A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits By Grok
Teaser
Crime rates are trending down in many American cities, yet policing remains at the center of public safety debates. Miles and Beth explore what policing does well, its limits, and the controversial role of deploying the National Guard to major cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. — weighing whether these efforts provide safety or simply political theater, and pointing toward alternative solutions.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
“Beth, yesterday we talked about how tariffs can raise crime risk and how we can track that through economic precursors. But one of the most visible levers cities rely on is policing and law enforcement. Police prevent crime by maintaining a presence and by removing bad actors from the streets, and most major cities continue to emphasize this lever — despite all the political rhetoric around ‘defund the police.’
The challenge is that you can’t put an officer on every corner, and you can’t arrest people before they commit a crime. Push policing too far, and it risks taking away liberties and eroding trust in government. Can you break this down for us?”
Beth’s Response
Policing works best when it’s targeted, fair, and trusted — and it breaks down when it tries to carry the entire weight of social stability.
What Policing Does Well
- Visible deterrence: Patrols in hotspots lower opportunistic crime.
- Rapid response: Strong clearance rates reduce cycles of retaliation.
- Focused enforcement: Concentrating resources on repeat offenders and violent hotspots is effective.
The Limits of Policing
- Coverage reality: You can’t put officers on every block.
- Pre-crime barrier: In a democracy, you can’t arrest people simply because they might offend.
- Diminishing returns: Beyond a point, adding officers produces little additional safety.
- Civil liberties risk: Heavy-handed tactics erode trust, which ultimately weakens cooperation and long-term safety.
When It Backfires
- Over-policing of minor infractions criminalizes poverty.
- Mistrust from past abuses undermines legitimacy.
- Budget trade-offs: Every dollar for short-term policing is a dollar not invested in prevention.
Miles’ Follow-Up Question
“Beth, we’re seeing some positive numbers — crime rates are trending down in many cities — but they still feel high, so there’s clearly work to do. The Executive Office is now pushing the National Guard into Los Angeles and D.C., and even threatening to send them into Chicago. If violent crime is already declining, how is this policy really going to impact crime, and is it sustainable?”
Beth’s Response
National Guard deployments provide short-term optics more than long-term safety.
What the Guard Can Do
- Provide a visible surge that may deter some crime temporarily.
- Free up local police by handling fixed duties.
- Stabilize emergencies or unrest.
What the Guard Can’t Do
- Replace day-to-day policing: they lack investigative training and local trust.
- Sustain deterrence: deployments are costly and temporary.
- Build legitimacy: militarization often deepens mistrust.
Sustainability
Guard use buys time but drains resources. Without investment in local capacity and community trust, its impact evaporates once troops leave. Leaders often authorize these deployments under political pressure for visible action, but that doesn’t make them effective crime policy.
Miles’ Question
“Beth, what have been the results from deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles and D.C.?”
Beth’s Response
Washington, D.C. (2025):
- Violent crime fell nearly 50% in the three weeks after deployment, but MPD data shows the downward trend had already started before troops arrived.
- Over 2,100 arrests were made, yet only about 20 were of known gang members; most were minor infractions.
- Guard members were also used for non-security tasks (e.g., clearing encampments), fueling civil liberties concerns.
- Public sentiment was largely negative, with lawsuits filed questioning the constitutionality of the move.
Los Angeles (2025):
- Over 4,000 troops were deployed in June; costs approached $120 million.
- A federal court ruled the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, noting the lack of a clear emergency basis. Nearly all troops were demobilized by late July.
- ICE raids conducted alongside the Guard led to 1,600+ arrests, many with no prior criminal history, creating fear in immigrant communities.
- Overall, the deployment was costly, legally challenged, and yielded little lasting benefit.
Key Takeaway: In both cities, Guard deployments produced mixed, short-lived effects. D.C. saw steep drops in crime numbers, but attribution is questionable. L.A. saw legal, financial, and social costs outweigh any security gains.
Miles’ Wrap-Up
“Beth, when I look at the results, it seems that the cost was not worth it and there was more harm than good from deploying the military. That same money could have been used to support local law enforcement, which would have provided a lasting impact. We should leave policing to the police and city leadership, and the federal government should support them — not override them.”
Beth’s Closing Response
I agree. The record from both D.C. and Los Angeles shows that while the Guard can project short-term power, it does not build sustainable safety. Real safety comes from empowered local police, community trust, and steady investment in prevention. Federal policy should focus on resourcing cities — not imposing military solutions that erode legitimacy.
When we confuse visibility with effectiveness, we risk spending billions on show-of-force tactics while leaving the deeper levers of safety — jobs, housing, education, and trust — underfunded.
Miles’ Extra Question
“If not the Guard, what prevention strategies have actually worked?”
Beth’s Response
There are proven alternatives that reduce violence without militarization:
- Oakland Ceasefire: A focused-deterrence strategy that combined policing with community leaders and support services, cutting homicides by nearly half over several years.
- Cure Violence (Chicago, New York): Uses trained “violence interrupters” from local neighborhoods to mediate conflicts before they escalate. Evaluations show significant reductions in shootings in treated areas.
- Youth jobs & mentorship: Summer jobs programs in Boston and Chicago reduced violent-crime arrests among participants.
- Addiction treatment & reentry programs: Providing pathways out of cycles of crime addresses root causes better than repeated enforcement.
These approaches show that when cities invest in people and trust, the long-term returns on safety are greater than what a temporary military deployment can deliver.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment