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

[bust]

Great news! Crime continues to plummet in NYC. This is happening even as since 2012 the controversial stop and frisk policy was drastically curtailed under legal pressure. And police have almost completely abandoned the policy the past four years under De Blasio. Not only is it unethical and almost certainly unconstitutional to indiscriminately intimidate, harass, and jeopardize so many young black and latino young men, it seems it does not lead to lower crime rates. Ending this policy has been a win win!

What other conditions in New York can explain the plummeting crime rates? Opportunity? Optimism? A greater sense of inclusion?

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/n...rime-2017.html

[Wesley Mouch]

Great news! Crime continues to plummet in NYC. This is happening even as since 2012 the controversial stop and frisk policy was drastically curtailed under legal pressure. And police have almost completely abandoned the policy the past four years under De Blasio. Not only is it unethical and almost certainly unconstitutional to indiscriminately intimidate, harass, and jeopardize so many young black and latino young men, it seems it does not lead to lower crime rates. Ending this policy has been a win win!

What other conditions in New York can explain the plummeting crime rates? Opportunity? Optimism? A greater sense of inclusion?

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/n...rime-2017.html

It is indeed great news. As George Bush once said, "mission accomplished".

I don't quite see that ending help for poor residents is the sole cause of continued decline. But it is great to see.

[Richard]

Great news! Crime continues to plummet in NYC. This is happening even as since 2012 the controversial stop and frisk policy was drastically curtailed under legal pressure. And police have almost completely abandoned the policy the past four years under De Blasio. Not only is it unethical and almost certainly unconstitutional to indiscriminately intimidate, harass, and jeopardize so many young black and latino young men, it seems it does not lead to lower crime rates. Ending this policy has been a win win!

What other conditions in New York can explain the plummeting crime rates? Opportunity? Optimism? A greater sense of inclusion?

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/n...rime-2017.html

What about rising rents push the lower income out,Cabrini green in Chicago had the highest crime rate in the city,until they tore it down,then the erea became one of the safest parts in the city.

They are just moving numbers around and not really solving the core issues.

[canuck]

Excellent breakdown, bust.

Think of all young black and Latino men's problems with the law, their dissociation from family., society, opportunities is an obvious outcome of all this.

The racism is alive and well and the rage begets more violence.

The Ferguson effect, indeed.

[bust]

Oh give it up Wesley.

Poor residents of New York overwhelmingly oppose the stop-and-frisk policy. They are tired of feeling like perpetual suspects. It was almost certainly the biggest beef they had with the police. See below.

It was also one of the main reasons why Brooklynites, home not only to some hipsters, but to a much larger poor population, voted overwhelmingly to elect Kenneth Thompson as their DA. He defeated a longtime incumbent in an enormous 3 to 1 landslide victory. Twice. One of the central planks of his campaign platform was to sensibly reduce the use of stop-and-frisk. He, and every one else in the city, knew it unfairly targeted the black and latino communities.

Thompson, in a Politico article:

"“When you have excessive use of stop-and-frisk, you create bitterness in certain communities,” Thompson said, mentioning specifically the neighborhoods of Brownsville and East New York, which he said felt “disenchanted [with] law enforcement” and “targeted.”

“That disenchantment helped create the conditions for the rise of gun violence in certain neighborhoods,” Thompson said, “because communities didn’t trust the police and prosecutors enough to work with them.”"

Meanwhile, you can oppose misuse of stop-and-frisk and still support the police. You can even credit them for reductions in crime. The Politico article:

"“Thompson also praised the “great work of the NYPD,” saying it was responsible for the record low number of homicides.

“We have to support our police,” he said. “Something is being done right.”"

Police can even get behind a DA who wants to curtail the stop-and-frisk policy. In New York they did just that. The Police Union backed Kenneth Thompson in his bid for DA. From another Politico article:

"The endorsement came as something of a surprise, given the differences between Thompson and the union on the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy.

Thompson made a stop-and-frisk a key issue in the primary, accusing [long-time incumbent DA] Hynes of being silent on an issue that damaged relationships between the borough's black community and law enforcement, and he outlined a plan to assign prosecutors who will police precincts in East New York and Brownsville in order to keep an eye on questionable arrests."

Meanwhile, not De Blasio, not Thompson, nor I am advocating never stopping and frisking a suspect. It must be done for just cause. With reasonable suspicion. It should not be used indiscriminately. Not stupidly. Politico article:

"Thompson said he supported it as a crime-fighting tool “when it’s done the right way,” even as the tactic had been overused during the Bloomberg years.”"

Until recently, and perhaps not always recently, it was far too often done the wrong way in New York.

Under Bloomberg, and his Police Commissioner Ray Kelley, police had a quota requiring the number of stop-and-frisk searches they conduct. Here's New York’s Police Union President, Pat Lynch, when he endorsed Thompson [[Politico article):

"“Stop-question-and-frisk should be used, and it should be used constitutionally, not based on a number,” said Lynch at the endorsement announcement. “The worst thing you can do for a police department is make it a numbers game, or a revenue getter.”"

But stop-and-frisk has far too often been used indiscriminately. Too often stupidly. Listen to some real New Yorkers who have experienced it up close [[Reuters article):

"Telly Hudgins has been stopped and frisked by the police too many times to count in the Brownsville, New York, public housing project where he lives. One occasion sticks in his memory. “I had my pajamas on and my slippers on and I‘m emptying my garbage” at the trash chute. “They asked me for ID to prove I lived there. Who walks around in their pajamas with ID?” asked the black, 35-year-old counselor for the mentally handicapped. He says he complained about the search and was issued a summons for disorderly conduct.

Residents tell stories of cops peering down from rooftops, monitoring movement with a ubiquitous network of security cameras, patrolling halls and occupying lobbies.

In interviews conducted in the past few weeks, many Brownsville public housing residents claim they are regularly questioned, ticketed, often frisked and sometimes arrested on little or no pretense. They say police can be abusive, unnecessarily aggressive and indiscriminate. To these residents, civil liberties have withered with declining crime rates.

Last spring, years after the pajama incident, Hudgins stepped out of an elevator in his building as a pair of cops were getting in. As it often does on Mondays, Hudgins said, the elevator smelled of alcohol. Police stopped him, saying they suspected he was drinking alcohol from the cup in his hand. They insisted he hand over his drink, sniffed it, and told him it smelled like alcohol, Hudgins said. No, he insisted; it was a mix of iced tea and lemonade. There in the lobby of his own building, at the age of 34 and with no criminal record, Hudgins was issued two tickets - one for disorderly conduct and another for having an alcoholic beverage in an open container.

Hudgins had had enough. He filed a formal complaint with the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board. Both summonses were eventually dismissed, according to court records provided by Hudgins. “You can be stopped on any given day, for anything,” he said. “It’s humiliating.”

Police patrolling public housing enforce housing regulations, which dictate that to be inside one of its buildings you must either live there or be visiting someone. Among the almost 600,000 stops police made in or around city housing in the past six years, they conducted more based on suspicion of trespassing than for any other suspected crime, according to the Reuters analysis.

Vanessa Chandler, 47, who is black, said she has lived in city housing on Brownsville’s Sutter Avenue since she was a child, and that aggressive policing in the area is intrusive.

“If I go back to my building in the morning because I forgot my bus pass, they are on you with, ‘Why did you go into that building and back out again?’ Or if I walk outside to check the weather and go back in, it’s the same thing,” she said. “I mean, don’t you step outside to check the weather where you live, officer?”

Residents acknowledge the need for a strong police presence to counter violent crime. This is, after all, a place where many adults say they don’t leave their homes after dark. Still, the way in which the stop-and-frisk program is used weighs on them heavily.

“It’s not the stop-and-frisks that we’re upset about,” said Jay Bradley, 49, another black woman. “It’s the stupidity of the stops.”"

That comes from a great long form analysis of the situation. I suggest reading the rest of it too.

Curtailing stop-and-frisk has not ended help for poor people. Not Thompson, not De Blasio, not I, not Pat Lynch ever advocated that. On the contrary. Let's help people better. Let's fix our problems. Let's fight crime. Let's show some humanity. Let's not counter-productively waste resources. Let's not harm people and claim it's to help them. Enough of that.

By the way, whatever illusions anyone has to the contrary, there are still plenty of poor people in New York.

The most recent official data on poverty from the city is from 2015. 19.9% of New Yorkers were living in poverty. 44.2% were living in "near-poverty". The biggest population of people living in poverty and near-poverty live in Brooklyn, where Kenneth Thompson was overwhelmingly elected DA.







Sources:

Ken Thompson talks 'legacy of disgrace,' increase in shootings
https://www.politico.com/states/new-...ootings-016251

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

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

New York City Government Poverty Measure 2005–2015
An Annual Report from the Office of the Mayor
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportuni...as2017-WEB.pdf

[Wesley Mouch]

bust, I agree with much of your post. Where we differ is how we settle issues.

I believe that reform of S&F was possible, without tossing out much of the good efforts that were delivering results for poor people in high-crime neighborhoods. You and clearly many others have become fond of imposing rules on the police. We both agree that S&F as it was being done in NYC needed to be done better.

Neither approach is right nor wrong. The end results will be in the stats. And NYC is excellent in crime stats.

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

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.

Let's celebrate the good stats together.

[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]

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

[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?

[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]

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

[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!