U-M Professor: War on Crime Fueled Detroit's Decline

[bust]

Let's celebrate the good stats together.

I'm happy to celebrate NYC's reduction in crime with you. Great news.

You and clearly many others have become fond of imposing rules on the police.

I do hope that NYC crime keeps falling, even as DiBlasio reduces the focus on minor crimes [[turnstile jumping, spitting, jaywalking, illegal vending, etc.).

A few clarifications:

1) It's the 4th Amendment to our Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Any rules intended to ensure police conform to that important tenet are supplementary and in service of that.

2) I haven't noticed any fewer police camped out on the watch for turnstile jumpers under De Blasio. And it is Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance who decided not to prosecute turnstile jumping. [[AM New York) Vance is the same Manhattan DA infamous for overruling his own prosecutors and dropping a fraud investigation against Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., all while accepting $50,000 from their lawyer. [[The New Yorker) De Blasio opposes this, and wants to keep turnstile jumping an offense punishable by arrest. [[Gothamist)

3) Spitting? Do you really think NYC police signed up for the force to be spending their time on that? [[Gothamist) In any case, I doubt there has been any directive from De Blasio how to handle this offense.

4) Under De Blasio NYC police have been cracking down on jaywalking like New York has not seen for a very long time. [[Citylab)

5) Illegal vending? You mean like loose cigarettes? See the Gothamist article again. Enforcing that rule was what led to Eric Garner's senseless death. [[NY Times) And weeks of massive protests against police brutality. And a rift between police and so many ordinary citizens of New York. [[The Guardian, The NY Times) I haven't heard that De Blasio instructed police to pull back on enforcing illegal vending rules, but if so, good call.

Crime is on the downswing in NYC, to be sure. Stopping S&F and Quality of Life policing [[broken windows if you will) probably won't end the slide. But I believe it pulls in the wrong direction.

Broken windows policing hasn't ended in New York City. It has merely been reformed. The reforms seem to be working.

Meanwhile, the police slowdown of 2015 [[Vox) did provide an opportunity to test what happens when broken windows policing really does come to a halt. For about a month New York City police stopped responding to anything except serious crimes.

The first thing people noticed was a sharp decline in city revenue, to the order of $5M. [[NY Times) Ticketing people for things like jaywalking, turnstile jumping, spitting, and illegal vending is lucrative for the city. I take Reason.com with a heavy grain of salt, and I definitely don't trust the NY Post [[whom Reason quotes), but in case you do, they said the loss of revenue was to the order of $10M per week, according to a report I could not find they say was published by the Citizens' Budget Commission. [[Reason.com)

But there was another, less expected result: crime dropped. A Los Angeles Times article cites a study published in the Journal of Human Behavior about the event:

“The scientists found that civilian complaints of major crimes dropped by about 3% to 6% during the slowdown.”

“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.”

If libertarianism is your thing, Reason covered this too. [[Reason article)

They were so unsurprised by this outcome, here was their reaction: "Duh!"

Or maybe you prefer the BBC. [[BBC article)

As we know, correlation does not indicate causation. But a question to those who claim broken windows policing is key to crime reduction: what's your explanation?

We both agree that S&F as it was being done in NYC needed to be done better.

Wesley, I'm glad we can find some agreement on this. But I'm hoping for some of your own clarification. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you lean toward libertarianism. Do you believe in the liberty to walk to the corner store without being stopped and frisked by the police? At night, in Brownsville, while black or latino? I do it all the time, and I've never had a problem. And in some rough neighborhoods. But not in Brownsville, and I'm not black or latino. Do I deserve that liberty, and the black or latino young man in Brownsville does not? I doubt you'll say yes. But it has worked out that way. What should be done about it?

For the record, I'm strongly in favor of sensible law and order. But the sensible part means I think we should direct our police efforts toward protecting our citizens against offenses with a focus ruthlessly organized in priority order. Public safety, not revenue generation. I think NYC police union president Pat Lynch agrees with that. [[Politico) And public safety should not come at the expense of our constitutional rights, nor with the heavy social cost of discrimination. Hell no.

Sources:

Turnstile jumping won’t be prosecuted in Manhattan starting this fall, DA Vance says
https://www.amny.com/news/turnstile-...ays-1.13775175

How Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., Avoided a Criminal Indictment
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...nal-indictment

De Blasio: Turnstile Jumping Is 'Not An Economic Issue' For NYers Who Get Arrested
http://gothamist.com/2017/08/09/nyc_...re_beating.php

NYC Cops Ticket Man For Spitting
http://gothamist.com/2015/04/19/vide...rownsville.php

The Fuzzy Logic of a Jaywalking Crackdown in New York
https://www.citylab.com/transportati...new-york/8228/

Beyond the Chokehold: The Path to Eric Garner’s Death
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/n...en-island.html

Eric Garner protests continue in cities across America through second night
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...h-second-night

25,000 March in New York to Protest Police Violence
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/n...rner-case.html

The NYPD “slowdown” that’s cut arrests in New York by half, explained
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/6/7501953...-arrests-union

The NYPD Slowdown Is Working, Let's Keep It
http://gothamist.com/2015/01/07/brok...ws_forever.php

Police Slowdown Cost New York City an Estimated $5 Million in Lost Fines
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/n...ost-fines.html

NYPD Slowdown Resulting in $10 Million Less a Week in Parking Tickets
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/09/ny...-10-million-le

In New York, major crime complaints fell when cops took a break from ‘proactive policing’
http://beta.latimes.com/science/scie...925-story.html

Study: NYPD Slowdown in Petty Law Enforcement Saw Reduction in Major Crimes Complaints
Evidence against broken windows policing.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/26/st...in-petty-law-e

Is New York police's 'virtual work stoppage' a boon for critics?
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30659528

Police union gives to Ken Thompson, despite their differences
https://www.politico.com/states/new-...erences-000000

[aj3647]

At the height of "stop and frisk" [[2006, 500,000+ S&Fs), 90% of those "stop and frisked" were completely innocent. 90%. Sounds like cops going on fishing expeditions to me, and violating people's Fourth Amendment rights in the process.

[bust]

The number of stop and frisks continued to grow and approached 700,000. In 2012 it abated under intense public pressure. In 2013 a federal judge ruled the practice unconstitutional.



WNYC: A Decade of Stop-and-Frisk
https://project.wnyc.org/stop-and-frisk-totals/

New York's stop-and-frisk trial comes to a close with landmark ruling
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...andmark-ruling

New York's stop-and-frisk policy is unconstitutional, judge rules
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tutional-judge

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm happy to celebrate NYC's reduction in crime with you. Great news.
..snip ...

Wesley, I'm glad we can find some agreement on this. But I'm hoping for some of your own clarification. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you lean toward libertarianism. Do you believe in the liberty to walk to the corner store without being stopped and frisked by the police? ...snip...

Greatly appreciate your thoughtful post. I will be reading it all, and doing so without my Donald Trump Tin Hat [[TM). There are many ways to organize society, and maybe you have it right.

I don't lean libertarian, I have completely falling libertarian. So I do value the right to walk freely without harassment. Yet as a reasonable person, I do also recognize that my freedoms must be expressed with respect for others.


Few years ago, I watched an interview with a resident of a NYC high-rise 'project'. She's suffered with years of drug dealers hanging out at her front door. Nothing illegal can be detected, yet the young men were clearly dealing drugs. They verbally intimidated the residents of the tower. They asserted 'ownership' of the building's concourse to do their illegal dealings. Under S&F, the cops were able to see the obvious, and stop & frisk. They found guns in many cases.

So to answer your question... I want a society where we do lean strongly towards liberty -- but we do also need to value quality of life for everyone, not just the wealthy. How do we strike that balance? Can we allow some discretion by officers on the street? Or must we have 100% actionable evidence in all cases before we can act?

Now off to work. Gonna read your links later. Thanks.

[aj3647]

Few years ago, I watched an interview with a resident of a NYC high-rise 'project'. She's suffered with years of drug dealers hanging out at her front door. Nothing illegal can be detected, yet the young men were clearly dealing drugs. They verbally intimidated the residents of the tower. They asserted 'ownership' of the building's concourse to do their illegal dealings. Under S&F, the cops were able to see the obvious, and stop & frisk. They found guns in many cases.

That was theoretically how Stop and Frisk was supposed to work. In theory. Cops would have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk someone. That's not how it worked in real life. Statistics prove that. When 9 out of 10 "stop and frisks" resulted in finding nothing illegal on the person and no outstanding warrants, then it's pretty obvious the cops were just using Stop and Frisk to go on fishing expeditions. And the statistics also show that these "fishing expeditions" targeted young black and Hispanic men almost exclusively.

In 2013, when the S&F policy was changed, police officers were required to give justifiable reasons for why they conducted stop and frisks. And once this requirement was instituted, that you had to be able to actually elucidate WHY you frisked someone, the number of "stop and frisks" fell dramatically. Pretty clearly an indication that many of the stops and frisks conducted prior to that policy change were done for no reason at all.

Hard to see this as anything other than a gross violation of people's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their person from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure.

[Wesley Mouch]

That was theoretically how Stop and Frisk was supposed to work. In theory. Cops would have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk someone. That's not how it worked in real life. Statistics prove that. When 9 out of 10 "stop and frisks" resulted in finding nothing illegal on the person and no outstanding warrants, then it's pretty obvious the cops were just using Stop and Frisk to go on fishing expeditions. And the statistics also show that these "fishing expeditions" targeted young black and Hispanic men almost exclusively.

What percentage of finding 'illegal' items or 'outstanding warrants' would you expect? A 10% positive rate seems very, very high to me, if the standard for action is 'reasonable suspicion'. And of course the goal of the policy is to drive illegal activity out of public spaces. Success then seems to me to be that fewer and fewer 'bad guys' carry drugs on them and/or bring their guns to the front doors of apartment buildings.

I'd be curious to get professional reaction here. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. If you do 'reasonable suspicion' stops, what 'success' would be expected?

As to the percentage of black and hispanic, I don't see how that proves anything. They aren't random stop, but 'reasonable suspicion' stops. If being done right, then the areas for S&F should have been where Compstat drives it, not a blanket suspicion by race. Since it seems like crime in NYC is mostly in black and hispanic areas, how could you expect anything else?

In 2013, when the S&F policy was changed, police officers were required to give justifiable reasons for why they conducted stop and frisks. And once this requirement was instituted, that you had to be able to actually elucidate WHY you frisked someone, the number of "stop and frisks" fell dramatically. Pretty clearly an indication that many of the stops and frisks conducted prior to that policy change were done for no reason at all.

Cops got the message. Its OK to let 'suspicious activity' continue as long as its in black and hispanic neighborhoods. Is that what we really want?

Hard to see this as anything other than a gross violation of people's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their person from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure.

So you see an 'obvious' drug salesman at the door of an apartment building. Same guy, same place for a couple days. Furtively handing items. They are black. Do you act, officer? Or do you just go get a donut?

We've suggested that donuts are a better method of policing than acting of 'suspicion'. Is that the right policy? Does that serve the majority black/hispanic residents in some high-crime neighborhoods best?

[Ray1936]

Well, in my 25 years in the DPD, the only time I 'stopped and frisked' anyone was when they were already under arrest. And I came up with a few handguns after that was initiated. Not to mention one that I missed in the guy's belly roll of fat that could have cost my my life, but didn't. Long story. I ain't goin' into it.

[rex]

There was no 1 smoking bullet but Detroit declined when most of the money left town. I'm not sure there is a strong relationship between police and crime. Not sure they prevent it, if anything the harder they police the worse things will be in the long run. Now police wont agree with this 9X out of 10 because it translates to less reach, less numbers, less resources, and less priority. Detroit police have tried to arrest their way out of the crime and i'm reasonably certain it did not work. That said this professor definitely doesn't deserve any awards or acclaim for their research here.

[Zacha341]

Good that our crime numbers were down for 2017, but maybe it is just me but there have been back to back homicides [[robberies/ domestic etc) the last three weeks of December on up thru today!

[erikd]

What percentage of finding 'illegal' items or 'outstanding warrants' would you expect? A 10% positive rate seems very, very high to me, if the standard for action is 'reasonable suspicion'. And of course the goal of the policy is to drive illegal activity out of public spaces. Success then seems to me to be that fewer and fewer 'bad guys' carry drugs on them and/or bring their guns to the front doors of apartment buildings.

I'd be curious to get professional reaction here. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. If you do 'reasonable suspicion' stops, what 'success' would be expected?

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on constitutional law, but the fourth amendment guarantees

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I would say that if the police are claiming "probable cause" as a reason to circumvent the constitutional liberties of American citizens, they damn sure need to be right more than 10% of the time.

Americans have THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Systemic violation of these constitutional rights for a one-in-ten shot at catching someone in violation of a law is an indefensible argument.

If the current police standard of "reasonable suspicion" leads them to be wrong 90% of the time, then it obviously isn't very reasonable, is it?

It sure as hell isn't reasonable enough to throw the 4th amendment out the window.

[bust]

Great post erikd. Also, what you wrote on this topic on the "2016 Number of Homicides in Detroit: 302" thread.

This topic has also been discussed on the tragic "WSU PD Officer Dies from Gunshot Wound to Head" thread.

May this important discussion continue until we get it right.

[Wesley Mouch]

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on constitutional law, but the fourth amendment guarantees

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I would say that if the police are claiming "probable cause" as a reason to circumvent the constitutional liberties of American citizens, they damn sure need to be right more than 10% of the time.

We are debating on shaky ground. First, this stat. Not even sure what this 10% is. Is it only 10% of searches were 'reasonable'. Or only 10% of searches 'found something illegal'. We do not know how many were 'REASONABLE' searches.

So an officer sees a known drug dealer hanging out at the front door of a low-income 'project'. The residents association has been begging for the cops to do something. But they have nothing they can do. Then the cops see what looks like a bulge that might be a gun. The two officers agree that it looks very suspicious. They have a 'REASONABLE SUSPICION', but its not really ironclad. They search, and find its just a giant wad of money. Success or failures? 90% or 10%.

Americans have THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Systemic violation of these constitutional rights for a one-in-ten shot at catching someone in violation of a law is an indefensible argument.

If the current police standard of "reasonable suspicion" leads them to be wrong 90% of the time, then it obviously isn't very reasonable, is it?

It sure as hell isn't reasonable enough to throw the 4th amendment out the window.

I couldn't agree more. The 4th amendment must be respected.

10% seems like a great success rate to me. 1 in 10 times an officer has a suspicion about illegal activity, and finds it. Sounds like a perfect formula for driving the crime rate down.

[bust]

We are debating on shaky ground. First, this stat. Not even sure what this 10% is. Is it only 10% of searches were 'reasonable'. Or only 10% of searches 'found something illegal'. We do not know how many were 'REASONABLE' searches.

So an officer sees a known drug dealer hanging out at the front door of a low-income 'project'. The residents association has been begging for the cops to do something. But they have nothing they can do. Then the cops see what looks like a bulge that might be a gun. The two officers agree that it looks very suspicious. They have a 'REASONABLE SUSPICION', but its not really ironclad. They search, and find its just a giant wad of money. Success or failures? 90% or 10%.

I'll repeat myself.

No one said police should not stop someone whom it is reasonable to suspect is guilty of a crime. No one said police should not frisking someone whom it is reasonable to suspect is concealing an illegal weapon.

And in the real world of NYC the known drug dealer in your example would be stop-and-frisked by the police ad infinitum. Still today.

I'll repeat myself again.

What people have been complaining about, ad infinitum, are the unconstitutional, unreasonable, counter-productive, and downright stupid stop-and-frisks based on nothing more than racial profiling and fulfilling a police quota.

Stop-and-frisks should not target innocent people like this counselor for the mentally disabled with no criminal record who has been subjected to stop-and-frisks "too many times to count". He was issued a summons for disorderly conduct when he had the dignity to complain he should not be stop-and-frisked and then harassed for not carrying ID in his pajamas, only steps from the door of his apartment, in the hallway to use the trash chute. Nor this woman who is routinely stopped and questioned by the police for stepping outside to check the weather. Nor this teen who has been stop-and-frisked "at least 60 to 70 times", and was arrested for nothing more than having a pink highlighter in his pocket, accused of writing graffiti.

Watch this six minute documentary:

I couldn't agree more. The 4th amendment must be respected.

And yet you support a policy in direct violation of it.

10% seems like a great success rate to me. 1 in 10 times an officer has a suspicion about illegal activity, and finds it. Sounds like a perfect formula for driving the crime rate down.

Look more closely. It's part of a formula that keeps black and latino urban communities down.

I'll repeat myself yet again.

The New York Times reports 90% of those stopped were young black or latino men who committed no crime. In the few cases when a stop led to an arrest the vast majority were for marijuana possession. Under Bloomberg and his aggressive use of stop-and-frisk policing, arrests for marijuana possession soared to as many as 50,000 per year -- approximately 1 out of every 8 arrests citywide. 86% of those arrested for marijuana possession were black or hispanic, despite research that shows young white men are more likely to use it. 70% of those arrested had no prior convictions.

Ok, but the point of all this was to confiscate illegal guns. How did that work out? WNYC reports only about 0.1% of stops resulted in the seizure of a gun. In fact, most gun seizures occurred outside of the stop-and-frisk hot spots. WNYC plotted gun seizures on their stop-and-frisk map.

The net effect of New York's stop-and-frisk program was to run hundreds of thousands of black and brown young men through the criminal justice system for minor offenses.

It's difficult to find a benefit in those crime statistics. Meanwhile the harm has not been limited to those young men and their families. Stop-and-frisk policing created a great deal of distrust and animosity against the police in the community.

Community distrust of police became so bad in 2013 Kenneth Thompson defeated a 6-term incumbent to become Brooklyn's District Attorney largely on a platform to rein in aggressive police tactics. He accused his opponent as complicit in the excesses of the stop-and-frisk policy and promised to effectively decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana [[with exceptions) so fewer otherwise law abiding people would get caught up in the system.

The New York Times agreed with his approach.

Until the people of Brooklyn elected Kenneth Thompson DA largely to end overly aggressive policing, tens of thousands of young men arrested for having a joint in their pocket uncovered during an unconstitutional stop-and-frisk found themselves in court charged with a felony. Convicted, they are ineligible for a long list of jobs. They have a very hard time gaining acceptance to a long list of schools. And they can no longer vote. For the rest of their lives.

Does that really seem like a "great success" to you?

On the other hand, it achieved precisely what some people want.

In related news, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III wants to lead us back to another Reefer Madness era.

We know how the "war on drugs" worked out.

Sources:

Insight: Under siege: "Stop and frisk" polarizes New York
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...86205Q20120703

The Scars of Stop-and-Frisk
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...and-frisk.html

What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/n...and-frisk.html

Marijuana May Mean Ticket, Not Arrest, in New York City
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/n...cials-say.html

The black/white marijuana arrest gap, in nine charts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-nine-charts/

Broken Windows, Broken Lives
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/o...ken-lives.html

NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots
https://www.wnyc.org/story/222809-wn...nd-frisk-less/

Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots
https://project.wnyc.org/stop-frisk-guns/

Challenger Wins Primary for Brooklyn District Attorney
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/ny...-attorney.html

Safer Era Tests Wisdom of ‘Broken Windows’ Focus on Minor Crime
www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/nyregion/safer-era-tests-wisdom-of-broken-windows-focus-on-minor-crime-in-new-york-city.html

Of Course Roy Moore Is Mad About Felon Voters. Suppressing Black Votes Was a Function of Alabama’s Constitution
https://www.theroot.com/of-course-ro...ess-1820926777

NNDB: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III
http://www.nndb.com/people/295/000032199/

Jeff Sessions is leading America back into Reefer Madness
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ness-marijuana

Everyone does drugs, but only minorities are punished for it
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830...ist-minorities

[mwilbert]

And from the right:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rvatives-wrong