NYC major crime complaints fell when cops took a break from ‘proactive policing’(latimes.com)
latimes.com
NYC major crime complaints fell when cops took a break from ‘proactive policing’
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html
136 comments
> I have never seen more broken, ineffective policing than here
When I moved from NYC to San Francisco I was genuinely surprised how much I missed & appreciated the NYPD.
When I moved from NYC to San Francisco I was genuinely surprised how much I missed & appreciated the NYPD.
Because the SFPD is even more fucked up than the NYPD? They spend all day going around harassing homeless people. I've watched them kick people inside their tents after they didn't move in a neighborhood they normally do hourly sweeps in.
And don't tell me how crime in SF is so terrible. It's at historic lows, and in comparison to a lot of cities, the amount of crime is essentially non-existent.
The police don't reduce crime, from what I can tell, in any city, using the tactics that they do. Crime seems to correlate more with poverty and ability to afford basic necessities more than anything.
And don't tell me how crime in SF is so terrible. It's at historic lows, and in comparison to a lot of cities, the amount of crime is essentially non-existent.
The police don't reduce crime, from what I can tell, in any city, using the tactics that they do. Crime seems to correlate more with poverty and ability to afford basic necessities more than anything.
I don’t understand how on earth you could come to your conclusions if you actually live in SF. Large parts of San Francisco are a nightmare in large part because of a near total absence of law enforcement. I cannot imagine what cities you could be thinking of, unless you’re thinking of the gang warfare in parts of Chicago. Property crime in SF in particular is at a comically bad level. There is a widespread institutional unwillingness to do anything that might be perceived as hurting poor people, so instead we just let grifters and junkies clean out entire stores (not kidding, we don’t enforce laws against theft below $900), shit and piss everywhere, leave used needles on our sidewalks, and contaminate all our public spaces with tent cities. And don’t forget the constant and unceasing drumbeat of car breakins! Everyone I know here has a story of crime or horror that has happened to them because of the hands-off attitude toward crime here.
When I was a kid, people told me, it’s important to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. SF attitude toward street crime is well past that point.
When I was a kid, people told me, it’s important to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. SF attitude toward street crime is well past that point.
I've lived in SF for the past 10 years. Yes, there's car break-ins and bike thefts. There's homeless people in parts of the mission, and the tenderloin.
Most of what you describe here isn't going to be helped by increase police presence (the areas you're describing have the highest police presence in the city, and it's been like this since forever). These things are primarily related to poverty and the hate of the homeless.
Want less shit on the streets? Give the homeless access to bathrooms. Want less needles on the streets? Implement needle exchanges. Want less car break-ins and bike theft? Have fewer poor people by making sure they're paid enough, the rents are low enough to pay, and by providing housing to the homeless (most homeless people in SF were living in SF and housed in the past).
Putting poor people and drug users in jail hasn't solved the problem in the past, and won't make them better in the future. The police spend all day taking all their shit away, making them even poorer.
Most of what you describe here isn't going to be helped by increase police presence (the areas you're describing have the highest police presence in the city, and it's been like this since forever). These things are primarily related to poverty and the hate of the homeless.
Want less shit on the streets? Give the homeless access to bathrooms. Want less needles on the streets? Implement needle exchanges. Want less car break-ins and bike theft? Have fewer poor people by making sure they're paid enough, the rents are low enough to pay, and by providing housing to the homeless (most homeless people in SF were living in SF and housed in the past).
Putting poor people and drug users in jail hasn't solved the problem in the past, and won't make them better in the future. The police spend all day taking all their shit away, making them even poorer.
Want the police to arrest someone for your home invasion? Your Office robbery? Your car theft?
Yes I do. And the most ridiculous thin is that they will not always arrest the perpetrator because the courts don't find these crimes a priority.
Yes I do. And the most ridiculous thin is that they will not always arrest the perpetrator because the courts don't find these crimes a priority.
I hate to break it to you, but the police don't do this anywhere. When I lived in New Orleans my apartment was robbed and when the police came, I asked when they'd followup and the officer literally laughed at me.
With the exception of select violent crimes, the police don't investigate crimes. For those select violent crimes, the percentage they solve is extremely low.
Also, please don't confuse home invasion for burglary. I know this is some weird propaganda point for you Chesa recallers, but there's a massive difference between the two, and the former the courts do care about. I think they should take burglary more seriously, but even if the courts did, the police still wouldn't.
With the exception of select violent crimes, the police don't investigate crimes. For those select violent crimes, the percentage they solve is extremely low.
Also, please don't confuse home invasion for burglary. I know this is some weird propaganda point for you Chesa recallers, but there's a massive difference between the two, and the former the courts do care about. I think they should take burglary more seriously, but even if the courts did, the police still wouldn't.
No one is entitled to live in SF. The problems you describe are not caused by hate of the homeless, but the opposite - bleeding heart tolerance of their destruction of this city.
The police can't stop homeless people from living there. All they can do is force them to constantly move around the city and take their stuff away. If you dislike homeless people screaming at you because they're in a constant state of mental breakdown, this isn't the right way to solve it.
Also, get out of here with "destruction of this city". The city hasn't changed since I moved to it, and the locals I know say that in comparison to the past, the city is cleaner, and less violent than it ever has been. The crime stats in just the 10 years I've lived here have also dropped considerably.
Maybe the issue here is that you're a coward?
Also, get out of here with "destruction of this city". The city hasn't changed since I moved to it, and the locals I know say that in comparison to the past, the city is cleaner, and less violent than it ever has been. The crime stats in just the 10 years I've lived here have also dropped considerably.
Maybe the issue here is that you're a coward?
I hope that you wake up and realize how much damage you’re doing, and how much people who hold beliefs like yours have already done.
I am one of these residents you claim say things are improving. They are not improving. I live in one of these benighted areas, have for many years, and in the last few it has been getting worse every year.
Maybe the issue is that you’re more concerned with the comfort of people who feel entitled do whatever they please - shit in the street, assault people, rob businesses, consume drugs in public - than with the safety of contributing members of society.
It is not cowardly to want to be able to walk down the street at night safely. It is not cowardly to want to not have my business robbed or my vehicle broken into. It is not cowardly to not want to step in human waste or to have to dodge used syringes on the sidewalk. It is not cowardly to want to not have to change my route to work almost every day to avoid a mentally ill person who is screaming and hitting themselves or passers-by in the head. This is not a high bar. Living without these travesties is the baseline in virtually every other city in the first world.
San Francisco is a city that spends tens of thousands of dollars per homeless person per year, a city that has shelters, needle exchanges, and one of the most liberal attitudes toward homelessness in the country. A city that has refused to enforce the law against street crime, and that has one of the highest per capita property crime rate in the nation. Anyone who can look at the abject failure of these policies and say, the problem is that we need to just give these people more free stuff and more services and less law enforcement is delusional.
I am one of these residents you claim say things are improving. They are not improving. I live in one of these benighted areas, have for many years, and in the last few it has been getting worse every year.
Maybe the issue is that you’re more concerned with the comfort of people who feel entitled do whatever they please - shit in the street, assault people, rob businesses, consume drugs in public - than with the safety of contributing members of society.
It is not cowardly to want to be able to walk down the street at night safely. It is not cowardly to want to not have my business robbed or my vehicle broken into. It is not cowardly to not want to step in human waste or to have to dodge used syringes on the sidewalk. It is not cowardly to want to not have to change my route to work almost every day to avoid a mentally ill person who is screaming and hitting themselves or passers-by in the head. This is not a high bar. Living without these travesties is the baseline in virtually every other city in the first world.
San Francisco is a city that spends tens of thousands of dollars per homeless person per year, a city that has shelters, needle exchanges, and one of the most liberal attitudes toward homelessness in the country. A city that has refused to enforce the law against street crime, and that has one of the highest per capita property crime rate in the nation. Anyone who can look at the abject failure of these policies and say, the problem is that we need to just give these people more free stuff and more services and less law enforcement is delusional.
I'm saying that more policing doesn't help the problem, which you're kind of brushing past here.
I also want homeless people off the street, but the police can't do that. All they can do is move them around, which makes everyone's life worse. If you want them off the street, you need to put them into homes (not shelters).
Also, please show stats that prove your point, because historical data simply doesn't support your argument. You decided to move into a high crime area, and you're pissed that "the streets aren't being cleaned up". The area you're living in used to be a lot worse than it is, but if you're in the tenderloin, or SOMA, you need to realize those areas have always been bad, and the bar to make them better is extremely high.
Maybe chose the location of your next home more reasonably next time? The part of the city I'm in is really nice (the richmond neighborhoods), maybe take the commute hit and move?
I also want homeless people off the street, but the police can't do that. All they can do is move them around, which makes everyone's life worse. If you want them off the street, you need to put them into homes (not shelters).
Also, please show stats that prove your point, because historical data simply doesn't support your argument. You decided to move into a high crime area, and you're pissed that "the streets aren't being cleaned up". The area you're living in used to be a lot worse than it is, but if you're in the tenderloin, or SOMA, you need to realize those areas have always been bad, and the bar to make them better is extremely high.
Maybe chose the location of your next home more reasonably next time? The part of the city I'm in is really nice (the richmond neighborhoods), maybe take the commute hit and move?
> Maybe chose the location of your next home more reasonably next time? The part of the city I'm in is really nice
So most of the city is not a reasonable location?
But you are so right, everyone should just live on top of a hill and have private security.
So most of the city is not a reasonable location?
But you are so right, everyone should just live on top of a hill and have private security.
> The police can't stop homeless people from living there. All they can do is force them to constantly move around the city and take their stuff away.
Only because they decided to decriminalize homelessness. That was a willful choice.
Only because they decided to decriminalize homelessness. That was a willful choice.
The police are also extremely blasé about wearing masks. They hardly did in the thick of the pandemic, let alone now. The people have no democratic control over the police. The mayor and council are too afraid to do anything significant. It wont change unless there's an even more serious grassroots up-swell for police reform, more than BLM.
Yeah it really feels like the NYPD has a lot of contempt for the city they operate in, politically, socially, culturally. I saw the same thing at every protest I attended — when there were no cops around, it was extremely peaceful. I only ever saw it get ugly when cops were harassing people, pushing people around, or trying to basically shut down protests by blocking off surrounding streets and trying to close in on protesters.
> NYPD has a lot of contempt for the city they operate in
A lot of New York cops live outside the areas they patrol. The ones who live in the city are overrepresented on Staten Island. That said, for every peaceful protest last summer there were unprovoked nighttime riots which seemed to occur more when the cops were somewhere else.
A lot of New York cops live outside the areas they patrol. The ones who live in the city are overrepresented on Staten Island. That said, for every peaceful protest last summer there were unprovoked nighttime riots which seemed to occur more when the cops were somewhere else.
> ...which seemed to occur more when the cops were somewhere else.
Perhaps they were too busy deploying their sleep deprivation tactics[1] on sleeping citizens by lazily driving around the target neighborhood with the sirens on at 3 am, for no legitimate policing reason.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/2020PoliceBrutality/comments/hduu3h...
Perhaps they were too busy deploying their sleep deprivation tactics[1] on sleeping citizens by lazily driving around the target neighborhood with the sirens on at 3 am, for no legitimate policing reason.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/2020PoliceBrutality/comments/hduu3h...
My sister lives on 6th Ave. cops would congregate right outside her building before the protests so she could observe the entire process.
The cops were deliberately ignoring the rioters while strong arming the largely peaceful protestors.
She has videos of 50 cops standing while someone broke into a store (by throwing a rock through the glass window), picked up a POS system, and runs, with not a single cop twitching, while just a few hours earlier you had their lieutenant or whatever come kneel with the protesters and as soon as the higher ups left, cops attack 100 lb women from behind as they were walking away.
They were deliberately attacking peaceful protestors and deliberately ignoring looters and rioters.
You could also see on the signal app which was tracking these gangs of kids who were looting major stores like Macy’s, as well as protestors, and the cops were always where the protestors were and never where the rioters, who were only a few blocks behind, were.
It was a very blatant attempt by the NYPD to make the protests appear violent by encouraging looting while discouraging peaceful protesting.
The cops were deliberately ignoring the rioters while strong arming the largely peaceful protestors.
She has videos of 50 cops standing while someone broke into a store (by throwing a rock through the glass window), picked up a POS system, and runs, with not a single cop twitching, while just a few hours earlier you had their lieutenant or whatever come kneel with the protesters and as soon as the higher ups left, cops attack 100 lb women from behind as they were walking away.
They were deliberately attacking peaceful protestors and deliberately ignoring looters and rioters.
You could also see on the signal app which was tracking these gangs of kids who were looting major stores like Macy’s, as well as protestors, and the cops were always where the protestors were and never where the rioters, who were only a few blocks behind, were.
It was a very blatant attempt by the NYPD to make the protests appear violent by encouraging looting while discouraging peaceful protesting.
I saw 5 or 6 cops tackle a drunk guy. He was so drunk, barely able to stand, a 10 year old kid could've taken him down. The amount of force used in the most trivial of cases blew my mind.
During the occupy wall street protests, I saw the cops a few times (I was working in a nearby building). The amount of serious gear they had, it was insane. I bet they are better armed than most militaries.
All I can say is they are super scary.
During the occupy wall street protests, I saw the cops a few times (I was working in a nearby building). The amount of serious gear they had, it was insane. I bet they are better armed than most militaries.
All I can say is they are super scary.
IIRC, the NYPD budget is much higher than those for Sweden's or Mexico's military and not too far behind Iran's.
I've witnessed the same. Police responding with overwhelming force. Unfortunately, we're not unarmed like in Japan (or most of the UK), so there have been instances of police being caught off-guard and killed for being too "chill" so by policy they must respond with almost worse-case-scenario.
With that, I will say they need to learn how to use less than lethal tactics and force to apprehend a violent person. Firearms should be very the last resort as a result of non-confrontation. In other words, the police at times provoke more violence by the way they address an issue. A violent drunk. Instead of getting up close so they lunge with a knife, get far back, get people to move away and then corral the drunk in or use alternate methods of subduction and use lethal violence only when the perp makes it necessary.
With that, I will say they need to learn how to use less than lethal tactics and force to apprehend a violent person. Firearms should be very the last resort as a result of non-confrontation. In other words, the police at times provoke more violence by the way they address an issue. A violent drunk. Instead of getting up close so they lunge with a knife, get far back, get people to move away and then corral the drunk in or use alternate methods of subduction and use lethal violence only when the perp makes it necessary.
It's safer to be a cop than to be a roofer or deep sea fisherman. Cops need to stop being such wusses. If they don't like the job, find another one but don't rationalize their ridiculous over-use of force as justified.
You've been posting flamewar comments repeatedly. We ban that sort of account. Please review the rules and stick to them:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As people have done analysis of what percent of the time police spend on various types of calls, it becomes clear that we only need armed police for around 5%.
investigation, forensics, traffic control, etc etc dont need weapons and tactical training. Let the armed police be like fire fighters and be specifically called in when needed.
investigation, forensics, traffic control, etc etc dont need weapons and tactical training. Let the armed police be like fire fighters and be specifically called in when needed.
Police in the UK do not carry firearms, at all. Regular police have a taser, there are also firearms units on call when needed. This is an outlier even for Europe, where I believe it is standard to carry a pistol.
This has some interesting consequences. The police effectively can’t position themselves in opposition to “the people of the street”. Two police officers against a rowdy pub is poor chances for the law.
As a result, the training emphasises deescalation, talking people down from stupid ideas etc. This part seems particularly effective.
Most days I still think it’s crazy the police here are effectively unarmed, but it does seem to work.
This has some interesting consequences. The police effectively can’t position themselves in opposition to “the people of the street”. Two police officers against a rowdy pub is poor chances for the law.
As a result, the training emphasises deescalation, talking people down from stupid ideas etc. This part seems particularly effective.
Most days I still think it’s crazy the police here are effectively unarmed, but it does seem to work.
In India, most cops carry sticks called lathis. When terrorists attacked Mumbai 12 years back, a lot of them were unable to protect people as they did not have guns. Many of them died as well.
Aren’t there like way more police per capita in the UK though?
I don’t feel like that’s a bad thing. Way more non deadly police are a good thing in my opinion.
Seriously I'd rather have a 10x increase in police if it meant no firearms.
No idea, but if anything my impression would be the opposite.
I know from a police officer friend of mine that on badly-staffed nights, Oxford (an affluent city of about 180k people) only had 2-4 officers on call. For anything from a bar fight to murder. You don’t get these American-style 10 police car buildups, unless it is literally a national emergency.
I know from a police officer friend of mine that on badly-staffed nights, Oxford (an affluent city of about 180k people) only had 2-4 officers on call. For anything from a bar fight to murder. You don’t get these American-style 10 police car buildups, unless it is literally a national emergency.
That's not a fair analysis though. That's like saying EMTs only need morphine around 5% of the time, so they shouldn't have it in their ambulance. You don't know when you might need it, so you carry it all the time.
Not to be too snarky, but EMTs don't carry morphine. Restricted substances like morphine are only carried by paramedics (or some AEMTs in systems that still have them). As such, paramedics are dispatched to calls that require a higher level of care while ambulances staffed solely with EMTs are sent to less emergent situations. This lines up pretty well with what the GP described.
This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
Far from snark, this certainly seems to reinforce the point. We have two levels of response, where one level is called in for more dire circumstances (life or death) and correspondingly has equipment capable of handling a worse situation.
I completely agree and you could prove it with a study.
You would just have to answer for what percentage of those call did the responding parties (dispatch, the officer responding and the person calling it in) thought there was a need for armed police.
I am willing to be that while only 5% turn out to need armed police, most of those 5% where uncertain, and a % far greater than that where armed police weren't needed, where very uncertain.
It's just not possible to predict when you need to be armed.
However, if you go down this line it is also not possible to predict when having a gun on your hip is going to make it more difficult to resolve the issue.
There is a tradeoff here that is very hard to make policy around. Something that is being tried is for there to be unarmed medical oriented mental health response units available for calls that don't seem uncertain. I think the data coming out of these changes will change the way big cities operate their departments one day.
> This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
You would just have to answer for what percentage of those call did the responding parties (dispatch, the officer responding and the person calling it in) thought there was a need for armed police.
I am willing to be that while only 5% turn out to need armed police, most of those 5% where uncertain, and a % far greater than that where armed police weren't needed, where very uncertain.
It's just not possible to predict when you need to be armed.
However, if you go down this line it is also not possible to predict when having a gun on your hip is going to make it more difficult to resolve the issue.
There is a tradeoff here that is very hard to make policy around. Something that is being tried is for there to be unarmed medical oriented mental health response units available for calls that don't seem uncertain. I think the data coming out of these changes will change the way big cities operate their departments one day.
> This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
The only major crime statistic that I’ll trust is the murder rate. It’s the only one that can’t be faked. Petty crime goes unreported. Arrest and conviction rates can be gamed. But you can’t hide people dying.
You absolutely can.
Murder rates don’t include “justifiable homicide”, because police departments are not required to report officer-involved shootings or killings to the federal government, nor the outcomes of any investigations into them. Which can also be gamed.
I’m not saying that radically transforms the statistic—I have no idea. But it’s a factor.
Murder rates don’t include “justifiable homicide”, because police departments are not required to report officer-involved shootings or killings to the federal government, nor the outcomes of any investigations into them. Which can also be gamed.
I’m not saying that radically transforms the statistic—I have no idea. But it’s a factor.
Yes you can, just rule it a suicide or accident. I've seen a likely murder in mountain view misclassified as a diabetes-related accidental drowning.
Yeah, I've actually seen this happen enough times that I believe it's more common than people think. I don't have statistics, but I've noticed multiple people die under mysterious circumstances (including a close friend) and they were usually ruled a suicide, even when the family objected.
Example: Where I grew up if you didnt die within 24hrs or being shot it was not considered a murder, the gorvernment changed the way the statistic measures murders many years ago to lower the ‘murder’ rate.
Edit to add this link with the murder rates: https://www.statista.com/statistics/984823/homicide-rate-pue...
Edit to add this link with the murder rates: https://www.statista.com/statistics/984823/homicide-rate-pue...
Have you considered getting in touch with an investigative journalist?
Well, that's a "technically" while still missing the point. It is much more difficult to meaningfully shift murder rate numbers via mass mis-reporting, compared to other statistics.
I don’t think you’ve meaningfully proved that claim. The point was that you can, in fact, quite easily game stats even for murder. I’ll add this[1] as another example.
[1] - https://www.vox.com/world/2015/12/13/9989250/japan-crime-con...
[1] - https://www.vox.com/world/2015/12/13/9989250/japan-crime-con...
To steelman this argument, I'd say it's hard to hide "excess deaths" across all causes lumped together. Although during covid we probably even managed to do that by reducing miles driven and presumably # of road deaths.
Brazilian police: Hold my bear.
Sadly many parts of the US (and other countries) have been hiding the death rate for our current pandemic with varying degrees of success, it's quite possible to hide murders too. You can disguise them as something else.
Other places are adding deaths to the covid list.
source?
Wow, didn't hear about this til now.
Here's a more recent update: https://abc7ny.com/ny-nursing-home-deaths-kathy-hochul-andre...
Even murder can be tricky because medical advancements or hospital shutdowns can really impact the survival of severely injured people
[deleted]
murders go unreported/recorded all the time
"NHI" "accident" "missing persons" and of course missing person implies there's some one who knows/is-willing-to-report that you're missing.
Yeah, like the cops have never gotten caught claiming someone accidentally fell on 43 bullets before. Or like there haven't been numerous cases of misattributing COVID deaths because they were inconvenient for the genocidal robber nihilists we have passing for a major political party. And that's just malfeasance, there's plenty of just plain error involved.
Having a deaths count -- which itself definitely has error bars, otherwise what the heck are missing persons estimates -- doesn't mean you have a correct attribution of those deaths. Never trust data in the absence of auditing how it got there.
Having a deaths count -- which itself definitely has error bars, otherwise what the heck are missing persons estimates -- doesn't mean you have a correct attribution of those deaths. Never trust data in the absence of auditing how it got there.
Yep, I learned this from The Wire!
Even the murder stats can be juked, like McNulty's arc in season 5 or the bodies in the vacants.
Fortunately, murder is a rare occurrence - so only trusting this isn't going to help much unless you live in a major US city.
The murder rate in most areas of the US is under 5 in 100,000.
There's less than 50 police departments in the US where you can expect even 50 murders per year. With numbers that small, you'll run into a lot of noise.
The murder rate in most areas of the US is under 5 in 100,000.
There's less than 50 police departments in the US where you can expect even 50 murders per year. With numbers that small, you'll run into a lot of noise.
We suffer this here. Toronto has roughly 40 - 80 murders each year. So each year comes with helpful headlines informing us the homicide rate has halved or doubled over the previous year, often with some commentary about what this regression/progression indicates for our society. If you average over a few years, you find out it's basically flat.
Statistics Canada has the Toronto Metropolitan Area averaging well over 100/year for the last 3 years:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=351000...
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=351000...
You're just talking about two different areas.
Your data is for the Greater Toronto Area. The commenter above you was referring to the City if Toronto (which is one of several municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area).
Your data is for the Greater Toronto Area. The commenter above you was referring to the City if Toronto (which is one of several municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area).
[deleted]
"Murders up by 156%!!" (i.e. 20 more than last year)
Murder stats only count the found bodies, and even then as others have stated the classification as murder vs. other causes can and will be gamed.
>The only major crime statistic that I’ll trust is the murder rate. It’s the only one that can’t be faked.
It absolutely can and has been. [1]
> Photos of the teenager’s corpse show a deep cut on his right arm, horrific bruising on his neck and chest. His face is swollen and covered with cuts. A silhouette of violence runs from the corner of his left eye over the cheekbone to his jaw, and his legs are pocked with small burns the size of a lighted cigarette. But police in Japan’s Aichi prefecture saw something else when they looked at the body of Takashi Saito, a 17-year-old sumo wrestler who arrived at a hospital in June. The cause of death was “heart disease,” police declared.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-nov-09-fg-autop...
It absolutely can and has been. [1]
> Photos of the teenager’s corpse show a deep cut on his right arm, horrific bruising on his neck and chest. His face is swollen and covered with cuts. A silhouette of violence runs from the corner of his left eye over the cheekbone to his jaw, and his legs are pocked with small burns the size of a lighted cigarette. But police in Japan’s Aichi prefecture saw something else when they looked at the body of Takashi Saito, a 17-year-old sumo wrestler who arrived at a hospital in June. The cause of death was “heart disease,” police declared.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-nov-09-fg-autop...
All well and good, but as a former resident and frequent visitor to NYC, I can assure you is is quickly returning to its late 1970s - early 1980’s shithole status.
not sure what to make of the recent resurgence of anti-police
articles (from 2017?) I'd think the current explosion of violent crime in all the major US cities should be enough to put an end to this insanity.
Go and explain the idea of "less policing" to that beaten and robbed grandma in Oakland, or to the mother of that girl who got shot by a stray bullet in Chicago.
My guess is BLM is steadily losing support with general public thus the attempt to resuscitate this dying fad.
Go and explain the idea of "less policing" to that beaten and robbed grandma in Oakland, or to the mother of that girl who got shot by a stray bullet in Chicago.
My guess is BLM is steadily losing support with general public thus the attempt to resuscitate this dying fad.
> The scientists found that civilian complaints of major crimes dropped by about 3% to 6% during the slowdown.
1. Why call the cops if you know they won't do anything?
2. Relatedly, why "snitch" when you know there won't be any cops around?
1. Why call the cops if you know they won't do anything?
2. Relatedly, why "snitch" when you know there won't be any cops around?
FWIW, this is addressed in the article and the paper it covers: the slowdown involved reduced "proactive policing" -- "systematic and aggressive enforcement of low-level violations" -- but the observed drop is in major crimes like burglary and assault. The authors also do some work to control for the overall crime reporting rate.
I'm a bit confused... Everyone is assuming that the police wouldn't respond to calls during this period, but the article doesn't suggest that this was the case.
Even looking through articles in 2014 and 2015 doesn't provide me with any evidence that police weren't showing up to crime scenes... just that they weren't doing the "proactive policing" thing.
Am I missing something here?
Even looking through articles in 2014 and 2015 doesn't provide me with any evidence that police weren't showing up to crime scenes... just that they weren't doing the "proactive policing" thing.
Am I missing something here?
[deleted]
I think you'll find many residents of many cities will call the cops even though they know the cops usually won't do anything.
Well, sure, because the insurance company's first question will be "is there a police report."
A police report != a 911 call from a legal standpoint (to my non lawyer knowledge).
I don't know anything about NYC, but, normally, a police report actually involves the police writing down some names. So, one lives in a high crime area and one notices that the police are no longer around, one has strong incentives not to go on the record about this or that crime.
But it is the first step if you need a report written.
You can walk to a station and do it in person. That won't be logged in the 911 database.
It really isn’t. Where I am it is a form on a website.
Ages ago when I was a kid, our house was constantly being robbed. No city police in a town of 50,000
County police who took an hour or more to show up finally told my dad to get a gun and explained how we should move the body to make it look like we were being attacked. So that we didn’t get arrested.
So yea we moved promptly.
County police who took an hour or more to show up finally told my dad to get a gun and explained how we should move the body to make it look like we were being attacked. So that we didn’t get arrested.
So yea we moved promptly.
And now I want a Youtube tutorial...
Why was there no police?
Plenty of rural areas will only be serviced by a county sheriff, and there may not be that many officers. I grew up in a place like that. You could drive around forever where I grew up and never see a cop.
A few years some parents left their kid home alone while on vacation.
Neighbors knew family had gone vacation and saw movement at night. Jumpy cop, dark house, sudden movement, dead kid...
Family got big payout, City dismantled the police department.
Neighbors knew family had gone vacation and saw movement at night. Jumpy cop, dark house, sudden movement, dead kid...
Family got big payout, City dismantled the police department.
I think their point is that it could explain the 3-6% drop. But yes, the other 94-97% of people still call.
The apathy is real
The title suggests a causation on this 4.5% change?
Paywalled, I didn’t read the article.
Paywalled, I didn’t read the article.
> “While we cannot entirely rule out the effects of under-reporting,” the authors wrote, “our results show that crime complaints decreased, rather than increased, during a slowdown in proactive policing, contrary to deterrence theory.”
Original research is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
Both authors are political scientists who are highly unlikely to have a command of econometrics. I am not sure if they took into account the panel nature of the data and in those circumstances where authors focus solely on either the cross-section or the time-series nature of the process, it is not uncommon for "results" to be nonsense.
Original research is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
Both authors are political scientists who are highly unlikely to have a command of econometrics. I am not sure if they took into account the panel nature of the data and in those circumstances where authors focus solely on either the cross-section or the time-series nature of the process, it is not uncommon for "results" to be nonsense.
The article does say the study attempted to control for those variables, yeah.
Police are like hammers that see everything as nails.
It's just not working.
It's just not working.
Good example of how sometimes a strategy you apply can prove itself necessary but only because it's addressing a problem it creates. Sometimes you have to just grit your teeth and try a new approach to see if it's going to be an improvement
I'm not sure why you got the hammer, your comment is exactly correct. Overpolice->More crime->Oh No we Need more Policing->More Crime->...->...
>"“While we cannot entirely rule out the effects of under-reporting,” the authors wrote, “our results show that crime complaints decreased, rather than increased, during a slowdown in proactive policing, contrary to deterrence theory.”"
>"Each week during the slowdown saw civilians report an estimated 43 fewer felony assaults, 40 fewer burglaries and 40 fewer acts of grand larceny. And this slight suppression of major crime rates actually continued for seven to 14 weeks after those drops in proactive policing — which led the researchers to estimate that overall, the slowdown resulted in about 2,100 fewer major-crimes complaints."
The fact that assaults, robberies, and burglaries aren't being reported would seem to indicate that people just weren't bothering to contact the police, because they knew the police would not help. Murder, rape, and (hospital-reported) shooting rates dropping would be more indicative that less policing would reduce crime.
>"Each week during the slowdown saw civilians report an estimated 43 fewer felony assaults, 40 fewer burglaries and 40 fewer acts of grand larceny. And this slight suppression of major crime rates actually continued for seven to 14 weeks after those drops in proactive policing — which led the researchers to estimate that overall, the slowdown resulted in about 2,100 fewer major-crimes complaints."
The fact that assaults, robberies, and burglaries aren't being reported would seem to indicate that people just weren't bothering to contact the police, because they knew the police would not help. Murder, rape, and (hospital-reported) shooting rates dropping would be more indicative that less policing would reduce crime.
Are you suggesting rape and murder have the same causes as assaults and burglaries? The article describes the claim that "proactive policing" creates pressures that would lead to (among other issues) assaults and robberies. Why would removing those pressures reduce the frequency of rape?
I'm suggesting that assaults and burglaries tend to be under-reported, and would be more 'marginalized' by under-policing. I think the reporting rate for rape and murder is much higher (and less variable) than those of burglary and assault.
I would suggest the other way around. Many women don't report.
While that's true, assault is also very commonly not reported. I don't think I even realized before the age of 25 that I could report someone for hitting me. If something broke then I would think of it, but if it just hurt then no.
With that being said aggravated assault accounted for 68.2% of violent crime in 2019 according to the FBI.[0]
[0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
With that being said aggravated assault accounted for 68.2% of violent crime in 2019 according to the FBI.[0]
[0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
>Are you suggesting rape and murder have the same causes as assaults and burglaries?
They absolutely do - and the cause is having violent criminals running loose on the streets. The overwhelming majority of serious crime, from rape and murder to assault and burglary is committed by an extremely small number of people. When those people aren't removed from society after committing crimes, they are out on the street committing other crimes. As a resident of NY for over 4 decades I haven't seen the situation this bad since the bad old days of the 80s and 90s. The streets are littered with people booting up on the sidewalks, in midtown, in broad daylight. Aggressive "panhandlers" harass, threaten and assault passersby without fear of reproach or arrest. The fact that crimes are not being reported or prosecuted does not mean that there has been a reduction of crime - quite the opposite - which is abundantly apparent to anyone who lives here. Since the "no bail" law was passed as well as laws preventing people under 18 from being prosecuted as adults (among other things), there has been a massive spike in crime. In years passed, getting caught with an illegal gun, let alone using it in a crime, would mean automatic jail time. Today, that criminal is back out on the street in hours. There is a good reason that New Yorkers rejected Bill Deblasio's buddies in favor of former cop Eric Adams to be the next mayor - the city is a disaster zone.
They absolutely do - and the cause is having violent criminals running loose on the streets. The overwhelming majority of serious crime, from rape and murder to assault and burglary is committed by an extremely small number of people. When those people aren't removed from society after committing crimes, they are out on the street committing other crimes. As a resident of NY for over 4 decades I haven't seen the situation this bad since the bad old days of the 80s and 90s. The streets are littered with people booting up on the sidewalks, in midtown, in broad daylight. Aggressive "panhandlers" harass, threaten and assault passersby without fear of reproach or arrest. The fact that crimes are not being reported or prosecuted does not mean that there has been a reduction of crime - quite the opposite - which is abundantly apparent to anyone who lives here. Since the "no bail" law was passed as well as laws preventing people under 18 from being prosecuted as adults (among other things), there has been a massive spike in crime. In years passed, getting caught with an illegal gun, let alone using it in a crime, would mean automatic jail time. Today, that criminal is back out on the street in hours. There is a good reason that New Yorkers rejected Bill Deblasio's buddies in favor of former cop Eric Adams to be the next mayor - the city is a disaster zone.
There are many sources to support a claim that most rapists know their victims, rapes are not primarily committed by "violent criminals running loose on the streets". https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violenc...
[deleted]
From the "correlation is not causation" school of thought, I immediately had 3 thoughts:
1. The # of phone calls to the police about a crime are not necessarily indicative of how common that crime is. If people think the police won't do anything, they're less likely to bother calling (I see this often in my area with things like stolen bikes and catalytic converters... people often don't bother getting a police report unless their insurance requires it).
2. Throughout the 2010s the crime rate trended downward
3. Crime rates can have seasonal variations (but this can vary based upon location and type of crime)
Skimming through the paper, #1 wasn't addressed at all.
For #2, the paper compared the 2015 data against 2014. I don't think they did anything to compensate for annual trends in crime rate. In other words, if the crime rate in Des Moines, Iowa lowered at the same time, is that actually a ripple effect from NYPD's actions? Or are both cities just part of a larger downward trend that we saw coming out of the 2009 recession?
For #3, they actually took temperature and precipitation into account which was cool.
1. The # of phone calls to the police about a crime are not necessarily indicative of how common that crime is. If people think the police won't do anything, they're less likely to bother calling (I see this often in my area with things like stolen bikes and catalytic converters... people often don't bother getting a police report unless their insurance requires it).
2. Throughout the 2010s the crime rate trended downward
3. Crime rates can have seasonal variations (but this can vary based upon location and type of crime)
Skimming through the paper, #1 wasn't addressed at all.
For #2, the paper compared the 2015 data against 2014. I don't think they did anything to compensate for annual trends in crime rate. In other words, if the crime rate in Des Moines, Iowa lowered at the same time, is that actually a ripple effect from NYPD's actions? Or are both cities just part of a larger downward trend that we saw coming out of the 2009 recession?
For #3, they actually took temperature and precipitation into account which was cool.
I haven’t read the paper and by your admission you haven’t either. You skimmed it. Do you find it reasonable to believe that you could come up with potential objections to the paper that the authors didn’t also think about?
You made a claim in #1 about the likelihood of people calling police when they think police won’t do anything about it. That claim sounds plausible but is it correct? Do know of studies on this?
If you, a non expert, can think immediately of three thoughts then it seems highly likely the authors - who spent effort and time on the topic - also thought about these same thoughts. Maybe these things aren’t addressed because it’s obvious to them that these aren’t valid objections and it’s obvious to their target audience.
You made a claim in #1 about the likelihood of people calling police when they think police won’t do anything about it. That claim sounds plausible but is it correct? Do know of studies on this?
If you, a non expert, can think immediately of three thoughts then it seems highly likely the authors - who spent effort and time on the topic - also thought about these same thoughts. Maybe these things aren’t addressed because it’s obvious to them that these aren’t valid objections and it’s obvious to their target audience.
I get my car broken into biyearly. After the first time, I don't report because it's a waste of time. Same when bicycles are stolen from my friends. I don't need a study to say the sky is blue.
But, I do have studies showing data is often made up or cherry-picked. So when a study disagrees with what most of us are experiencing, when cops have publicly announced they won't investigate crimes because the prosecutor won't prosecute, I'm going to need a lot more evidence that crime is actually decreasing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://crosscut.com/2014/12/d-word-seattle-confronts-dilemm...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://crosscut.com/2014/12/d-word-seattle-confronts-dilemm...
Here’s an interesting Twitter thread that claims cops commit orders of magnitude more physical assaults than arrests for serious crimes. There is a possibility that having fewer police leads to less violence in the community.
https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1430159902551445514
https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1430159902551445514
> You made a claim in #1 about the likelihood of people calling police when they think police won’t do anything about it. That claim sounds plausible but is it correct? Do know of studies on this?
There's a number of studies, some of them contradictory (perhaps because they're looking at different populations of people). Hagan et al[1] found that in urban African-American communities, cynicism towards police and the legal system was a major factor in whether or not someone called the police after being a victim of a crime (in a way that is actually a bit counterintuitive to me).
Anyways, I owe the authors an apology. I took another look at the paper and noticed that they (sort of) addressed the issue of under-reporting, as was mentioned in the article.
Tautologically, they point out that underreporting of the crime rate doesn't impact the accuracy of statistics showing that the number of reported crimes went down. However they do admit that this makes it harder to make a causal link.
> Maybe these things aren’t addressed because it’s obvious to them that these aren’t valid objections and it’s obvious to their target audience.
That's an interesting point, and I suppose it's hard to say without being an expert. OTOH, from talking to people I know who have left academia[2], the 'publish or perish' mentality makes it easier to put blinders on when faced with something that's inconvenient.
[1]: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722210115
[2]: Admittedly this is going to be a biased sample
There's a number of studies, some of them contradictory (perhaps because they're looking at different populations of people). Hagan et al[1] found that in urban African-American communities, cynicism towards police and the legal system was a major factor in whether or not someone called the police after being a victim of a crime (in a way that is actually a bit counterintuitive to me).
Anyways, I owe the authors an apology. I took another look at the paper and noticed that they (sort of) addressed the issue of under-reporting, as was mentioned in the article.
Tautologically, they point out that underreporting of the crime rate doesn't impact the accuracy of statistics showing that the number of reported crimes went down. However they do admit that this makes it harder to make a causal link.
> Maybe these things aren’t addressed because it’s obvious to them that these aren’t valid objections and it’s obvious to their target audience.
That's an interesting point, and I suppose it's hard to say without being an expert. OTOH, from talking to people I know who have left academia[2], the 'publish or perish' mentality makes it easier to put blinders on when faced with something that's inconvenient.
[1]: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722210115
[2]: Admittedly this is going to be a biased sample
"The 'publish or perish' mentality makes it easier to put blinders on when faced with something that's inconvenient."
I'd like to provide a competing take on this.
In my experience, it's the job of the peer reviewers to force the authors to test alternative hypotheses, especially if it's something obvious or inconvenient. I once published a methods paper, where the reviewers got aggrieved I didn't mention a complementary, but mostly unrelated, method in my discussion. At first I was annoyed, because it was OBVIOUS to me that their objection was flippant.
However, once I thought about it, I realized that the reviewer was probably representative of the audience that's going to read my paper. Their criticism while tiresome was entirely valid. So I sat down and spent a week coding a series of experiments that showed how the two methods (mine, and theirs) were different and how they could complement each other. That translated into a paragraph in the discussion section and a couple of supplementary figures, and overall a better paper.
So to go back to the original point of the GP ("maybe things got left out because they are obvious"):
Obvious things, unless it's something really trivial, are only obvious to the authors of the paper. If you expect an educated reader to raise an obvious/natural objection, you should really address it in your text head on. And if you don't, then hopefully the peer review will catch it.
PS
This is not meant to be a commentary on the paper linked in this thread. I have not read it, and have no opinion on it. I just wanted to opine on the general topic of peer review and whether "obvious" things should go into an academic paper.
I'd like to provide a competing take on this.
In my experience, it's the job of the peer reviewers to force the authors to test alternative hypotheses, especially if it's something obvious or inconvenient. I once published a methods paper, where the reviewers got aggrieved I didn't mention a complementary, but mostly unrelated, method in my discussion. At first I was annoyed, because it was OBVIOUS to me that their objection was flippant.
However, once I thought about it, I realized that the reviewer was probably representative of the audience that's going to read my paper. Their criticism while tiresome was entirely valid. So I sat down and spent a week coding a series of experiments that showed how the two methods (mine, and theirs) were different and how they could complement each other. That translated into a paragraph in the discussion section and a couple of supplementary figures, and overall a better paper.
So to go back to the original point of the GP ("maybe things got left out because they are obvious"):
Obvious things, unless it's something really trivial, are only obvious to the authors of the paper. If you expect an educated reader to raise an obvious/natural objection, you should really address it in your text head on. And if you don't, then hopefully the peer review will catch it.
PS
This is not meant to be a commentary on the paper linked in this thread. I have not read it, and have no opinion on it. I just wanted to opine on the general topic of peer review and whether "obvious" things should go into an academic paper.
Pertaining to your last paragraph. I very much agree with what you wrote. I think a better way to state my point is this. I try to read academic papers with skepticism and when I think of an obvious potential objection I think it highly likely the authors are aware of this and didn’t address it because their knowledge of topic is such that they know it’s not really an objection. I then try to find out whether or not my potential objection really is valid or invalid. I assume the latter when I don’t have more information or the time to delve deeper into the topic.
Thanks for the link to the study.
Thanks for the link to the study.
Correlation is not causation, but there certainly is a lot of evidence that causally links poverty with crime and drug-use, and poverty from accumulating petty fines and late-fee penalties. It seems to me the burden is on the broken-window excuse of a hypothesis.
I've spent weeks in a middle-class community never seeing a cop. Surprise surprise, the crime-rate is low...Yet I knew that plenty of recreational drugs were flowing through this white-middle class community...it was barely hidden. Meanwhile, in poorer communities like where I grew up, police are everywhere patrolling, waiting to harass anyone they don't like the look of... hell I was interrogated for sitting in my front yard once.
I've spent weeks in a middle-class community never seeing a cop. Surprise surprise, the crime-rate is low...Yet I knew that plenty of recreational drugs were flowing through this white-middle class community...it was barely hidden. Meanwhile, in poorer communities like where I grew up, police are everywhere patrolling, waiting to harass anyone they don't like the look of... hell I was interrogated for sitting in my front yard once.
I've been blessed to run in many different social circles in life. Poor black kids, incredibly wealthy white kids, I've seen it all. My experience is completely in line with yours.
The wealthy white kids I was around were loaded with hard drugs. Coke use was rampant. I could open random drawers at my friends place and see bags of the stuff. Heck, some were outright dealing the stuff.
Meanwhile my poorer black friends pretty much only smoked weed, while occasionally dabbling in some other minor drugs (mushrooms, MDMA, etc...).
Of course the only ones with stores of police harassment were my poorer friends. My rich friends got away with anything they wanted
The wealthy white kids I was around were loaded with hard drugs. Coke use was rampant. I could open random drawers at my friends place and see bags of the stuff. Heck, some were outright dealing the stuff.
Meanwhile my poorer black friends pretty much only smoked weed, while occasionally dabbling in some other minor drugs (mushrooms, MDMA, etc...).
Of course the only ones with stores of police harassment were my poorer friends. My rich friends got away with anything they wanted
Statistical speaking, areas with higher rates of blacks have higher violent crime rates so it is possible cops are patrolling the black areas at a higher rate. This would lead to increased police which would lead to increased harassment just because there are more cops.
I don't think this works as a causal explanation. A decrease in petty fines shouldn't be significant enough at changing poverty to be reflected in crime rates in just a couple months. You'd also expect a delay as the fines that would otherwise be demanded in that time wouldn't be collected for some months, I assume.
As an alternative, maybe people who are mistreated by police become immediately more likely to commit crimes? Or maybe police who would otherwise be doing proactive policing are doing something more beneficial instead? Those are just speculations, though.
As an alternative, maybe people who are mistreated by police become immediately more likely to commit crimes? Or maybe police who would otherwise be doing proactive policing are doing something more beneficial instead? Those are just speculations, though.
Many people cannot pay their fines, or it requires significant tradeoffs. And it is so easy for things to roll out of control.
Once the due date is past, the fine is doubled or triple. A $200 fine can become 400 or $600. Now its harder to pay, and so it doesn't because your car broke down and the kids are hungry. A warrant is issued for your arrest. They arrest you while at work. Even though you are out again the next morning, your work fired you, and won't give you a good reference. You get a knock on your door. Rent is due. Then two months. You feel fucked. A neighbor offers you relief, a fun night with some meth. You consider, but decide not too. You get kicked out for not paying rent. Now you are back living at your mom's. You feel like a loser, but at least its a roof. But she's an ass. She forgets to tell you of a phone call inviting your to an interview.
But you have to make it to court to plead guilty/mercy for not paying your fines, but your sister calls you right before. She just got beat up down the street, and needs you to pick her up. Your are 5 minutes late, and the judge doesn't care. On the way home, you get pulled over for expired tags. New ticket. I guess you won't pay the car payment this month. Your car get repossessed. It costs 200 +%40/day + $400 in late payments. You borrow some money from the neighbor. He's creeepy but get your car back.
Insurance is due. Tags are not paid. You are afraid to drive. You don't have a job. Meanwhile your creepy neighbor will forgive your debt if you get on your knees. You decide to not pay him, but he grabs you anyway. Rapes you. Police don't believe you. You are a poor slut. Your friend says come over and says let's party. You do. You get high. You keep getting high. You sleep with someone because they have a hit. He says, damn you hot, you could make some good money, and leaves a little for the road. You start jonesing, then take him up on the offer. Next thing you know you are a hooked junky prostitute. You sell your car for next to nothing and a blowjob. Your mom kicks you out. Now you live by the river with Frank. Frank protects you but he's an alcoholic.
I made this up, but this is how it works. THis is how it worked for people I know.
Once the due date is past, the fine is doubled or triple. A $200 fine can become 400 or $600. Now its harder to pay, and so it doesn't because your car broke down and the kids are hungry. A warrant is issued for your arrest. They arrest you while at work. Even though you are out again the next morning, your work fired you, and won't give you a good reference. You get a knock on your door. Rent is due. Then two months. You feel fucked. A neighbor offers you relief, a fun night with some meth. You consider, but decide not too. You get kicked out for not paying rent. Now you are back living at your mom's. You feel like a loser, but at least its a roof. But she's an ass. She forgets to tell you of a phone call inviting your to an interview.
But you have to make it to court to plead guilty/mercy for not paying your fines, but your sister calls you right before. She just got beat up down the street, and needs you to pick her up. Your are 5 minutes late, and the judge doesn't care. On the way home, you get pulled over for expired tags. New ticket. I guess you won't pay the car payment this month. Your car get repossessed. It costs 200 +%40/day + $400 in late payments. You borrow some money from the neighbor. He's creeepy but get your car back.
Insurance is due. Tags are not paid. You are afraid to drive. You don't have a job. Meanwhile your creepy neighbor will forgive your debt if you get on your knees. You decide to not pay him, but he grabs you anyway. Rapes you. Police don't believe you. You are a poor slut. Your friend says come over and says let's party. You do. You get high. You keep getting high. You sleep with someone because they have a hit. He says, damn you hot, you could make some good money, and leaves a little for the road. You start jonesing, then take him up on the offer. Next thing you know you are a hooked junky prostitute. You sell your car for next to nothing and a blowjob. Your mom kicks you out. Now you live by the river with Frank. Frank protects you but he's an alcoholic.
I made this up, but this is how it works. THis is how it worked for people I know.
I'm not disputing that there is a link between fines and poverty or between poverty and crime. But I can't fathom how 5% of assaults and burglaries are a direct result of getting a fine in the last two months. Even in your perfect storm story, it's three or four months before you commit a crime. If you got fined before the slowdown, the fine still applies and still doubles. If you would have been fined during the slowdown but aren't, you would have had a month to pay anyway. You can also set up a payment plan to pay your fine over a period of a couple years.
I don't doubt that some small portion of the effect is exactly this. But 5% reduction in a month seems like far too much. I'm not even sure if there was a big reduction in fines- how many fines come out of proactive policing?
I don't know, it's not totally impossible. It just seems less likely than the null hypothesis of random variation in the data, while a more direct relationship could compete.
I don't doubt that some small portion of the effect is exactly this. But 5% reduction in a month seems like far too much. I'm not even sure if there was a big reduction in fines- how many fines come out of proactive policing?
I don't know, it's not totally impossible. It just seems less likely than the null hypothesis of random variation in the data, while a more direct relationship could compete.
This is a good point that I missed in the article. I was thinking that the reduction in crime occurred over a relatively long period of time, say a couple of years. I see now it was little over a month. Frankly that is not enough time for what I laid out, or enough time with ideas of under-reporting because everyone knows the police won't do anything because of their slow down.
So I am not sure what it is.
So I am not sure what it is.
Most of those same criticisms can be levied against the "broken windows" theory on which the studied policy was based, though.
[deleted]
(2017)
This is a good and interesting story but it's not new information, nor does it seem to have been updated with more recent data.
This is a good and interesting story but it's not new information, nor does it seem to have been updated with more recent data.
Tickets and such for minor violations, impounds, etc, all these can represent a major financial hit to a struggling family or young adult. I have worried for a long time that over-policing causes more crime than it prevents, and it generates distrust of the police as a group that is there to make your life trouble rather than keep you safe. There is just an incredible amount of research confirming that over-enforcement of petty infractions accumulates into community economic hardship, crime, and instability.
>Tickets and such for minor violations, impounds, etc, all these can represent a major financial hit to a struggling family or young adult.
A very minor mistake - the kind of mistake I'm sure we've all made at some point - can easily send the life of a poor person spiralling out of control.
Get thrown in jail for a night, you could lose your job. If you lose your job, you will miss rent. If you miss rent, the lack of social safety net means you're essentially screwed. It's even worse if you're find or a parent. It's no mystery why people in this situation would turn to crime.
A very minor mistake - the kind of mistake I'm sure we've all made at some point - can easily send the life of a poor person spiralling out of control.
Get thrown in jail for a night, you could lose your job. If you lose your job, you will miss rent. If you miss rent, the lack of social safety net means you're essentially screwed. It's even worse if you're find or a parent. It's no mystery why people in this situation would turn to crime.
This same effect has been seen in cities where the police go on "strike" by not proactively enforcing all the petty crime laws that the city makes money on, notably Baltimore.
Didn’t “The Wire” already show this? The police decided not to enforce any drug dealing related law so long as it was done in a confined area. This not only made crime go “down” but also resulted in less auxiliary crime since the market was safe and plentiful and because dealers were not being taken out there weren’t turf wars for corners to sell on.
The wire is a fictional TV show. It doesn't show anything about the real world.
Police in the US are thugs. They were created to protect property of the rich, and have never been legally obligated to 'protect and serve'. They steal more money than criminals in 'asset seizure' which is legalized theft, murder more innocent people, are literally above the law and cannot be punished thanks to nonsense like 'qualified immunity', and yet are worshipped as heroes, are always complaining and demanding more funds while being completely ineffective and dangerous to people, and the media perpetuates the 'risk their lives' myth.
They really are terrible. I don’t know why it’s so hard to completely fire the current crop of corrupt police in a bunch of cities and start over — it’s a low skilled position with good benefits, pay and is counterintuitively safe. It’s probably the police unions and to be honest it’s one of the few unions that deserves to be busted. Get the cops on individual liability insurance like nurses and get rid of the union.
So you need to look no further than NYC's gravity knife fiasco to see what's wrong with politics and policing.
For reference, a "gravity knife" is something originally issued to paratroopers. They could get stuck in trees and need to cut themselves out of their chutes. They needed a knife they could use with limited mobility. The traditional gravity knife had a button that released the knife that fell into place and locked by force of gravity.
These became popular later and evolved, most notably into the spring-loaded switch blade. To combat this and crime in the 70s and 80s, NYC clamped down on so-called gravity knives, which the law defined as anything that could be opened with one hand.
This law was clearly abused. NYPD officers would forcefully try and open a knife with one hand, claim it was a gravity knife and the owner would be charged. With a prior arrest this may be upsold to a felony.
This was such a problem for many professions that needed a knife for their job, most notably stagehands on Broadway and custodians. One custodian walking home at night ended up with a 5 year prison sentence with an upsold felony charge.
And of course minorities were overly targeted with this law.
Through the 2010s reform was repeatedly attempted. Twice this was vetoed by Cuomo at the behest of the Manhattan DA. Cuomo at this time I'm convinced still thought he could be president some day (to be fair, he probably could still be if he switched parties based on recent evidence) so courted the "law and order" crowd and political support from the police unions (who opposed reform) and the DA. Vague reasons were given for the veto.
Eventually this did pass but there still seems to be problems with that.
So let's outline the problems here:
1. A so-called Democratic governor choosing personal ambition over targeted minorities;
2. Arrest targets within the NYPD that drive police to meet those targets;
3. Police unions wanting more ways to randomly charge people for doing their job just in case they wanted to; and
4. Targeting of minorities, likely because they were poor (and couldn't thus afford legal representation and were also more likely to have a criminal record so the charges would stick).
For me I was glad to see Cuomo go but frankly I couldn't stand the guy long before the sexual harassment allegations came to light. It seems like every issue I looked into Cuomo landed on the wrong side of it and personal political gain seemed to be the reason. For example, NYC property tax reform and congestion charging for private vehicles in Manhattan.
For reference, a "gravity knife" is something originally issued to paratroopers. They could get stuck in trees and need to cut themselves out of their chutes. They needed a knife they could use with limited mobility. The traditional gravity knife had a button that released the knife that fell into place and locked by force of gravity.
These became popular later and evolved, most notably into the spring-loaded switch blade. To combat this and crime in the 70s and 80s, NYC clamped down on so-called gravity knives, which the law defined as anything that could be opened with one hand.
This law was clearly abused. NYPD officers would forcefully try and open a knife with one hand, claim it was a gravity knife and the owner would be charged. With a prior arrest this may be upsold to a felony.
This was such a problem for many professions that needed a knife for their job, most notably stagehands on Broadway and custodians. One custodian walking home at night ended up with a 5 year prison sentence with an upsold felony charge.
And of course minorities were overly targeted with this law.
Through the 2010s reform was repeatedly attempted. Twice this was vetoed by Cuomo at the behest of the Manhattan DA. Cuomo at this time I'm convinced still thought he could be president some day (to be fair, he probably could still be if he switched parties based on recent evidence) so courted the "law and order" crowd and political support from the police unions (who opposed reform) and the DA. Vague reasons were given for the veto.
Eventually this did pass but there still seems to be problems with that.
So let's outline the problems here:
1. A so-called Democratic governor choosing personal ambition over targeted minorities;
2. Arrest targets within the NYPD that drive police to meet those targets;
3. Police unions wanting more ways to randomly charge people for doing their job just in case they wanted to; and
4. Targeting of minorities, likely because they were poor (and couldn't thus afford legal representation and were also more likely to have a criminal record so the charges would stick).
For me I was glad to see Cuomo go but frankly I couldn't stand the guy long before the sexual harassment allegations came to light. It seems like every issue I looked into Cuomo landed on the wrong side of it and personal political gain seemed to be the reason. For example, NYC property tax reform and congestion charging for private vehicles in Manhattan.
An important addendum is that if you leave any part of the knife exposed (such as knife on the inside of pocket, but clip on the outside) that is considered "brandishing" and can trigger a stop by the police. This is a common pretext for a stop and frisk.
When I lived there I switched to a Case folding knife so I wouldn't accidentally run afoul of this law.
When I lived there I switched to a Case folding knife so I wouldn't accidentally run afoul of this law.
A random paper on crime and policing from 2017 covering two months in one city that shows a small difference in some types of crimes (complaints of felony assault, burglary, grand larceny) but not others (murder, rape, robbery, grand theft auto) and it's on Hacker News? How? Looking at the graph of the period after this slowdown, the crime also appears to be down year-over-year by about the same amount as during the slowdown.
From the linked article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
>In sharp contrast to this trend, evidence shows that arrests by the Detective Bureau increased significantly during the slowdown. This result is highly relevant to one of our theoretical mechanisms, since the Detective Bureau is charged with intensive investigations, rather than proactive policing. Further confirming that the slowdown’s effects were localized to proactive policing, we find no evidence that ‘Major crime arrests’ were significantly affected by the slowdown when we condition our estimates on ‘Major crime complaints’.
This paragraph appears to rule out many of the "armchair" objections being raised in the comments. If it is a robust finding, it would imply that some "proactive policing" arrests are effectively a nuisance to prosecutors and detectives as they work to combat severe criminality.
Nonetheless, I was surprised to see how much confidence the authors report with such limited data. They are not shy about saying "our results imply..." (cf. suggest) and go on to assert the existence of a "vicious feedback between proactive policing and major crime" It's one study, in one city, over a brief time period. Further work is needed to see if the results generalize.
>In sharp contrast to this trend, evidence shows that arrests by the Detective Bureau increased significantly during the slowdown. This result is highly relevant to one of our theoretical mechanisms, since the Detective Bureau is charged with intensive investigations, rather than proactive policing. Further confirming that the slowdown’s effects were localized to proactive policing, we find no evidence that ‘Major crime arrests’ were significantly affected by the slowdown when we condition our estimates on ‘Major crime complaints’.
This paragraph appears to rule out many of the "armchair" objections being raised in the comments. If it is a robust finding, it would imply that some "proactive policing" arrests are effectively a nuisance to prosecutors and detectives as they work to combat severe criminality.
Nonetheless, I was surprised to see how much confidence the authors report with such limited data. They are not shy about saying "our results imply..." (cf. suggest) and go on to assert the existence of a "vicious feedback between proactive policing and major crime" It's one study, in one city, over a brief time period. Further work is needed to see if the results generalize.
Multiple instances of police openly threatening citizens. Phones ripped out of hands and smashed onto the ground, for the mere crime of filming an interaction. During the BLM protests, every single act of instigation and provocation that I witnessed was started by the police.
I don't know what the answer is. But it is very clear the police here are a paramilitary jackboot squad, and that the city and the strength of their union protects them. They have almost complete impunity, and they see normal, everyday citizens as the enemy. I fear that we're in for more trouble now that we've elected an ex-cop Mayor of the city.
(For background, I'm a tall, white man. I can't imagine how bad it would be if I wasn't.)