The other week I wrote about the so-called “Ferguson Effect.” Alex Elkins has some more thoughts on this issue, over on his blog:
The main “take-away,” the one the authors hope the media will pick up and run with, namely, that the Ferguson Effect, as construed by conservatives and certain media outlets, is “spurious.” This is too strident, in my opinion, in light of the available evidence that *something* did change over the past year. It’s not as if the change was in aggravated assault, a notoriously unreliable classification subject to manipulation by police command. No, the change was in murder, hardly a trivial matter.
…
Lastly, the authors were unable to link crime trends to the sense that police had backed off in the era of #BlackLivesMatter. They write: “It is important to note that the city-level crime data used in this analysis cannot establish whether loss of legitimacy or de-policing is at the root of an observed increase in crime, or whether contagion induced by social media was responsible for transmitting these changes.”
That, of course, is the argument that cops have made. Police have contended that after the deaths of Mike Brown and Freddie Gray, and the intense public criticism of over-policing, they have made fewer discretionary street stops and scaled back proactive Broken-Windows-style policing, and as a result, they say, opportunistic criminals have entered the void and committed more violent crimes, like murder.
In light of all the killing in 2015, I’m willing to entertain this idea. I don’t understand why some seem to think that conceding this premise — that protest has had some effect on police — threatens the Left and its agenda. Massive street protests and intense sustained media attention surely have affected cops — indeed, many have said as much. We can grant that and still maintain the legitimacy of protest and our concerns.
…
We have lots of work to do. Refuting the so-called Ferguson Effect — which essentially asks who’s to blame, which conservatives like Mac Donald use to undermine legitimate democratic protests against abusive state practices — when the evidence actually does indicate an increase in violent crime, should be the least of our concerns.
Pedro,
I have an idea for your next best seller. Need to work some variation of "disrupt" or "disruptors" into the title. It will focus on the positive effects proactive policing can have on the murder rate in high crime areas.
If the bad guy is afraid to carry a gun because he thinks he might get stopped by cops and has to run over to the bushes to pick up gun when he's angry a murder may have been prevented.
Disrupt comes from the Latin dis- + rumpere. To break. I think the "rump" should be highlighted some way. That's just because I'm a perv.
Title can't be too pretentious. Has to be simple like "Cop in the Hood". We want this to sell so the NYT book review will write about it. Back cover will have you wearing a Cubs Fez and eating a hot dog.
No catch up [Chicagoans get it]: Dis-RUMP-ture. [RUMP stands for "random utilized motorized patrol"]
RUMP=Regressive Urban Militarized Policing and must be STOPPED!
Call Professor Click!