America appears under-policed compared to European countries, which have more police per capita:
But such apples-to-apples comparisons are non that useful. Police are not homogenous, nor are populations. Without controlling for key variables such as recidivism and deterrence–but also demographic and cultural differences–it’s unfounded to say America’s style of policing is sub-optimal compared to other countries that have more police per capita but different demographics. America having fewer police per capita is negated by better-armed police, longer sentences, better crime-solving ability, and deterrence. That is, given these variables, American policing ‘works’ compared to the alternative of adopting a foreign style of policing.
Additionally, the US has the FBI and other powerful federal agencies, which have more resources compared to local police departments and can assist in solving complicated cases. Such agencies have unlimited resources for solving crimes–not just domestically, but crimes that affect American interests abroad, like organized crime or terrorism. Sure, there is Europol, but it’s much more limited compared to the FBI and has no arrest powers. At best it can assist in investigations, but such investigations are almost always spearheaded by the FBI.
A common critcism is that America’s police have become militarized, but this is also why fewer police may be needed. If each cop is packing more firepower, body armor, and equipment, it stands to reason fewer police will be needed. Secondly, intimidating police are a good deterrent, or at least compared to physically smaller, unarmed cops like in other countries. This is why bouncers are selected to appear physically intimidating even if they do not actually physically bounce patrons from bars.
Steve Sailer in a Substack post asks “Why can’t we have better cops?” Both sides of the aisle seem to be in agreement that better policing is needed and that if police were better paid, then they’d be more effective at their jobs and de-escalating encounters, resulting in fewer deaths at the hands of the police and the public having a higher trust in the police, as well as lower crime.
I take a somewhat differing view. Bad police are a feature, not a bug, as far as being an effective deterrent. If I was going to commit a crime or engage in civil disobedience, I would be more scared of the violence-prone, hot-headed cop compared to the smart, well-trained cop. Policing is probably one of the few exceptions in which quality is not always better, or that sub-optimal quality leads to optimal outcomes (less crime). Historically, this has generally been the case. Those with leadership qualities became soldiers or generals, whereas those who were just tough but lacking those other qualities became police. Of course, you need smarter police for solving crimes, but in terms of being a deterrent, smarter isn’t better.
The French police and their baguette nightsticks or the British police and their Marge Simpson-hairdo hats does not instill the same sort fear or compliance compared to well-armed, muscled (sources say that 25% of cops use or have used steroids), intimidating American police. The expectation in America when the cops are called is that someone who is armed and ready face-off against a potentially dangerous assailant will arrive, with backup if necessary, not some guy with a walkie-talkie and only a reflector safety vest for protection.
Even the type of ammunition is chosen for maximum lethality: so-called mushroom bullets that expand internally and cause incapacitation from rapid blood loss. Police are instructed to shoot to kill, meaning to aim for the torso as the most effective way of doing this, and no warning shots. Although this is highly situational (e.g. the officer’s life, hostages, or bystanders are in imminent danger), and non-lethal force like tasers are also widely used.
Also, one must take into account demographics. It’s also not so much that America’s police are exceptionally bad, but that they have to contend with uniquely bad demographics. If you look at America’s worst prisons or those who are serving life sentences for violent crimes, there are not a whole lot of Japanese people in there. America’s style of policing is militarized, in part because America’s demographics are unusually militant by Western standards, being well-armed and liable to mood swings and instability due to widespread drug and alcohol use, which are the last things you want from a suspect who may also be armed. So police have to act on the assumption that they may face retaliatory firepower, especially in bad neighborhoods. Or ornery suspects under the influence who may not comply readily with simple commands.
Also, longer sentences also means fewer police may be needed, as criminals are kept off the streets. The US criminal justice system is known for having harsh recidivism laws, such as three-strikes laws. In the UK however it’s not uncommon to read stories of people being caught shoplifting or committing felonies repeatedly, way more times than in the US. San Francisco’s post-Covid shoplifting surge is not so much attributable to ineffective policing, but rather the failure of prosecutors to prosecute small thefts. But still, one must take into account that the theft situation is still likely worse in other countries, not only due to under-policing, but no recidivism laws.
One can argue that this does not change the fact that America is under-policed. Yes, America would have less crime if there were more police, all else being equal. But the claim is that other countries have better policing, so to take this at face value, if police were swapped crime should go down, but I don’t think it would. The existence of widespread retail theft in the US does not mean American-style policing is ineffective; it would be even worse under European-style policing. We saw in 2020 during the BLM/antifa riots and looting the consequences of passive policing. Just having more police per capita won’t do anything if they are unarmed and stand-down.
If police were swapped–property crime, bank robberies, and homicides would go way up in the US–especially for certain high-risk demographics and cities, reversing the multi-decade trend of falling crime rates since the early ’90s. In the eighties and nineties there was an epidemic of armed bank robberies in Los Angeles. Such robbers were recruited by gangs, and their modus operandi was to go for the vaults, as opposed to passing a note, so the losses were substantial, which combined with media attention of the amounts solen led to copycat robbers. Better-armed and trained police and stiffer sentencing saw bank robberies peak and subside by 1997. Conversely under such an officer swap, crime outside of the US would fall; the UK would have fewer muggings for example.
If demographics were swapped, crime would plunge in the US, and police would not need to be as militarized. Japan however would have a crime wave of the likes never before seen, both violent crime but also white-collar crime. Its futuristic electronics stores would be stripped to the drywall. Same for Norway: its famously lenient criminal justice system and gun-less policing would also prove woefully inadequate.
What about white collar crime and long sentences for organized crime? Here, again, I think America’s approach of long sentences is optimal compared to shorter sentences. The common criticism I read is that a higher certainty of being caught is a better deterrent compared to a long sentence. Long sentences work, not so much at preventing people from entering into crime, but at solving it. A criminal enterprise usually involves a lot of people. Inevitably someone messes up and gets caught. Staring down the barrel of a long sentence, he does the rational thing and defects; the entire enterprise soon crumbles.
There is a reason Kim Dotcom, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden fought tooth and nail to avoid extradition to the US, including years of drawn-out legal battles and nation-hopping; no one doles out punishment like America does.
In quasi-socialist or weak economies, short sentences and lenient policing perhaps works better, as the economic incentives to commit complicated crime are not that great when there is not much money to go around anyway. The South American drug cartels of the ’80s became wealthy because Americans were buying the drugs. In wealthy societies like the US or China, it’s the opposite. A bigger and richer economy and consumers with a lot of disposable income makes the returns to crime far greater assuming the criminal does not get caught, hence the need for harsh punishments to reduce the expected value of crime by imposing a serious potential downside.
There have been several recent notable large-scale business scandals in Germany–the Volkswagen emissions scandal and Wirecard–and fraud may be endemic to top German firms, so evidently shorter sentences and a more lenient criminal justice system hasn’t helped. Why would it help in America too? That comes off as wishful thinking, not anything grounded in evidence-based policy.
Norway’s system ‘works’ because Norwegians are different from Americans in key respects, such as culturally. A competitive, individualistic culture like the US, compared to more collectivist or cooperative societies like in Northern Europe, is more conducive to creating criminals, but also punishing them more harshly. Overall, the belief or notion that a criminal justice system that works for a specific population will work if applied to entirely different one, just seems ill-conceived.