2016 Number of Homicides in Detroit: 302

[Bham1982]

I think we may be arguing different points here...

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the difference in crime rates between NYC and Detroit/Chicago are due to ethnic make up.

I'm not making such an assumption. I'm saying that the dramatic demographic changes in NYC over the last few decades, especially the changes in the black population, have played a role in massive crime decreases in NYC's black neighborhoods. Chicago and Detroit haven't had similar ethnic changes, and those neighborhoods continue to have extremely high homicide rates.

Immigrants tend to have much lower homicide rates than native-born Americans. Among blacks the gap is especially noticeable, and I think it's reasonable to assume that this has played some role in the NYC homicide declines.

Of course there are many other reasons- NYC has more gentrification, probably more effective policing, probably less citizen distrust of policing, and is a significantly wealthier city with greater resources to tackle urban violence.

All cities had decreases in murder rate in the 1990's and 2000's, of course. Even if there were no demographic change, NYC would have seen declines in homicides simply because the crack scourge waned. This happened in Chicago and Detroit too. But I think NYC's outlier homicide/crime status is partly due to its outlier demographic status.

[swingline]

Yeah, he sure did a great job bringing the country together when he organized that famous Harvard beer summit. Or perhaps it was his healing statements after the grand jury declined to bring charges against Darren Wilson, or his thoughtful words prior to George Zimmerman being found not guilty in a jury trial. Can't forget him speaking out against the Black Lives Matter terrorists in Ferguson, or anywhere else for that matter, or his bold words against the Black Panthers who were openly intimidating white voters in Philly during the 2008 election. Thanks, Obama, you little peaceful lamb, kumbaya!

The alternate reality revealed by this post is chilling.

[Zozo]

The alternate reality revealed by this post is chilling.

Yup, an alternative reality where people can think Obama was not good on race relations, and can provide examples which demonstrate that. Warm up with your favorite blankie, and welcome to the Twilight Zone!

[Bham1982]

Yup, an alternative reality where people can think Obama was not good on race relations, and can provide examples which demonstrate that. Warm up with your favorite blankie, and welcome to the Twilight Zone!

Obama was probably the best President re. race relations in the last 50 years. Some people just don't want equal rights for all under the law, so can invent fictions of "Obama was divisive because others now have equal rights".

And spare us your alleged concern for racial unity. I'm sure the Trumpanzees are motivated to bring all peoples together; that's why they voted for an clown car administration full of white supremacists and built on a platform of hate and division. "Mexicans are rapists and murderers" as a campaign kickoff speech sure gets the unity flowing...

[canuck]

Zozo the...

[Honky Tonk]

_______________________

Obama was probably the best President re. race relations in the last 50 years. Some people just don't want equal rights for all under the law, so can invent fictions of "Obama was divisive because others now have equal rights".

And spare us your alleged concern for racial unity. I'm sure the Trumpanzees are motivated to bring all peoples together; that's why they voted for an clown car administration full of white supremacists and built on a platform of hate and division. "Mexicans are rapists and murderers" as a campaign kickoff speech sure gets the unity flowing...

[Bham1982]

Right, because posting a silly picture of Hillary Clinton somehow invalidates the massive gains in civil rights under Obama, and somehow invalidates the horrible, racist things Trump has said and done throughout his life. That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The White House is run by a bunch of toddlers, and their sycophants are in lockstep with their mindless orange cult of personality.

[clubboss]

Obama was probably the best President re. race relations in the last 50 years. Some people just don't want equal rights for all under the law, so can invent fictions of "Obama was divisive because others now have equal rights".

And spare us your alleged concern for racial unity. I'm sure the Trumpanzees are motivated to bring all peoples together; that's why they voted for an clown car administration full of white supremacists and built on a platform of hate and division. "Mexicans are rapists and murderers" as a campaign kickoff speech sure gets the unity flowing...

Obama was also the greatest statesman America has seen in modern times. He traveled the world with an extended open hand of friendship. Just to name a few; Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam – Hanoi and Saigon.

Conservationist - In Obama’s eight years in office he protected more land and water than any president in history. 29 new national monuments
https://twitter.com/Wilderness/statu...43856211722240

Not the newest national park, but a newbie nonetheless:
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Park
https://www.nps.gov/hatu/index.htm

I support and visit America’s National Parks – Yellowstone is my favorite, tied for first place is Channel Islands. The only places I leave my firearm at home.

[erikd]

I'm not making such an assumption. I'm saying that the dramatic demographic changes in NYC over the last few decades, especially the changes in the black population, have played a role in massive crime decreases in NYC's black neighborhoods. Chicago and Detroit haven't had similar ethnic changes, and those neighborhoods continue to have extremely high homicide rates.

Immigrants tend to have much lower homicide rates than native-born Americans. Among blacks the gap is especially noticeable, and I think it's reasonable to assume that this has played some role in the NYC homicide declines.

Of course there are many other reasons- NYC has more gentrification, probably more effective policing, probably less citizen distrust of policing, and is a significantly wealthier city with greater resources to tackle urban violence.

All cities had decreases in murder rate in the 1990's and 2000's, of course. Even if there were no demographic change, NYC would have seen declines in homicides simply because the crack scourge waned. This happened in Chicago and Detroit too. But I think NYC's outlier homicide/crime status is partly due to its outlier demographic status.

All of these these factors may be able to explain the differences between crime rates in NYC and crime rates in Detroit/Chicago, but none of them explain the sudden and dramatic plummeting crime rates in NYC after 1990.

Crime rates exploded in NYC in the mid to late 1960s, and stayed at a high level from the early 70s to the early 90s. After 20+ years of very high crime rates in NYC, which seemed like an intractable problem, the crime rates suddenly reversed this decades-long trend, and plummeted dramatically over the span of just a few years. This was not a gradual decline over time, as the effects of demographic changes or gentrification started to take effect... This was a sudden dramatic reversal of a long standing trend. Something changed suddenly in NYC that caused crime rates to plummet dramatically after decades of high crime levels.

The dramatic and sudden decrease in crime in NYC over the few years after 1990 is clearly not due to changes in the demographic makeup of the city. NYC had high levels of crime for 20+ years prior to 1990, so the demography theory doesn't make sense, unless NYC had a shrinking immigrant population from the 60s to the early 90s, and then suddenly had a dramatic increase in the immigrant population in 1991.

The suggestion that the sudden drop in NYC crime could be due to the residents having less citizen distrust of the police is also incredibly unlikely. This would have to mean that the citizen of NYC distrusted the police for 20+ years, and then suddenly had a dramatic change of heart in 1991.

The gentrification theory is also unlikely to be the primary factor in the sudden change in NYC crime, because the gentrification in NYC did not happen suddenly and widely from 1991-1998.

The steady and gradual decline of crime from 1998 to the present day is most likely due to the gradual effects of demographic change, gentrification, and all of the other reasons that you listed off, but the sudden dramatic decrease from 1991-1998 can not be explained by these factors alone. There was something else that happened to cause the sudden dramatic decrease.

The one thing that you mentioned that did change dramatically in NYC at that time, and is the most likely explanation for the sudden plummeting crime rates, is law enforcement strategy.

My point in this whole series of posts is that the crime problem in Detroit [[or Chicago, etc.) is not an insurmountable or impossible problem to manage. We can drastically reduce crime levels without having to change the racial/ethnic/economic demographics.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/what...d_up_new_york/

[Dumpling]

It is clear from comparisons with cities with low numbers of guns that if
guns were more restricted the homicide rate in Detroit would drop. Short
of this, improving ATF's NIBIN, using ShotSpotter, and implementing
microstamping of bullet cartridges [[gun manufacturers don't like this one)
should reduce the homicide rate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.4bde399be989

There is a different set of approaches that could be used.
David Kennedy advocates for working with local drug dealers if their drug
dealing operations overlap with high violence areas. Rough synopsis of
his recommended MO: drug dealing evidence is collected for each and
every dealer in a high violence area. The goal is not zero tolerance, it
is harm reduction. The drug dealers are invited to a conference with the
local police precinct. They will be allowed to ply their trade so long as
there are no shootings in the area, so long as they do not carry guns
while they deal. If they carry guns while dealing, they will be subject
to federal prison sentences. If there are shootings they will all be rounded
up and charged as the previously collected evidence and any new evidence
dictates. So long as the ceasefire holds, social service support will be
provided in a mutually agreeable way. [[Carrot and stick model)
[[To be fair Warrendale prefers to be zero tolerance.)

[bust]

The one thing that you mentioned that did change dramatically in NYC at that time, and is the most likely explanation for the sudden plummeting crime rates, is law enforcement strategy.

Many more than one were not mentioned.

Another was how murders surged during the crack epidemic. And how they tapered off when marijuana took over as the drug of choice among urban youth.

I'm not sure how old anyone is here or what they've been exposed to, so forgive me if I'm being obvious, but it became common to celebrate pot in early 90's popular culture -- especially in hip hop. Meanwhile a lot of hip hop came out with a strong message against crack. In fact many of the anti-crack messages came first.

The History of Marijuana and Hip-Hop [[1990 to Present)
http://www.sosoactive.com/the-histor...90-to-present/

Hip-Hop's 25 Best Weed Songs
http://www.villagevoice.com/music/hi...-songs-6656364

Hip-Hop 101: Anti-Crack Raps
http://us.napster.com/blog/post/hip-...nti-crack-raps

I don't want to get into a chicken and egg debate about whether attitudes changed first on the streets or in popular culture. I'd argue that especially with early hip hop the feedback loop was a tight circle and they strongly fed each other. But take it from someone who saw the peak and decline of crime uncomfortably close that sidewalks filled with potheads are a hell of a lot safer than sidewalks filled with crackheads. Where I lived The Box was a veritable succession of blunts to a hip hop beat. Crackheads were generally older than we were. They killed themselves off as the youth learned to chill and the crime rate fell.

Guns are certainly another part of it. There are guns in New York, but many fewer than in Detroit. It's expected that you don't have one, not the other way around. And there are certainly common sense measures we should take to reduce gun violence.

Another of my favorite explanations is hope.

New York in 1990 was in the midst of a terrible economy and a financial crisis. Jobs and wealthy people had been fleeing the city for the suburbs for decades. The city budget was in such bad shape Dinkins had to lay off a significant portion of the city workforce. It was common then to feel alienated from opportunity. Young people had grown up mostly only knowing Presidents Reagan and Bush. It was typical to feel disaffected by a federal government they thought didn't represent them. The feeling was almost universal if you were black or latin. And murder rates peaked — not just in New York City, but in cities across the nation. New York's spiked to over 30 per 100,000 residents.

217 years of homicide in New York
https://qz.com/162289/217-years-of-h...e-in-new-york/

If you're from Detroit that number may be surprising. Detroit's murder rate is today much higher than New York's was at its worst. And it has been worse than that for as long as most people can remember. Who are all these tough New Yorkers? Or are they tough people who keep their city safe? What are they talking about when they complain how bad crime used to be?

Despite recent shootings, Chicago nowhere near U.S. ‘murder capital’
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...urder-capital/

Why is it that even during the crack epidemic and bad economy of the late 80's and early 90's New York was a safer city than Detroit is today?

I attribute a big part of that to people in New York having much more hope. The economy is much more diverse and dynamic. Opportunities are many more. There is segregation, but much less. Great transit makes it easy to get to work, get out of your barrio, and for people to mix. With exposure to so many different people and cultures ignorance is much less. Racism isn't nearly as big of a problem. Everyone knows lots of people who grew up under terribly disadvantaged circumstances who found a way to make it there. That is except the people who don't know anyone who grew up under terribly disadvantaged circumstances. But the point is with so many more good alternatives and positive examples crime looks like a much less appealing option in New York.

I suggest immigrants are self-selected optimists. No one undertakes the enormous effort to immigrate without great hope to better themselves and the future of their family. And New York is now and always has had a large population of immigrants. But hope is by no means limited to them. Native-born New Yorkers tend to be hopeful too. Maybe the optimism of immigrants is contagious. Maybe they set a positive example. Maybe they create more opportunities for other people. But immigrants cannot alone explain why New Yorkers have more hope.

And hope is but one factor among many....

Here's another of my favorites: Sense of community. Crime was already dropping in New York City when the September 11 World Trade Center attacks happened, but it really quickly got much safer after then. The city felt like it had undergone a mutual hardship and it pulled together. This may have been something the nation felt as a whole, but it was especially strong in New York. Only recently has that event slipped far enough back into history that young men in their late teens -- the ones who commit the most violent crime -- cannot remember it.

Finally, here's yet another opinion, backed by lots of facts and research. His conclusions are controversial. University of Chicago professor Steve Levitt credits abortion:

Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not
http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc.../Levitt042.pdf

I don't agree with his theory except, perhaps and again, that it may provide more insights into a very complicated equation. But what the paper makes clear is that plummeting crime in the 90's was a national phenomenon. Detroit was an exception. The fact that plummeting crime was not specific to New York provides evidence that Giuliani and Police Chief Bratton's broken windows policing policy was almost certainly not the main factor.

We could go on...

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip a lot...

Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not
http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc.../Levitt042.pdf

I don't agree with his theory except, perhaps and again, that it may provide more insights into a very complicated equation. But what the paper makes clear is that plummeting crime in the 90's was a national phenomenon. Detroit was an exception. The fact that plummeting crime was not specific to New York provides evidence that Giuliani and Police Chief Bratton's broken windows policing policy was almost certainly not the main factor.

We could go on...

I believe in Broken Windows policing. Its certainly hated by many, to be sure. And perhaps it wasn't the 'main factor'... but the article says

New York City, which has garnered enormous attention for its success in fightingcrime, leads the list with a 73.6 percent reduction in homicide.

That is wasn't the leading factor doesn't mean it isn't a valid and proven strategy for public safety. [[That it has become the poster child for undeniable police abuses is to the detriment of many urban residents.)

btw, is this the Levitt of Freakonomics?

Except for the effort to debunk Broken Windows in the post, I found the paper interesting. I've always believed that the crime drop was multi-faceted.

[archfan]

I believe in Broken Windows policing. Its certainly hated by many, to be sure. And perhaps it wasn't the 'main factor'... but the article says

That is wasn't the leading factor doesn't mean it isn't a valid and proven strategy for public safety. [[That it has become the poster child for undeniable police abuses is to the detriment of many urban residents.)

btw, is this the Levitt of Freakonomics?

Except for the effort to debunk Broken Windows in the post, I found the paper interesting. I've always believed that the crime drop was multi-faceted.

I hear you say you believe in it. Do you have any evidence it is effective? Most of what I've read says it is not, so I would like to see some research supporting it.

[Wesley Mouch]

I hear you say you believe in it. Do you have any evidence it is effective? Most of what I've read says it is not, so I would like to see some research supporting it.

Its been so long now since I first heard the idea that crime trends act like an infectious disease. It was a radical idea when it first surfaced. Probably 20-30 years ago now, if I remember correctly.

We all do seem to prefer the ideas that dovetail with out prejudices. I've always been prejudiced that we are better off when police engage with the community, rather than just respond to active-shooter calls.

I lived downtown in the 80s. Cops were what you saw when you drove by the courthouse -- or after an incident. There were no beat cops to be seen. I called the cops a couple times. After a burglary, I gave up waiting for them after an hour. Had to go to work.

Oddly, my thinking was informed by fresh ideas from the left. That crime was best controlled by engagement, and by paying attention to basic public order. But do I have proof? Not that I now remember. But I do remember the 1980s grit of NYC and Detroit. Broken Windows and Bratton/Kelly in one of those two cities. And crime fell faster than almost anywhere else. But maybe it is just correlation.

I believe there's a definition problem on BWs. The left sees it as rogue cops beating on black kids. The fire behind BLM. The right sees is as good policing -- without noticing how even a few rogue cops can change public opinion even when they are 99% right.

I'll keep my eyes open for papers -- but this topic is so political and so interwoven with other battles that I doubt you can find much that isn't an opinion or attitude minefield. But I too am curious if once you step away from the battle and ensure that rogue cops don't abuse their power -- if you do in fact get better results when you can respond to Brewster Project mothers and stop&frisk a trench coat wearing loiterer who is known to all as a drug dealer hanging out by your front door -- and deter them from doing so while packing a gun.

[bust]

Thought I'd hook three threads up that discuss many of the same ideas.

Here is some great evidence that broken windows policing as it was implemented in New York was not the answer. And more. And the best of the bunch. I kind of wish I had posted those to this thread instead of the other. And that follows more great evidence from a year prior.

We've also debated this topic here.

This has been a good discussion, on all three threads, in any case. It's an important topic worthy of debate until we get it right.