What if Detroit had enough cops?

[CassTechGrad]

OK,if we don’t want to give S.T.R.E.S.S. another chance, even though it reduced crime, then bring back the “Big Four” or “Tac Squads”. Detroit police created a new squad in the early 1960’s known to the public as the “Big Four”. This group was assigned to search for the most notorious felons in the city. It consisted of a uniformed officer riding with three plainclothes officers in a large, black, unmarked car, usually a Chrysler Newport. The very presence of this black Chrysler cruising slow down the street would make criminals run and hide. Couldn’t claim racism for the same reason as above.

[mwilbert]

You're data doesn't support what you're trying to say. The data basically says that violent crime and property crime declined in the 100 largest metro areas from 1990 to 2008. My guess is that these rates went down with the introduction of CCW permit laws [[it doesn't say that, but you could make a strong case for it). But, where's the mention of three strikes you're out laws? Where's the discussion of the city of Detroit?

Talking about "outlier" cities is just smokescreen and confusion for maintaining the status quo, which political leaders in this city have been doing for over half a century. That kind of discussion goes nowhere and just tables the problem for another half century. It doesn't lead to any kind of solution. The past 50 years has proven that.

This article is not relevant to the discussion of whether Michigan should have three strikes you're out laws or not. If you're going to say three strikes you're out laws don't work, you've got to back it up with data or an article on comparative analysis of different states with or without the laws. Otherwise, it's just your opinion that it wouldn't work. You have nothing to back up what you're saying. Probation is the status quo and it doesn't work.

You really don't understand how evidence works. Some places had three strikes. Some didn't. Crime went down all over. So there is no discrepancy to be addressed by three strikes, and no reason to think it had any effect. The burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim it has an effect.

I have no idea what you mean by a smokescreen. Detroit IS an outlier. It has not seen nearly the same level of crime decrease as most other cities. It would be useful to figure out if that is just because of peculiarly bad demographics, a peculiarly bad police department, a peculiarly bad corrections system, something else, or a combination of all of them, because then you might be able to better target your remedies.

As far as probation, I would refer you to http://www.nij.gov/topics/correction...awaii-hope.htm for an example of how this can be done effectively.

[davewindsor]

You really don't understand how evidence works. Some places had three strikes. Some didn't. Crime went down all over. So there is no discrepancy to be addressed by three strikes, and no reason to think it had any effect. The burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim it has an effect.

I have no idea what you mean by a smokescreen. Detroit IS an outlier. It has not seen nearly the same level of crime decrease as most other cities. It would be useful to figure out if that is just because of peculiarly bad demographics, a peculiarly bad police department, a peculiarly bad corrections system, something else, or a combination of all of them, because then you might be able to better target your remedies.

As far as probation, I would refer you to http://www.nij.gov/topics/correction...awaii-hope.htm for an example of how this can be done effectively.

OK, so you're saying removing career criminals from the streets with three strikes you're out laws doesn't lower the crime rate as the article states or have any deterrent effect. That doesn't make any sense. In other words, you're saying removing bank robbers won't reduce bank robberies in the city. Removing car thieves won't reduce car thefts in the city. Removing kidnappers won't reduce kidnappings in the city. Removing rapists won't reduce rapes in the city. Removing terrorists won't reduce terror related crime in the city because there's always someone else that will gladly take their place? Does that make any sense? It's self-evident to me that removing the offenders from society will lower the crime rate, regardless of whether you choose to ignore the articles I provided.

Do you have a better solution? Tell me because nothing else seems to work.

I read your article on Swift and Certain Sanctions in probation in Hawaii. It's basically random drug testing for ex-drug addicts on probation. If they fail a drug test, they are brought before a judge within 72 hours and are thrown in jail for several days: "A probationer who fails the random drug test is immediately arrested and within 72 hours is brought before a judge. If the probationer is found to have violated the terms of probation, he or she is immediately sentenced to a short jail stay."

The 36th District Court in Detroit has already been doing on site drug testing and Drug Treatment Court for probationers since 1997. http://www.36thdistrictcourt.org/pro...-programs.html

There's some other probation programs there too like Victim Impact Panel, Community Service, and Driver Improvement School.

They're already doing it all. It's nothing new and it's all be tried for decades and the crime rate keeps rising.

[313WX]

Again, the economic vitality of LA is big factor in the lower crime rate. If you're living in Detroit proper out of necessity as opposed to choice, you're basically screwed as far as a job is concerned. Even with a high school degree, the best you're probably going to do is a service job out in the suburbs, with the associated long, expensive [[or very irritating, if you have take the bus) commute. I think, because of that, a lot more people are likely to say "fuck it" in Detroit and turn to a dangerous, violent lifestyle.

Hell, there's even a difference between waiting for a bus in Detroit versus waiting for a bus in LA. In Detroit, it's cold and wet about half the year, while in LA, you're in one of the best climates in the US. Something as small as that can make for a major psychological difference.

All good points.

Besides, isn't the worst of LA's crime dispersed throughout its suburbs such as Inglewood and Compton?

[Motor City Sam]

All good points.

Besides, isn't the worst of LA's crime dispersed throughout its suburbs such as Inglewood and Compton?

I don't know about the "worst of LA's crime, since there is plenty of crime in LA proper, but your point about the high crime rate in suburban or enclave Cities like Compton and Inglewood is well taken. Also in that category is East Los Angeles.