Only a fool would cut back on police. They are the only thing keeping us safe.
If you have to rely on the police for your safety, I feel sorry for you.
If a criminal shows up at your door, you need to be able to stop him. What a good police force does is reduce the number of criminals on the street who can get to your door. They keep the crime RATE down, not protect you on a case by case basis.
Actually, policing has been a pendulum swinging between law enforcement and crime prevention. Most people consider modern policing to consist of both elements, but the proportions have adapted to changing sentiments and they are almost always differentiated based on the community being policed. There are three recognized policing styles:
The watchman style works to keep peace by resolving disputes. A TV show that characteristically depicts this style is the Andy Griffith Show. The great deal of discretion the Sheriff or law enforcement officer has under this style is vulnerable to being perceived as biased and discriminatory. Let's face it. Andy could overlook a lot of offenses and it may very well be the best justice, but when discretion is used to overlook some things and enforce others, there is opportunity for some to claim unfairness.
The legalistic style is the response. Instead of wide leeway in discretion, officers have one standard: strict enforcement of the law. This style is much more likely to be adopted by departments that produce large numbers of arrests and traffic citations. Most calls for service are resolved in a formal manner in which an arrest or a formal complaint is made. Even if everything isn't "by the book" everything is at least "kept on the books." There is a higher level of accountability and auditability. TV example: CSI.
The service style is characterized by a differentiation of event responses based on what serves the interest of the community. While the watchman style is more characteristic of rural communities, and the legalistic style is characteristic of urban cities, the service style might be characteristic of blended surburban towns. A response to drunken teenage hooliganism on Homecoming night is likely to be tempered with discretion while handling a ring of auto thieves that are chopping to trade parts for wholesale quantities of meth is going to be handled more legalistically.
Indeed, only the very naive would think the police are for keeping the people safe. Not only have the courts ruled for the police that the police have no duty to protect, but police by their very nature are mostly reactive. In fact, the four approaches to crime in criminal justice are: crime deterrence, retribution, incarceration, and rehabilitation. Most people that have jumped to the conclusion that the police are the only thing keeping us from total anarchy, first, have no regard for God or the conscience he gave men (not supposing the latter itself is sufficient to keep order, but certainly the police are not the ONLY thing keeping us from mayhem), and second, must suppose that police are the only deterrent. Considering that police are a modern institution from only the 18th century and which primarily emerged in 19th century England, it seems implausible that civilization existed for thousands of years beforehand with no deterrence in the absence of police. Indeed, considering that crime rates can hardly be shown to have been reduced from pre-police times, it calls into question just how much deterrence police exhert.
So if we suppose police have at least a mild deterrent effect and their "crime prevention" efforts are effective at all, we might have a reduction in crime rates as a result. If deterrence doesn't stop the crime affecting you personally, the police will not protect you. Instead, they will participate in "retribution." This is the process where if the criminal can be identified and apprehended, they will be brought before the judiciary to be accused by the State which will seek retribution in the form of punishment such as fine or incarceration. Is that what's meant by "keeping us safe"?
