Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
Our approach to law enforcement is expensive, but I'm not sure there is a realistic way around this.
At some point, our law enforcement efforts will become too expensive, and we're going to have to ask if we willing to lose our civil liberties when drones are flying over the skies and we're using social network analysis to map out the human terrain- which goes against our constitution.

It also argued for removing he mandatory sentence times for drug use, which I strongly support. Politicians have in effect took on the role of the Judge and Jury by mandating a minimal sentence for specific crimes (politically popular), instead of allowing the jury and judge to assess the total person and the overall context of the alleged violation, and then determine an appropriate punishment instead of X=Y.
Concur. We need to empower local leaders. The bureaucracy is not the answer.

On the other hand, what the article didn't address is the potential impact of not arresting the growing number of gang members. Failure to enforce the law and for the government to protect the population from criminals has its own costs. If you take a position you can always spin the numbers to support it, so we all need to take a step back and look at the problem in a more holistic manner in my opinion.
For a holistic manner, I would submit that it's not simply a police or governance problem. Rather, it's a community problem.

If the police are taking ownership to "fix" it, then that decision absolves the local leaders, families, churches, NGOs, etc from having to step up and be good citizens.

It's similar to some parents who drop their kids off at school expecting the teachers to have sole responsibility for educating their child. They outsource their responsibilities and do not take the time to work with their children on homework and during the summer.