way too hopeful but I am not saying that at all. What I am trying to state is that their is way to much power that this group holds which may come into conflict into the community, that this power should not be held or entrusted to them when the community itself is a strong force in of itself to lower crime. Community groups are also a huge help in providing the community with its needs through food drives and anything else they might need. That is my stance on the topic but one is always learning more as time progresses.
I agree with your statement that it is completely possible to curb violence without the involvement of police. place-based structural and environmental improvements can be a factor for preventing and reducing violence in these neighborhoods. If we reshape certain aspects of the physical environment, policymakers can reduce opportunities for violence, prevent the possession of illegal guns, lower rates of gun violence, and many more. This would also lead to reductions in stress, fear, etc. Overall, having the possibility of curbing violence without the presence of police leads to much more ideas of how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like.
I totally agree with you about improving the environment can help decrease the violence because if the environment is becoming better violence might go down. Your work is really well written.
Curbing violence without police intervention could be a great thought but then again become a bad thought. Sometimes officers knowledge of having a badge let it get to their head the power and authority they have over everyone else but their experience with crime and violence is what also equips them to get the job done. Many of us humans wouldn’t be able to interfere in a fight or an act of violence were as the police were trained to be able to.
After reading the article the first findings was strengthen anti-violence social norms and peer relationship. With these actions taken to play programs will be developed to help in peer network and social relationships that cause violence and stop it from spreed. Community outreach to help those in the community could be a successful program, Prof. Chowdhury (from BMCC) has started these community programs to help the youth in NJ and also people being related from jail and to a surprise it has helped decrease with violence in the neighborhood with the help of outreach workers.
The second finding of a future with significantly less police intervention Mitigate financial stress. Many people commit crime because of the financial stress they are under going and with a way to solve these many crimes can be stopped. Short term assistance for those reentering society from jail or prison can help while these people find a job to approve of them after the record they obtained.
I like how you think curbing violence without police intervein can either be a good or bad idea because that is completely true, it can go both ways now that I think about it. I also agree with your point where you state ” Sometimes officers knowledge of having a badge let it get to their head the power and authority they have over everyone else but their experience with crime and violence is what also equips them to get the job done”. And that is true officers have this superiority complex, and also these officers inspire fear rather than our safety.
yes I somehow agree with you police officers sometimes get things too far because they have so much power in their hands and a gun on them so it makes sense for us to think like this but I don’t think less police officers means less violence.
There has been a lot of talk of de-funding police, abolishing police, re-imagining justice, etc. After reading the article “Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence” by the John Jay College research advisory group, I contend that it is possible to curb violence without police intervention. This is possible because the group identified seven evidence-backed strategies on how violence can be reduced without the presence of police. One finding from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like shows that place-based structural and environmental improvements can be a factor for preventing and reducing violence. According to the article, “By reshaping certain aspects of the physical environment—e.g., fixing abandoned buildings, greening vacant lots, and lighting public spaces—policymakers can reduce opportunities for violence, prevent the possession of illegal guns, lower rates of gun violence, and create sustained co-benefits such as reductions in stress, fear, and common nuisances”. This quote shows how the future may be if we improve the physical environment in which crimes occur. Another finding from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like is when the authors mention how mitigating financial stress may be a strategy to reducing crimes and the need for police. By giving the people more benefits, they may have less motivation to commit crimes because of their poverty level or whatever they do not have access to. According to the article, “Likewise, Carr and Packham (2019) found that staggering payments to individual recipients of federal food benefits (SNAP) led to meaningful reductions in crime, including assault, domestic violence, and kidnapping”. This quote means that with more benefits such as SNAP or EBT that in the future we may not need loads of police because with these benefits we are reducing crimes.
The article published by John Jay “Reducing Violence Without Police: a Review of Research Evidence”, emphasizes on the idea that decreasing intervention without police by Improving the Physical Environment and Strengthen Anti-Violence Social Norms. I personally believe that It is not possible to curb violence without police intervention. Furthermore, after reading this article, two findings from the article that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention would look like is “Improve the Physical Environment Place-based. Interventions that are structural, scalable, and sustainable have been shown to reduce violence and many strategies are economically viable. Increasing the prevalence of green space in a neighborhood, improving the quality of neighborhood buildings and housing, and creating public spaces with ample lighting suitable for pedestrian traffic can be cost-effective ways of decreasing community violence.” However, improving the quality of neighborhoods and housing would also lead to gentrification in many areas. Another finding that I agree with is “form supportive and confidential relationships with individuals at the highest risk of becoming perpetrators or victims of violence, connecting them with social resources and working to shift their behavior and attitudes toward non-violence.” But I still stand with my point that It is not possible to curb violence without police intervention. However having the community and the police department work together instead of going against each other could lessen violence. Police have to come up with strategies and amazing ideas but they never talk to the community about the ideas. Law enforcement should team up with communities to have balance with each other. We have to work together to better each other. Police do protect, but they exercise “protecting” so much that it has dehumanized them, it has led to abuse, it has led to misconduct. Then there is the other side of the spectrum where law enforcement put so much time into the protection that they left the community out and left us behind, that leads not to balance, but to mistakes and no change. It has to be community and policing. It can’t be us versus them.
In my opinion I’m not a fan of police but after reading the article I found out that there are many ways to decrease violence without police being involved. Two that I’m going to talk about are Improving The Physical Environment and Engage And Support Youth because I believe these are important. I feel like these would help because if you change or improve the community the violence that happens in that community goes down. According to the article it says that improving the physical environment can decrease by “Increasing the prevalence of green space in a neighborhood, improving the quality of neighborhood buildings and housing, and creating public spaces with ample lighting….”. Also, another way is engaging and the support for youth because according to the article “Youth employment, job mentorship and training, educational supports, and behavioral interventions can improve youth outcomes and reduce violence.”. I believe these two are important as well as the others but I chose these because if you improve the location and give kids or teens or anyone things to do they probably be busy with good things rather than bad things.
I disagree with you because we need police officers to do their job, which they have been trained to do. To deal with violence. I don’t think giving the children something to do will make them busy and distract them with other stuff because people commit crimes for many many reasons. It could be revenge, or something that they going through personally. Its all about the minds.
Hey Johanna, I totally agree with you on the fact that engaging with teenagers and building that connection at a young age is something that could benefit our community because they youth are learning about ways to not use violence. Mentoring the youth with employment opportunities, training, education support and consoling support will allow these youth to be ahead of the game in learning the right and wrong in life.
i agree with children being involved with activities that are positive versus negative. I also believe that a good teaching starts at home. Many parents are so busy working they neglect their children. So its helpful when the government and step in and give financial assistance. Many people believe its a handout but its really for the betterment of a child’s development. I have a family member with a small child and when she received the stimulus checks including extra for her child she was able to manage better. With that said if communities take care of there members and offer assistance like the programs mentioned in the report it could make for a better community and less police intervention.
Hi, Joanna did you get to read Chima’s post? Because I feel like most of us are not fans of police not because we don’t like police but rather the way they act. But I agree with your physical environment, and engagement with the youth is crucial for changing the setup of community police or no police.
This article talks about how people want to reduce violence without police help. I don’t think neighborhoods themselves focus of interventions to prevent and reduce violence. There are many reasons for this. This problem is too big to handle, to let other people do this on their own. One of the findings from the report that shows how a future with less police would look like is how the physical environment will change. Right now there are areas with dim lights, where most crimes occur. Policy makers can reduce apportunities for violence by preventing the possession of illegal guns. There are many gun violence so if police doesn’t get involve the situation will get much better. Officers are out there for a reason. For a lot of good reasons. Other people are not trained to deal with gun violence or other types of violence, but officers do. They have experience, education and training. Yes, based on the article improving the quality of neighborhood buildings and creating spaces with proper lighting the community violence may decrease but I don’t see how. We need police officers to deal with crime by statistics and from their knowledge and other tools. I don’t think better streets means less crimes.
Hello, Mehrangiz I totally agree with you that in order to lower gun violence and street crimes we need more police officers to parole our neighborhoods. Based on the article like you mention, improving the quality of our neighborhood is indeed an effective way in reducing crimes in the streets but it is not the best in dealing with armed criminals in the streets.
After reading the article, two findings from the report that speaks to how a future with significantly less police intervention will reduce violence in our community is wrong. In my opinion, it is not possible to curb violence without police intervention because we need to have physical surveillance who can protect our people. Two effective methods for preventing violence without policing is having programs like the Cure Violence and Advance Peace which would help communities mentor people about non violence attitudes. Another method is having programs to build engagement with the youth. The first method is effective in my opinion because it could help people would had problems criminal justice system. The strengthen anti-violence social norms and peer relationships programs are going to increase the communication skills with people by providing them with non violent mindsets and other information that could help people behave in open public. Furthermore, in the second method, I feel it is the most interesting and important because as a youth it is important to start conversation about safety and community potential violence. Having programs where youth learn how to solve problem without using violence is very beneficial to our community because most youth nowadays tend to get in trouble early in life. Speaking about the problem like restorative justice programs can help the victim and the suspect of the problem reach an agreement based on networking and talking.
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter but i disagree with you on some of your points. Before police departments where formed in the early 1800’s there was always a thing called “Community Policing”. Although it may not have been called this at the time, people in the community “policed” one another. There was no such thing as a police officer. The community would intervene when there were wayward children or adults. For example, in some countries, if someone steals they may get their finger or hand cut off and others will refrain from stealing. In America there are programs to encourage positive behavior. My point is that I think it is possible to have a community that takes care of its members and does not require a heavy police presence.
Yes. As the report explained, there are many ways in reducing or curbing violence without police intervention. A few examples are 1) setting up programs which target individual and community needs 2) Creating a more serene environment by having more green space, ample lighting, and improving buildings and housing 3) Creating a clean and healthy environment 4) Forming supportive relationships with individuals with the highest risk of becoming perpetrators or victims of violence. These suggestions can be planned and put into effect over time causing a significant reduction in violence without police intervention. From my experience this is what I see when I visit a wealthy neighborhood; cleanliness, beautiful buildings, beautiful parks and greenery. In addition to the above examples of curbing violence without police intervention, I believe that programs involving anger management, meditation(reducing stress), and self awareness can help individuals in becoming less violent naturally reducing police intervention.
The report pointed out that a future with significantly less police intervention would be involving more community intervention programs. These programs would be “effective across a demographic spectrum-i.e. differences by age, race, ethnicity” etc. and they would meet the needs of the communities in which they serve. Also, Social Norms and peer relationships, Community policing, gun control , increasing community outreach programs, engaging in support youth programs, and reducing substance abuse are some of the ways a future community would function with less police intervention.
The future with fewer police would introduce a better street lighting system and an increased tree canopy around the area with high crime rates. Location-based intervention would significantly reduce criminal activity, thus minor police inclusion.Also, there could be an increase in pro-social relations, upgrade of anti-violence habits, and provision of social backings and the chance for contributors. Unemployment increases the crime rate; thus, the engagement in the innovation of various projects for graduates and idle youths would increase. The massive employment reduces the idleness, thus involving every individual in activities to cater to their basic needs. Therefore, lowering crimes stimulated by laziness and lack of money, including robbery and illegal drug trafficking.
From the beginning of time, we’ve been talking about police, the way they police & the way they interact with the community. Recently after the protest in the summer for George Floyd and Breonna Taylor talks of defunding police have also been coming up. It’s funny to think that police started from slave patrol even though it’s not called that it’s still is a patrol with similar methods. But before I even read the report, I know there are 1 million things you can do before you even think about calling the police. You’ll find tips and tricks on Facebook Instagram and Twitter on tactics that are more effective first. Personally, I believe the only time and place that it is necessary for you as “a colored person” in America to pull out your phone and call the police, not even the police the NYPD is when there is a robbery, murder scene or you will be pressing charges. But besides that put your whole phone in your pocket sweetheart.
Two finding that I found in the report that will definitely help curb the interaction with police will have to be improving peer relationships by “be able to affect community violence by changing cultural beliefs and attitudes about racism, gender bias, and class” & also helping locals and national partners to basically start within. Because we can’t rely on outside help so we might as well try to fix it ourselves and if and only we are desperate we reach out to the police. But lefts face it we are stronger together police are only for the divided.
It is possible to curb violence without police intervention. Abandoned buildings create a focal point for illegal activities which includes violence and by improving the physical environment and fixing the abandoned buildings it creates sustainable co-benefits such as reduction in stress, fear, and common nuisances. In Chicago, the closure and demolition of 20,000 units created a reduction of 86% in shots fired in the area of demolition and near it.
Another example is by engaging and supporting the youth. It is proven that youths with positive and structured lives have a lower rate of crime and violence. Good school experience is also an important factor in the reduction of violence and youths that have summer jobs also lower the chances of violence during the summer and even afterwards as well.