US Supreme Court Orders 46,000 criminals released

[Coito ergo sum]

I said all along that states should have their police. I've also said that I don't get the point of county and town police. Or highway police for that matter. Can't state police drive on the highways? Would having to learn the Highway Code overheat their brains?

I've also never said that Americans are homogeneous. I know you aren't. Christ sake, your culture is the most invasive in the world, I can't fail to know. But how non-homogeneous are you? State to state I get that. But county to county, town to town? Does Bumfuck Montana think sister fucking is okay but the next town over, WeloveJesus Montana think that sex should only be between married couples over thirty years of age, with the lights off and their Minister in the room? Do they both frown on drug use? Murder? Theft?

State police are generally policing the highways, along with anywhere else in the State.

Having city or county police is based on the notion that county or town police are policing locally. They live in the town/county that they police, and they are paid by the residents of that town/county. Moreover, towns and counties are not required to have police - towns and counties organize their own affairs within their political baileywicks. If the people living there want a police force, and vote to pay for it, they are allowed to have one.

It's also not unique to the US that there would be different police for different jurisdictions - like City of London Police vs Metropolitan Police in England. There are four territorial police forces in Wales. Why the gripe about the US having local and State police? What's the big deal?

Our culture is the most "invasive" in the world? Codswallop. Nobody forces a culture on you, nor has American culture taken over European or other culture. Germany is still Germany. England is still England.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably worth pointing out that state police (South Australian Police, for example) are trained in all aspects of their roles as law enforcement officers, and that community policing is generally sensitive to the community demographic. Branches within the state police department take care of the various areas of crime prevention, law enforcement and community services.

Yep. Only one level of major bureaucracy vs. the 3 or more in the states.

I'm not sure you have an accurate understanding of US law enforcement.

I must admit the rather large number of different organisations and levels of enforcement agencies in the US has puzzled me; one reads of examples where there is friction between them, to the detriment of efficiency...

It's not really all that complex.

Most law enforcement is done by the 50 States which police themselves. Each State has general police powers, and maintains State Police forces. If a town or a county wants to maintain a police force, and the people of those jurisdictions decide to create one, then there is nothing stopping them from doing so, subject to State law. They have jurisdiction within their boundaries, which doesn't appear much different than the way other countries do it.

The United States itself does not have a general police power, but only has specific police powers that can be tied to the jurisdiction of the federal government - like offenses of an interstate or international character. That's where the FBI and other federal law enforcement comes in.

It's not much more complicated than that.

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Having city or county police is based on the notion that county or town police are policing locally. They live in the town/county that they police, and they are paid by the residents of that town/county.

Most country towns in Oz have a local police station, staffed by officers that live there for lengthy perioids of time, who become part of the town culture, become umpires or players in the local footy club etc. , and that is a good thing, I suspect.

However, being paid by the state (not federally, I hasten to add...), and with oversight from some form of regional command may also be a good thing - a certain amount of uniformity across the state is the result...

However, each to their own...

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably worth pointing out that state police (South Australian Police, for example) are trained in all aspects of their roles as law enforcement officers, and that community policing is generally sensitive to the community demographic. Branches within the state police department take care of the various areas of crime prevention, law enforcement and community services.

Yep. Only one level of major bureaucracy vs. the 3 or more in the states.

In Australia there are two distinct, but similar levels of police force, the various state police forces and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The state police forces are responsible for enforcing state law within their own states (including cities within the states) while the AFP are responsible for the investigation of crimes against Commonwealth law which occurs throughout the nation. Sounds like State vs. Federal police in the US. And, whaddyaknow...Australia also has a form of local cop known as "rangers" or "local laws officers" to enforce bylaws of local governments (called "ordinances" in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforc ... _Australia

In the US, we have the federal agencies to handle federal/national/international matters. State police to handle State matters. And, local police to hand local matters. Lots more complicated and bureaucratic...

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Having city or county police is based on the notion that county or town police are policing locally. They live in the town/county that they police, and they are paid by the residents of that town/county.

Most country towns in Oz have a local police station, staffed by officers that live there for lengthy perioids of time, who become part of the town culture, become umpires or players in the local footy club etc. , and that is a good thing, I suspect.

Yes, it is. It gives police some vested interest in the community.

However, being paid by the state (not federally, I hasten to add...), and with oversight from some form of regional command may also be a good thing - a certain amount of uniformity across the state is the result...

However, each to their own...

Certainly, and in the US you won't find a lot of variation from town to town. It's not like you drive from town to town in the US and the policing environment changes dramatically. It's pretty seamless.

[Adenosine]

Two, reduce the number of cops you have. Sounds counter-intuitive but it isn't. You have three or fours layers of cops in some areas and they all need to look busy. So they get busy busting people for stupid shit that everywhere else in the world would get them a raised eyebrow and a move on order. Why do you need city/town cops, county cops, highway cops, state cops and the FBI? All you need is state cops and the FBI.

I don't think you understand how things work here.

The only police I ever see are state police patrolling the expressways and local police everywhere else. Overlapping jurisdictions do not result in extra police. In fact, it's probably the opposite: FBI agents are more expensive than local police because they have to be trained in things local police don't have to know, so it would actually be far more expensive to have the FBI and state police doing everything.

Honestly, if you wanted to cut down on the levels of police, you'd get rid of the state police and the FBI and just have local police. The problem with that is that there would no longer be anyone to investigate police corruption.

In Australia we only have state and federal police. The biggest advantage of having the state police instead of many municipal forces is the portability of individual officers. We have 10 458 cops covering an area of 1.8 million square kilometres and a population of 4.5 million. If a town grows they can divert more cops there and if a town shrinks they move cops away. They have district headquarters and one main headquarters in Brisbane. For oversight we have the police and the Crime and Misconduct Commission. So, minimal bureaucracy and oversight.

Our Federal Police are the equivalent of your FBI but without the budget. They investigate crimes that transcend state lines as well as investigate overseas.

Coito, America is everywhere. You can't deny it.

Second, the "local cops" you refer to are parking inspectors and animal control officers. They have no power to arrest.

[pErvinalia]

It's probably worth pointing out that state police (South Australian Police, for example) are trained in all aspects of their roles as law enforcement officers, and that community policing is generally sensitive to the community demographic. Branches within the state police department take care of the various areas of crime prevention, law enforcement and community services.

Yep. Only one level of major bureaucracy vs. the 3 or more in the states.

I'm not sure you have an accurate understanding of US law enforcement.

Possibly, but Adenosine did give some examples of city cops, county cops and state cops in the one area. 3 levels of bureaucracy vs 1.

[Adenosine]

As for the overlaps are you telling me that Cops is lying to me when they show county, city and state police on scene to arrest someone?

[pErvinalia]

Our culture is the most "invasive" in the world? Codswallop. Nobody forces a culture on you,

Actually you do. US free trade agreements often have a cultural aspect to them in the freeing up of cultural trade (tv shows, movies and music etc). They are vehemently opposed to countries maintaining a significant level of local media content.

[Hermit]

Also Queensland > Montana. Bigger, better beaches (lol), better Great Barrier Reef, better people (like me fer instance), better everything.

Ah, beautiful Queensland, the erstwhile bailiwick (1968-1987) of Premier Joh Bijelke-Petersen, who turned a blind eye to endemic police corruption in return for the force to be his political thugs. That, and the electoral gerrymander that allowed him to remain Premier with his party only attracting 19% of the vote, in conjunction with a law abolishing the right to association and assembly, made Queensland the only Australian jurisdiction that was once actually a police state. Pretty ironic, given the turn this discussion has taken, don't you think? Link

[pErvinalia]

Second, the "local cops" you refer to are parking inspectors and animal control officers. They have no power to arrest.

Yep, exactly. At best you can get Sherrifs, but they just serve official notification. None of these people can enforce anything without the real police.

[Adenosine]

Also Queensland > Montana. Bigger, better beaches (lol), better Great Barrier Reef, better people (like me fer instance), better everything.

Ah, beautiful Queensland, the erstwhile bailiwick (1968-1987) of Premier Joh Bijelke-Petersen, who turned a blind eye to endemic police corruption in return for the force to be his political thugs. That, and the electoral gerrymander that allowed him to remain Premier with his party only attracting 19% of the vote, in conjunction with a law abolishing the right to association and assembly, made Queensland the only Australian jurisdiction that was once actually a police state. Pretty ironic, given the turn this discussion has taken, don't you think? Link

Can we let that die now? Joh has. And we passed the mantle to Victoria and NSW.

I found this. Interesting.

http://www.ehow.com/list_7575810_types- ... icers.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Our culture is the most "invasive" in the world? Codswallop. Nobody forces a culture on you,

Actually you do. US free trade agreements often have a cultural aspect to them in the freeing up of cultural trade (tv shows, movies and music etc). They are vehemently opposed to countries maintaining a significant level of local media content.

That's crap.

The country that the US trades most freely with is Canada, and Canada has extremely high barriers in entertainment, television, etc. They have local content requirements, requirements that certain percentages be made in Canada and employ Canadians, etc. The US, on the other hand, is railed against if even the merest suggestion of such protectionism is raised. Canada can freely have ethnocentric protectionism like "Cancon" and "MAPL," but if the US seeks to raise a tariff, it's as if we've reinstituted segregation.

And, the free trade agreements are not "US" free trade agreements. They are "Canada-US" Free Trade or "North American" free trade. These aren't things dictated by the US, and other countries are free to turn them down. Moreover, countries seem to be clamoring for more inclusion in free trade arrangements - like the South American countries - and it's the US body politic that is resisting such expansion.

[pErvinalia]

Also Queensland > Montana. Bigger, better beaches (lol), better Great Barrier Reef, better people (like me fer instance), better everything.

Ah, beautiful Queensland, the erstwhile bailiwick (1968-1987) of Premier Joh Bijelke-Petersen, who turned a blind eye to endemic police corruption in return for the force to be his political thugs. That, and the electoral gerrymander that allowed him to remain Premier with his party only attracting 19% of the vote, in conjunction with a law abolishing the right to association and assembly, made Queensland the only Australian jurisdiction that was once actually a police state. Pretty ironic, given the turn this discussion has taken, don't you think? Link

Not really, given that all states follow the same structure as Queensland does. Joh was a fucking New Zealand tyrant. He's long gone (both politically and corporeally), and a lot of his associates served prison sentences.

[pErvinalia]

Our culture is the most "invasive" in the world? Codswallop. Nobody forces a culture on you,

Actually you do. US free trade agreements often have a cultural aspect to them in the freeing up of cultural trade (tv shows, movies and music etc). They are vehemently opposed to countries maintaining a significant level of local media content.

That's crap.

The country that the US trades most freely with is Canada, and Canada has extremely high barriers in entertainment, television, etc. They have local content requirements, requirements that certain percentages be made in Canada and employ Canadians, etc. The US, on the other hand, is railed against if even the merest suggestion of such protectionism is raised.

It's not crap, and it's common knowledge amongst those who read even slightly deeply into the subject. The US is vehement about this aspect, as culture is the surest method to promote the profligate consumerist lifestyle that is the American Way to other countries. It is the best way to open up new markets.