AdamLanes 1 #1 March 24, 2009 Do you think it is reasonable that the police are paid the same whether they solve crimes and catch criminals or not? Does it make sense that the police get an increase in funding when there is an increase in crime? Does that not create an incentive to not solve crime and not catch criminals, other than the bare minimum to keep their jobs and prevent mass public outrage? I mean if you hired a plumber, would you pay them the same whether they fixed the leak or not? If the leak got worse while they were working on it would you then offer them more money, or instead look for a different plumber? Do you think most people will do the best job possible when they get paid the same with half the effort? *For clarification purposes, I am talking about real crimes; crimes committed against persons and property. Not arbitrary "crimes" that are more like a tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #2 March 24, 2009 Nope..... they're not making widgets on a production line. If their incentive was just to solve crimes (by the numbers) then they would go after the easy ones... speeding, parking on double yellow lines etc.... Stupid Idea ..... next (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,155 #3 March 24, 2009 I believe the counter-argument to that would be something on the order of "why are we paying for the police? There isn't any crime here" Police need to work on their resolution rate, but it's a basic service of a society, and I expect tax dollars to be spent on it. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,442 #4 March 24, 2009 >Do you think it is reasonable that the police are paid the same >whether they solve crimes and catch criminals or not? Yes. > Does it make sense that the police get an increase in funding >when there is an increase in crime? Yes. > Does that not create an incentive to not solve crime and not >catch criminals . . . No. > I mean if you hired a plumber, would you pay them the same >whether they fixed the leak or not? Nope. And if a police officer did not do his job (patrol his beat, investigate complaints etc) then I would expect them to be paid less as well. But let's use your example. If there were an earthquake, and your house was damaged, and the pipe he was working on broke - would you then refuse to pay him for fixing it? Or, if he fixed it well last time, would you ask him to come back and fix all the other problems that occurred during the earthquake? And would you expect to pay him more to fix a half dozen broken pipes than you paid him to fix the leak? >Do you think most people will do the best job possible when they get >paid the same with half the effort? I get paid the same whether I spend all day staring out the window or working in the lab. True of a great many people here in the US. It works, more often than not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #5 March 24, 2009 QuoteIf their incentive was just to solve crimes (by the numbers) then they would go after the easy ones... speeding, parking on double yellow lines etc.... Isn't that what is happening now? Many of the serious crimes go unsolved, while at the same time there is no shortage of police writing tickets for petty bullshit. So if your mother was raped and murdered, do you think the detective working the case should get paid the same whether he is out solving the crime and catching the scumbag, or if he is sitting behind his desk kicking his feet up and eating a donut? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #6 March 24, 2009 QuoteI believe the counter-argument to that would be something on the order of "why are we paying for the police? There isn't any crime here". Wendy, are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? Please explain the logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #7 March 24, 2009 Quote But let's use your example. If there were an earthquake, and your house was damaged, and the pipe he was working on broke - would you then refuse to pay him for fixing it? Or, if he fixed it well last time, would you ask him to come back and fix all the other problems that occurred during the earthquake? And would you expect to pay him more to fix a half dozen broken pipes than you paid him to fix the leak? I don't remember my "example" involving an earthquake, Bill, or anything else from your fantasy. Quote I get paid the same whether I spend all day staring out the window or working in the lab. Good job Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #8 March 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI believe the counter-argument to that would be something on the order of "why are we paying for the police? There isn't any crime here". Wendy, are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? Please explain the logic. Because, prevention is better than cure - perhaps. The primary role of a police force under those circumstances would be as a deterrent.... civil insurance... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #9 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote But let's use your example. If there were an earthquake, and your house was damaged, and the pipe he was working on broke - would you then refuse to pay him for fixing it? Or, if he fixed it well last time, would you ask him to come back and fix all the other problems that occurred during the earthquake? And would you expect to pay him more to fix a half dozen broken pipes than you paid him to fix the leak? I don't remember my "example" involving an earthquake, Bill, or anything else from your fantasy. Quote I get paid the same whether I spend all day staring out the window or working in the lab. Good job Bill. Quote the problem with alot of people is they want to email friends and play solitair and expect to be paid(as bill has just pointed out). but the police would have a much better outcome to their job if people actually had to pay for their crimes (like serve the sentence or not get out on a stupid technicality). the problem isn't that the police don't do their job, it is that the judges and lawyers let the criminals out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #10 March 24, 2009 Some of the highest paid officers in the country work in Suffolk county NY and the Hamptons. These are also some of the nicest, most expensive, and safest place I have ever lived. When the area has low crime, and then is managed well more people want to live there. The housing prices go up and more taxes are collected. So guess what they have more money and want more cops so there area stays nice. Honestly I hit a deer once and there was 4 cop cars their within 1 min of my call. So how much the cops make really depends on the taxes.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,262 #11 March 24, 2009 QuoteDo you think it is reasonable that the police are paid the same whether they solve crimes and catch criminals or not? Does it make sense that the police get an increase in funding when there is an increase in crime? Does that not create an incentive to not solve crime and not catch criminals, No. An increase in funding for the police does not mean an increase in the wage of the individual police officer. D'ya think the average detective sits at his desk thinking "Hey, if I don't solve any of my murder cases this year, the department might get enough funding to hire 10 new beat cops"? I think not. In fact, I think that the way ahead in policing is the same as in most other careers. Be good at your job, be promoted, earn more. I'd say that's an incentive to solve cases and catch criminals.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,442 #12 March 24, 2009 >I don't remember my "example" involving an earthquake . . . Yep. Just like your cop example neglects things that affect crime that are outside their control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,442 #13 March 24, 2009 >Wendy, are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should >still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? If you found a doctor who could guarantee (and prove) that he could make sure you never got sick, would you pay him to be your doctor? If so, why would you pay someone to fight non-existent diseases? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #14 March 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI believe the counter-argument to that would be something on the order of "why are we paying for the police? There isn't any crime here". Wendy, are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? Please explain the logic. Without patrol officers and their presence on the streets, what do you think would happen? I feel, a police officer should be paid to be out there and any 'bad guys' he gets, all the better. On the whole, I feel police officers are under-paid!!! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #15 March 24, 2009 Quote...are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? Please explain the logic. We haven't had a terrorist attack on the US since 9/11/2001. Should we disband Homeland "Security" and send them all off to get real jobs? What could possibly go wrong with that plan? Maybe not the greatest example, but you should get the point. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 March 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI believe the counter-argument to that would be something on the order of "why are we paying for the police? There isn't any crime here". Wendy, are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? Please explain the logic. This is sometimes more evident with fireman than police. When they have their jurisdiction well in hand and are staffed appropriately for the needs, they can put their efforts towards active improvements, rather than just reacting to fires. My job is similar - if you see me a lot, it's a sign that either I'm not getting it done, or the environment is too dynamic for my group size. I think a problem with police departments is that instead of hiring more people, the existing cops are just given more OT, which can be a lot of $$ they get used to, but the quality of their work suffers when they're constantly working so much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #17 March 24, 2009 If you pay them based upon arrests, there will be some who arrest innocent people just to increase their paycheck. We already see abuses in that kind of system where police are allowed to keep assets from drug seizures, and then they take money from every traveler on the road with a large wad of cash, under the pretense that it's "drug money", and never give it back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #18 March 24, 2009 Oops! I accidentally clicked the No vote, when I meant to click the Yes vote. Sorry. Please mentally adjust accordingly. Now, then: the idea is a bad one. Police work isn't, or shouldn't, be like doing sales work on commission. It would amount to a de facto quota system, and there's too much potential for abuse for that be workable in police work. As it is, civilians think, rightly or wrongly, that cops have quotas for writing traffic tickets. Police officers' performance is already addressed the way it is for most working stiffs: at salary and promotion review time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #19 March 25, 2009 QuoteMany of the serious crimes go unsolved, while at the same time there is no shortage of police writing tickets for petty bullshit. Ive been driving at least 80MPH up and down the 8 and 5 for six years here and have never been pulled over. There seems to be a shortage of police writiing tickets too. It's just that since it is unpopular for cops to enforce speeding than it is to thwart a murder, the speeding get remembered more._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 March 25, 2009 Paying more on the basis of arrests and/or solving crimes has a number of problems to a guy like me. Here are but a few: (1) Solid police work means that some crimes go unsolved. An extra $1k and all I need is some evidence that puts him on the scene." You can see where that would go. (2) Police abuses greater than above. Police sweeps, etc., would be a more common thing. (1) and (2) would result in... (3) Consent decrees. Google it. (4) You'll need more prosecuting attorneys. Here in Fresno, the "did not file" rate is pretty high. What, 1/3 of all arrests result in "did not file" because the cops here (under what I find to be pretty suspicious leadership) keep on arresting. And the arrestees walk because charges aren't filed. It's a ticket to sloppy and even downright bad police work. My perspective is I'd rather see ten bad guys get away with it than one innocent guy get pinched. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #21 March 27, 2009 QuoteDoes it make sense that the police get an increase in funding when there is an increase in crime? The only reasons it wouldn't make sense is if there was significant evidence indicating that the incidence of attempted crime is constant or dependent on size of the police force, increasing proportionately. Do you have such evidence?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #22 March 27, 2009 QuoteQuote...are you saying that if crime was non-existent, police should still be paid to fight the non-existent crime? Please explain the logic. We haven't had a terrorist attack on the US since 9/11/2001. … Maybe not the greatest example … Probably not.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #23 March 27, 2009 The movie hot fuzz comes to mindnot all coppers have the same positions so the guys out there making the arrects would have a better income than the ones processing the information. The whole system needs to be done correctly for the criminal to be charged or the innocents to be released. A commission scheme such as the one suggested here would not make the process any more reliable, only more people would be arrested. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
