What if Detroit had enough cops?

[Detroitnerd]

Though I agree with you, people aren't exactly knocking the doors down to be a Detroit cop.

............

[davewindsor]

I didn't say we had a significant drop in sworn officers from 2010 to 2013. I asked if your comment about dropping 200K in population referred to "the last couple of years" as you stated, or if you meant that drop was from the 2000 census [[which was around 900K) to the 2010 census. I then commented that if you referred to the drop from census to census we don't have the same police resources today that we had in 2000.

The census in 2010 showed Detroit had a population of around 713,000. Obviously, that FBI report was using an estimate before the census came out, probably based on the 2000 census and taking into account some population loss. There is no way Detroit had 899,000 people in 2010.

I don't doubt the population has declined since 2010. You made the comment that it dropped by 200K in the past couple of years and I was just trying to get clarification on what were saying.

I still don't know if the FBI used the same counting method as the census used. Regardless, the counting method the FBI used in 2010 for Detroit to arrive at cops per 10K residents was the same counting method they used for Los Angeles. So, if we are comparing Detroit to LA, it's still relevant that LA was using a lot less sworn cops per capital just a couple years ago than Detroit was and they have a much lower crime/homicide rate as well as in 2010.

The point of the OP was we need more cops to deal with crime. My point is that a comparison with LA shows that lack of cops is not why the crime rate is so high in Detroit because Detroit had a lot more sworn cops per capita than LA did in 2010.

[daddeeo]

And what if I had a million dollars? Quit dreaming. Cops and city residents will have to do more with less. Amen.

[Motor City Sam]

I still don't know if the FBI used the same counting method as the census used. Regardless, the counting method the FBI used in 2010 for Detroit to arrive at cops per 10K residents was the same counting method they used for Los Angeles. So, if we are comparing Detroit to LA, it's still relevant that LA was using a lot less sworn cops per capital just a couple years ago than Detroit was and they have a much lower crime/homicide rate as well as in 2010.

The point of the OP was we need more cops to deal with crime. My point is that a comparison with LA shows that lack of cops is not why the crime rate is so high in Detroit because Detroit had a lot more sworn cops per capita than LA did in 2010.

If the FBI is going to be almost 200,000 people off in estimating something like total population, I'm going to be less certain about the accuracy of all of their data and conclusions. You say they used the same counting method; I'm not sure they used any method at all, or where they got their estimates from.

For the record, I think Detroit needs more cops, but I also think they need to better utilize the cops they have. I'm not arguing against your basic point that just adding more cops won't fix things. My response was triggered by your assertion that Detroit lost 200K residents in the past couple of years.

[coracle]

davewindsor: I wonder if demographics play a part in the differences you point out?

[nain rouge]

I don't think it's fair to compare Detroit to L.A. on a statistic like cops per capita. Detroit is so much more impoverished that it's a whole different ballgame.

Honestly, if we can afford to go into Iraq or Afghanistan and attempt to rebuild those countries, we can find the money somewhere to really try and save Detroit. Why can't we oversee a properly funded venture to rehabilitate the DPD, and at the same, have a county/state/federal level police authority in the city? We could construct new, state-of-the-art police facilities and place those under the authority of the county/state/federal forces, only handing off the facilities to the DPD after the situation has truly stabilized?

[ElbertHanks]

Pointless because the problem isn't the police. You need more prisons and a tougher justice system [[like the three strikes you're out law in California).

In 2010, Detroit had over 32.1 cops per 10K. Los Angeles had 25.7 per 10K. FBI crime reporting system http://www.governing.com/gov-data/sa...or-cities.html

Yet, Los Angeles has a much lower crime rate.

How is it that Detroit lost almost 200K people in the last couple years and has the same police resources, yet the crime/homicide rates keep going up?

What does this tell you? The problem is not lack of police officers.

How many of these law breakers are repeat offenders and career criminals? Detroit has a revolving door justice system that is overwhelming police resources that needs to be addressed.

Cite me any statistics that demonstrate simply locking up more people will solve the problem. Michigan has gone from having under 10,000 people incarcerated in the early 70's to in excess of 50,000 in the 00's with no corresponding reduction in crime rates. Michigan has done this in a period of time where the State's population has shown little or no growth. Michigan has a higher rate of incarceration than all of it's surrounding states.

Certainly, Detroit utterly fails in it's approach to policing violent crime. Too many of the police that they do have are poorly utilized. We all have heard about how many police officers are assigned to antiquated administrative tasks for instance. In a perfect world, DPD would copy what NYC did [[maybe not some of the most controversial aspects) and what Wayne State does throughout Detroit. And they would actually get serious about the clearance rate on homicides as right now it is laughable. There is no doubt that you want the 'right' people locked up. In other words, the most dangerous and violent. Currently, too many of the wrong people get locked up. But that is a whole different sociological can worms which probably belongs in a different thread.

[Ray1936]

As some of you know, I retired from the DPD in 1984 after 29 years....and promptly moved to Nevada. That said, I confess I don't much know squat about conditions in the DPD today. However, a contemporary of mine recently posted a note on Facebook about his recent experience at 1300 Beaubien. [[The matter of the new ID card is because our old retiree ID cards did not have a photo on them; federal law exempting retired police officers from CCW laws require a photo ID card). Anyway, here was his short observation:

"I was in Detroit in September and had to go to headquarters and personnel to get my new ID card. There was a security desk at the entrance to check in. It was unmanned and the officers were hiding around the corner at the old property room desk. It was surreal talking to the cops; it was like the scene from apocalypse now. Who is in charge here? Ans. 'I don't know , ain't you!' Everyone I talked to was just holding on until their retirement. Talk about disillusioned. Very sad! I wanted to say snap out of it!! But who can blame them, they have no future."

[Brian1979]

About three weeks ago I drove to Detroit with a buddy of mine from Saginaw, we got to Detroit around 9pm and cruised the entire city of Detroit until about 4:30am. From the time we left Saginaw until the time we got back to Saginaw we saw a total of three cops, one State and two Detroit city and this included a drive down Saginaw Street in Flint where we saw no officers.

So I ran the streets of Detroit for 7 and a half hours and saw a total of three cops, I can remember seeing a city cop on Michigan Avenue, a state cop on one of the expressway's and another city cop on Gratiot. This was on a Tuesday night and I must say downtown looks nice in the Merchant's Row, Campus Martius, Greektown area.

Now when we were in Saginaw we saw several cops, I'm not in Saginaw, Flint or Detroit everyday so I don't know the situation with the cops but that seems pretty low. And the streetlights are out all over Detroit, I know this has been an on going problem, I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why Detroit has so much crime.

[Wesley Mouch]

As some of you know, I retired from the DPD in 1984 after 29 years....and promptly moved to Nevada. That said, I confess I don't much know squat about conditions in the DPD today. ...

Your post inspired me to speak to the important of culture in policing and military organizations.

Anyone can hire someone and call them a cop, or a solider. Happens in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. Doesn't make them any good.

Looking at the number of officers is of course important. Like having gas in your tank. Can't do the job without it.

But the culture of DPD is also critical. It takes YEARS to build an organization that's good. Especially true in policing. Why is the NYPD mostly respected today? Its not because they have money. Or lots of officers. Its because they have spent years and years building a strong organization. Creating rules that support and become the culture of that organization. Was it Kelly or Bratten who took the NY Transit Police from being a messed-up group to a fine force a decade or two ago. It took years. It was hard work.

Back to the thread... # of officers doesn't matter so much. Fix the culture.

[canuck]

One Detroit cop that I know also tells me that without proper equipment, the cops hands are tied most of the time. Cars that don't run, computers that don't work, radios that are unoperable, sirens that can't be used, headlights out on cars, seats covered with garbage bags because the upholstery is gone, steering wheels down to bare metal. Being asked for more cuts in salary, paying out more money in health care premiums also puts a heavy burden on the cops that are working and trying to keep their homes from foreclosure, keep food on the table for their kids, and maybe go to a show once in awhile with the family. It's stressful enough to be at work on 12 hour shifts let alone all the other crap that they have to put up with. The CofD needs to update everything within the DPD before the cops can do the job they are trained for.

Steering wheeels down to bare metal? What's up with that?

[davewindsor]

Cite me any statistics that demonstrate simply locking up more people will solve the problem.

Three strikes and you're out law has an incapacitation effect on career criminals as well as a deterrent effect. An FBI study from 1994-1999 suggests a 26.9% drop in crime from Three strikes you're out in California.
http://www.threestrikes.org/CareerCr...ted_Goodno.pdf
10-4-2010 "Career Criminals Targeted: The Verdict is in,
California's Three Strikes Law Proves Effective" from the Golden Gate University Law Review by Naomi Harlin Goodno
[[SEE PAGE 469): "Data also suggest that the Three Strikes law has had a deterrent effect. Specifically, California's crime rate has decreased since the law was enacted in 1994.[[52) A 1999 FBI study determined that "[s]ince California enacted its three strikes law in 1994, crime has dropped 26.9 percent, which translates to 815,000 fewer crimes.,,[[53)"

The population increased several million, yet the crime rate went down. Answer that one...

[davewindsor]

If the FBI is going to be almost 200,000 people off in estimating something like total population, I'm going to be less certain about the accuracy of all of their data and conclusions. You say they used the same counting method; I'm not sure they used any method at all, or where they got their estimates from.

If you're going to start saying that a major government agency like the FBI fabricated crime statistics without anything to back it up [[just your opinion), then there's something seriously wrong with your head and an intelligent debate with you from this point on is pointless.

[Motor City Sam]

If you're going to start saying that a major government agency like the FBI fabricated crime statistics without anything to back it up [[just your opinion), then there's something seriously wrong with your head and an intelligent debate with you from this point on is pointless.

No need to start insulting people. I think you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, though. At no point did I say the FBI fabricated crime stats. I said if they were 200K off on a population estimate, I wouldn't have certainty about the stats they came up with using that population estimate as a base. I don't see how that is controversial. The FBI said in that link that Detroit had a 2010 population of 899,000. The US census that came out for 2010 said the population was 713,000. Obviously, someone is wrong, and seeing as how the US Census Bureau actually conducted a full census, I'm going to go with their number as more likely to be true.

You want me to take the word of the FBI because it's a major government agency, but I should not consider the word of the US Census Bureau, also a major government agency?

Also, if you are the type of person that believes something to be absolutely true because it came from a major government agency, you also might want to brush up on your history.

And, finally, I think you're right about one thing. An intelligent debate with you is pointless, so I'll drop it now.

[davewindsor]

No need to start insulting people. I think you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, though. At no point did I say the FBI fabricated crime stats. I said if they were 200K off on a population estimate, I wouldn't have certainty about the stats they came up with using that population estimate as a base. I don't see how that is controversial. The FBI said in that link that Detroit had a 2010 population of 899,000. The US census that came out for 2010 said the population was 713,000. Obviously, someone is wrong, and seeing as how the US Census Bureau actually conducted a full census, I'm going to go with their number as more likely to be true.

You want me to take the word of the FBI because it's a major government agency, but I should not consider the word of the US Census Bureau, also a major government agency?

Also, if you are the type of person that believes something to be absolutely true because it came from a major government agency, you also might want to brush up on your history.

And, finally, I think you're right about one thing. An intelligent debate with you is pointless, so I'll drop it now.

You didn't literally say the word "fabricate", but that's what you were essentially getting at. You challenged the accuracy of FBI statistics and said you're "not sure they used any method at all". In other words, you are basically saying the FBI pulls their crime statistics out of their butt; they are basically fabricating them. So by discrediting the authority of the statistics, you've discredited the statistics themselves. And you've done it without backing it up [[it's just your opinion). So the FBI statistics are discredited because you say so and reject their methodology. Well, what qualifies you to say the FBI and their data should not be accepted as an authority on the subject?

Let's recap what you said, "If the FBI is going to be almost 200,000 people off in estimating something like total population, I'm going to be less certain about the accuracy of all of their data and conclusions. You say they used the same counting method; I'm not sure they used any method at all, or where they got their estimates from."

My point is that FBI statistics are accurate and they just used a different head counting method than the census bureau and that that different head counting method the FBI used would have been the same one that they used for LA to prove my point that lack of cops is not Detroit's problem for unreasonably high crime rates.

You say the US Census is the most accurate head counting method? What if residents don't register for the census? How accurate is it then? It's only as accurate as the people who registered for it. If it's not a big issue, why were Detroit council members and the Mayor of Detroit making a big fuss of the US Census data being a very inaccurate measure?
"Mayor Dave Bing, saying the census has a history of undercounting residents in large cities."
"Detroit City Council President Charles Pugh told CNN affiliate WIDV the census figure is about 100,000 short."
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-22/u...nting?_s=PM:US

[Detroitnerd]

Three strikes and you're out law has an incapacitation effect on career criminals as well as a deterrent effect. An FBI study from 1994-1999 suggests a 26.9% drop in crime from Three strikes you're out in California.
http://www.threestrikes.org/CareerCr...ted_Goodno.pdf
10-4-2010 "Career Criminals Targeted: The Verdict is in,
California's Three Strikes Law Proves Effective" from the Golden Gate University Law Review by Naomi Harlin Goodno
[[SEE PAGE 469): "Data also suggest that the Three Strikes law has had a deterrent effect. Specifically, California's crime rate has decreased since the law was enacted in 1994.[[52) A 1999 FBI study determined that "[s]ince California enacted its three strikes law in 1994, crime has dropped 26.9 percent, which translates to 815,000 fewer crimes.,,[[53)"

The population increased several million, yet the crime rate went down. Answer that one...

Well, as I understand it, the crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1960s. All over the United States. To attribute it to one law passed in California seems bad science.

[davewindsor]

Well, as I understand it, the crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1960s. All over the United States. To attribute it to one law passed in California seems bad science.

If it's bad science, prove it. What you just did is bad science.

We're not talking about all over the US because not every state in the US has a three strikes and you're out law. Detroit's crime rate isn't dropping. But, California's is. What's the difference between the two? California has a three strikes and you're out law; Michigan does not. Los Angeles also had a lot less cops per capita in 2010 than Detroit did in 2010.

[nain rouge]

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.

[davewindsor]

I think, because of that, a lot more people are likely to say "fuck it" in Detroit and turn to a dangerous, violent lifestyle.

If people want to say "fuck it" and turn to a dangerous, violent lifestyle, they can join the army and earn an honest paycheck while getting free room and board.

From what you're saying, it appears that Michigan's revolving door justice system isn't deterring anyone from becoming a career criminal, but actually encouraging it.

[mwilbert]

If it's bad science, prove it. What you just did is bad science.

We're not talking about all over the US because not every state in the US has a three strikes and you're out law. Detroit's crime rate isn't dropping. But, California's is. What's the difference between the two? California has a three strikes and you're out law; Michigan does not. Los Angeles also had a lot less cops per capita in 2010 than Detroit did in 2010.

The reason bringing up other places is important is that many other places had large drops in crime without three strikes laws, so making the argument that LA's crime dropped because of a three strikes law isn't very convincing, nor is the argument that Detroit's crime didn't drop because Michigan didn't have a three strikes law.

The fact is that LA is not unusual in having its crime rate drop substantially, so there is no reason to look for LA-specific factors. Detroit is unusual in not having much of a drop in crime rates over the past 30 years, and it would make sense to look for Detroit-specific reasons, but lacking a three strikes law doesn't make sense as an explanation, as many other places without three strikes did get the crime rate drop.

[davewindsor]

The reason bringing up other places is important is that many other places had large drops in crime without three strikes laws, so making the argument that LA's crime dropped because of a three strikes law isn't very convincing, nor is the argument that Detroit's crime didn't drop because Michigan didn't have a three strikes law.

The fact is that LA is not unusual in having its crime rate drop substantially, so there is no reason to look for LA-specific factors. Detroit is unusual in not having much of a drop in crime rates over the past 30 years, and it would make sense to look for Detroit-specific reasons, but lacking a three strikes law doesn't make sense as an explanation, as many other places without three strikes did get the crime rate drop.

I think the three strikes you're out law is very convincing because of the data I've provided. What you're offering is not convincing at all because you haven't offered anything of substance. What's your solution? Where's your data to back it up??

Three strikes works because 1) you remove the career criminal from society [[incapacitation effect)--three strikes and he's in prison for life--how can he commit more crimes in the city if he's in prison?, and 2) hearing about what happened deters others from becoming career criminals and/or having people with one or two strikes move to another state [[which was also pointed out in the article link I provided in the previous post). I've provided data to back up what I say. You've provided no data to support a better alternative.

[mwilbert]

I think the three strikes you're out law is very convincing because of the data I've provided. What you're offering is not convincing at all because you haven't offered anything of substance. What's your solution? Where's your data to back it up??

Three strikes works because 1) you remove the career criminal from society [[incapacitation effect)--three strikes and he's in prison for life--how can he commit more crimes in the city if he's in prison?, and 2) hearing about what happened deters others from becoming career criminals and/or having people with one or two strikes move to another state [[which was also pointed out in the article link I provided in the previous post). I've provided data to back up what I say. You've provided no data to support a better alternative.

I'm sorry, but I already explained why your evidence isn't persuasive. However, if you want some data, perhaps you could look at:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...ne_raphael.pdf

where you will see that the crime drop is pervasive, and that LA was not an outlier. If you don't want to look at the whole thing, just look at the charts on page 7.

The question of a better alternative is more vexing. That is why it would be so useful to understand why Detroit is an outlier. However there is no reason to think three strikes would work. I'm sure that we need a more competent and somewhat larger police department and a more effective probation system, but I think there are additional factors that keep Detroit unusually unsafe.

[CassTechGrad]

How about bringing back the special 1971 police task force called S.T.R.E.S.S.[[Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets). It was disbanded by Mayor Young after Civil Rights leaders and black activist complained that African Americans were too often the targets of the unit’s cops despite a 20 percent drop in crime. The race angle wouldn’t be applicable today since the city’spopulation is made up of almost entirely African Americans.

[davewindsor]

I'm sorry, but I already explained why your evidence isn't persuasive. However, if you want some data, perhaps you could look at:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...ne_raphael.pdf

where you will see that the crime drop is pervasive, and that LA was not an outlier. If you don't want to look at the whole thing, just look at the charts on page 7.

The question of a better alternative is more vexing. That is why it would be so useful to understand why Detroit is an outlier. However there is no reason to think three strikes would work. I'm sure that we need a more competent and somewhat larger police department and a more effective probation system, but I think there are additional factors that keep Detroit unusually unsafe.

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.

[canuck]

How about bringing back the special 1971 police task force called S.T.R.E.S.S.[[Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets). It was disbanded by Mayor Young after Civil Rights leaders and black activist complained that African Americans were too often the targets of the unit’s cops despite a 20 percent drop in crime. The race angle wouldn’t be applicable today since the city’spopulation is made up of almost entirely African Americans.

This would make for great comic relief if it werent for the fact that it is so tragic.