That's a solid theoretical argument. However, it is contradicted by the empirical evidence.
What usually happens is that the police issue fines so frequently that they become considered an occupying force by the populace. In turn, the populace withholds information from the police, and both violent crimes and petty violations rise.
Police statistics make quantitative conclusions difficult, since they are so often fudged for political purposes. They rise when the police need more funding, and fall when they need political capital. Murder rates are generally considered the only reasonably accurate figures.
On the ground, however, the reality is very clear.
I would suggest, however, that this is not an argument for less police but instead an argument for fewer laws that are only infrequently and inconsistently enforced. It is these laws that give police the opportunity to "issue fines so frequently" and to give affected populations (rightfully or not) the impression that they are singled out. (Laws against loitering or the consumption of alcohol in public come into mind, to a lesser degree probably also the criminalization of marijuana consumption.)
Right... but those laws only ever get revoked when they hit the rich with them. And for every one you revoke there's ten more wealthy/connected people with sob stories that could have been prevented if X were illegal who are contacting their elected representative.
I agree with you on principal but IMO society on Mars will be having this debate (I hope I'm wrong).
In a world where we have police, we want to deploy it against crime. If the police isn't fit for purpose, that's a different kettle of fish.
(Also, the next bit of the quote, "Yet neighborhoods more likely to commit white collar crime aren’t targeted in this way", suggests a very loose grasp of how policing works. No, they're not, because patrolling the street in front of an office building isn't the least bit effective against white collar crime.)
Because it's not really detectable by patrolling without in-depth investigation. A patrol cop staring at e.g. a stockbroker doing insider trading would not deter it because that wouldn't be visible even as he would be doing the trades. A patrol cop sitting in all Madoff's meetings and sales presentations wouldn't prevent the Madoff scam from succeeding. There's nothing to suggest even getting a warrant without analysis of the actual trade data/accounting information/etc, which cannot really be done by most nonspecialized police officers.
Here's an example, and the study cited here has been replicated in many American cities.[0]
For the petty fines and eroded trust, this is from an advisory letter sent from the Justice Deparment to the judiciary of all fifty states:
“Individuals may confront escalating debt; face repeated, unnecessary incarceration for nonpayment despite posing no danger to the community; lose their jobs; and become trapped in cycles of poverty that can be nearly impossible to escape,” Gupta and Foster wrote. “Furthermore, in addition to being unlawful, to the extent that these practices are geared not toward addressing public safety, but rather toward raising revenue, they can cast doubt on the impartiality of the tribunal and erode trust between local governments and their constituents.”
What usually happens is that the police issue fines so frequently that they become considered an occupying force by the populace. In turn, the populace withholds information from the police, and both violent crimes and petty violations rise.
Police statistics make quantitative conclusions difficult, since they are so often fudged for political purposes. They rise when the police need more funding, and fall when they need political capital. Murder rates are generally considered the only reasonably accurate figures.
On the ground, however, the reality is very clear.