Go to qualitypolicing.com

Tag: rising crime

  • Why fewer police-involved shootings in Chicago might be bad

    Why fewer police-involved shootings in Chicago might be bad

    Police-involved shootings in Chicago are way down.

    From heyjackass.com

    This is great news for advocates of police reform.

    Chicago in 2016 will probably see police shoot just 15 or so people (based quite sketchily on January through March figures). This compares to 45 people shot in 2014. The decrease is without doubt due in part to those who keep a laser-like focus on police misconduct. The number of those shot by Chicago Police has plummeted for two consecutive years.

    But it’s also very likely that Chicago will see close to 3,500 people shot this year. That would be 500 more than 2015. And that was 500 more than 2014. And that was 500 more than 2013. And for each 500-person increase in shootings, roughly 480 victims are black or hispanic.

    What if — hypothetically of course and absent any corresponding decrease in violence in general — what if police-involved shootings served as a proxy (an indirect indicator) for police officers’ engagement and interaction with violent criminals and the criminal class? It’s not inconceivable. Another indicator is that police stops in Chicago have also plummeted.

    In the police world we’d call these facts “clues.” Of course in the academic world I’m “just guessing.” But I’ll have a lot of time to guess before “hard social science” (that’s a joke, by the way) can prove what’s going on.

    But hey, why focus on the negative? Why focus on criminals and dead young black and hispanic men when we can just keep the heat on police? Let’s assume heroic police behavior is criminal. Let’s criminally prosecute innocent cops and drive other cops who defend themselves into hiding. Let’s build a social movement on (what turns out to be) a lie and then pretend it doesn’t matter because, well, it could have been true. And then, when police do less and crime goes up, deny it. And then, when you can’t deny it any longer, say we don’t know why crime is up. Or better yet, blame the police.

    But police-involved shootings are way down!

    Update: here’s the same data but compiled on June 6:

  • The “Gray Effect”

    Stephen Morgan, my grad-school colleague, released his Baltimore report (co-authored with Joel Pally) that looks at crime and arrests pre- and post-riot.

    [The Harvard sociology cohort of 1995 always turned to Morgan as the quant guy when we needed help with stats class, which was often. So rather than blame my own limitations and laziness, I prefer to entirely and falsely blame Steve for the fact that I still can’t really tell you what a poisson regression is and why you would want to use one.]

    I had some input in the drafts. One of my points was that the take-away would be an idiotic headlines like this one: “Study: There Has Been No ‘Ferguson Effect’ in Baltimore.”

    Citilab never talked to Morgan, which seems odd.

    Of course that headline isn’t the point of the study. I think the narrative focus of the study should have been centered around April 26, 2015 (the riot) and not early events half a country away (Ferguson). All policing is local. Buried halfway down that Citilab story is a mention of the “Gray Effect.” It is a better term. Perhaps because of the double meaning of gray, it can be applied elsewhere in a generic sense.

    I’m baffled by many people’s attempt to disaggregate a so-called “Ferguson Effect” from local police issues, since I’ve been arguing this is the same thing. But shorthand terms are only helpful if they have an accepted meaning. And clearly the Ferguson Effect does not. I’m not willing to waste time in a semantic debate or defend a term — the Ferguson Effect — that I never liked. So let’s call it the Gray Effect. My point is that police matter and that society influences policing, sometimes for the good and — as last year’s spike in homicides portends — sometimes for the bad. Call it what you will, the effect is real.

    Better reporting is done by Baynard Woods and NBC. From the latter:

    “I do think we provide some pretty compelling evidence that it is possible for the police to use discretion, to use alternatives to arrest, in a place like Baltimore without influencing the pattern of crime,” Morgan said.

    That is why Morgan says the eight months before Gray’s death could represent a “sweet spot.”

    …

    The next part of Morgan’s analysis, the Gray period, was much less surprising.

    “Everything fell apart,” Morgan said.

    Crimes of all types, violent and non-violent, spiked, for an overall increase of more than 11 percent. [Ed note: In reported crime…. Homicides doubled, and there is good reason to believe more crime was non-reported. And decreasing arrests will also serve to reduce crime stats without a corresponding reduction in actual crime.] The drop in arrests became much more pronounced, from 19 percent to 30 percent, “consistent with the widely discussed conjecture that the Baltimore police pulled back from some routine policing in response to a perceived lack of support from the city’s leadership,” the researchers wrote.

    [Maybe it’s minor, but I’ll take credit for the subtle addition of “lack of support from the city’s leadership,” thank you very much. Correction: Steve, ruining my fun as only a quant guy can, says that phrase was in the earliest drafts and had nothing to do with me. –eye roll– ]

    From Woods in the Guardian:

    “One reasonable interpretation of these entangled effects is that the crime spike in the Gray period could be a Ferguson effect that would have remained dormant had it not been ignited by a localized Gray effect,” the report states. “However, the size and duration of the crime spike is almost certainly attributable to particular features of the unrest.

    …

    The study found a decrease in crime in the period after the new police commissioner, Kevin Davis took office, which they dub the “Davis effect.” Davis replaced then-commissioner Anthony Batts, who was fired just after a Fraternal Order of Police report criticizing his handling of the riot came.

    The whole point of the Gray Effect (née Ferguson Effect) is that it is not necessarily centered around the events of Ferguson. Let’s the just accept that and move on. It is about media focus and changing political pressures of the past few years.

    The substantive issue is that anti-police movements and protests can affect policing and policing impacts criminals and crime. The events around the riots in Baltimore — specifically the failure of political leadership and the politically motivated prosecutions of police officer — were Baltimore’s Ferguson Gray Effect.

    Public events, media reporting, and political leadership all matter to police officers. And when this process is happening in many different cities, a shorthand label can be useful. When the factors combine to change policing in a negative way — when police are less proactive and more young black men are killed as a result — we need to recognize the facts and react accordingly.

  • Why did New Yorkers stop shooting each other?

    In New York City not only has the number of homicides being going down, but the percentage of homicides committed with a gun has been decreasing.

    Put another way, there were about 309 people shot and killed in 2011 in NYC (for UCR reasons we’re talking incidents, so this is a bit of an undercount). In 2013: 188. That’s a huge decrease. (2014 saw 184.)

    If you look at all other city homicides (ie: non-gun), they’re down a little. But the decrease in NYC is all about fewer people shot. Did New Yorkers get together in 2011 and decide to stop shooting each other? I missed that meeting. Was it because of Occupy? Or because Occupy was broken up? Did anti-police protests somehow reduce gun violence? I doubt it. But something happened, and I don’t know what it is.

    Oddly, the NYPD didn’t take credit for this crime drop because it coincided with anti-police protests and the end of stop and frisk. Cops and Kelly and those on the right were certain — hoping even — that crime was going to skyrocket. They’ve been saying that since at least 2012. Well, it’s 2016.

    Here is some UCR homicide data from 2014 (if you hold your breath for 2015, you’ll turn blue and pass out):

    New York City: 56 percent of homicides are by gun, 26 percent by knife (“or cutting instrument”). Nationwide is 68% gun, 13% knife.

    A few other cities:

    Baltimore: 75% gun, 18% knife.

    Chicago: 87% gun, 7%knife.

    Los Angeles: 73% gun, 13% knife.

    Here’s the percentage of NYC homicides that were gun-related at various years (UCR data):

    1990: 74% of homicides by gun

    1997: 61%

    1998: 60%

    1999: 59%

    2000: 66%

    2002: 61%

    2005: 61%

    2009: 63%

    2010: 61%

    2011: 61%

    2012: 57%

    2013: 59%

    2014: 56%

    So maybe that’s not the issue. Honestly? A five-percent decrease since 1997 ain’t such a big deal. But my gut tells me a 5-percent slow but steady drop since 2011 does mean something.

    Of course it *is* related to gun control. But as any 2nd-Amendment-loving Trump-loving patriot will tell you (often in all caps) “CHICAGO HAS GUN CONTROL!!!!” And Chicago, if this is too subtle for you, has a lot of killings.

    So maybe, at least this is what I think, gun control isn’t about gun laws as much as actual prosecution and deterrence. New York is the only city where people believe — mostly correctly I might add — that illegal gun possession will bring you real time.

    What if it were that simple?

  • Remain Calm!

    Apparently there’s still no need to worry.

    Here is what I think matters: 2015 will almost assuredly see (we don’t the numbers for sure yet) a double digit in increase in homicide. See this Washington Post piece for a clue.

    And yet, if you listen to Ames Grawert and James Cullen, there’s no need to worry:

    Rather than stoking unfounded fears of a new crime wave, always just beyond the horizon, we should take this opportunity to ask how we can expand on the public safety gains of the past 25 years.

    …

    While there were 471 more murders in large cities in 2015 than 2014, more than half (260) of that increase occurred in just three cities: Baltimore, Washington and Chicago.

    My favorite ideological statistical shenanigans: if you ignore places where crime is up, crime isn’t up!

    America has not seen a double digit increase in homicide since 1971. (1986 and 1990 came close.) Since 1971 is my entire lifetime. So, yeah, we probably saw the biggest annual increase in murder in my lifetime and perhaps ever. Seems like something to worry about.

    But no. We who care about these dead people are just stoking public fear, as if police have anything to do with confronting murderers, and perhaps even preventing a few shootings.

    In Baltimore, mayoral candidates are talking about how best to reform police. Very little on how to prevent shootings. They should be talking about how to get back to how they were exactly one year ago, before police were seen as the problem and violent crime doubled.

    Just remember, no matter what happens, if it’s not ideologically expedient to worry about rising homicide, just repeat this mantra: Remain Calm. All is well.

    Related, at this is an interesting piece of the jigsaw puzzel. Homicides are down thirty-some percent in NYC this year, which seems to negate last year’s increase in NYC. At least here in New York, the sky is not falling.

    Mac Donald predicted in 2013 that if New York City ended its controversial stop-and-frisk program, crime would skyrocket back to pre-1990 levels.

    Well, stop-and-frisk formally ended in 2014, and the lights still haven’t gone out on Broadway. In fact, as the number of stops by police tapered off, so did the city’s murder rate, hitting a historic low the same year the program ended. Despite a small increase, the murder rate remained low in 2015, while shootings, major crime and arrests all fell in tandem.

    NYC is OK. But elsewhere, I’m not so sure.

    [Thanks to EyeRishPirate for bringing this to my attention.]

  • Swamy Pete says…

    Swamy Pete says…

    Swamy Pete, the gypsy scryer, looks into his crystal ball.

    With eerie music in the background and an echoey voice, Swamie Pete makes a bold prediction:

    In the future, in fact tomorrow at exactly 19:00 hours eastern time, crime will not happen. The crystal ball says that for maybe three hours, somehow people will manage to have fewer problems. The root causes will remain constant, and yet fewer people will dial 911. Yes, I can see it now… for a few hours Sunday night, triggers on guns will be harder to pull and knives will be so dull they will not cut human skin….

    But… at around 10:30pm everything will be back to normal.

    I never liked that Swamie Pete and his voodoo nonsense, even if back in October he was right about the homicide increase of 2015. How did he know that? Witchcraft, I say!

    But by the way, if we accept that blizzards reduce homicide. And the Super Bowl reduces homicide. Why is it so controversial that aggressive police presence focusing on maintaining order in high-crime communities can reduce homicide? I don’t know. I’ll ask Swamie Pete if I ever see him again.

    Update (Feb 10): Surprisingly, call volume was only down a little during the Super Bowl. Not the huge dropoff I expected. Crime data isn’t out yet.

  • Defining the Ferguson Effect

    Denying the Ferguson Effect and any link between policing and crime has become almost a cottage industry in some circles. It’s sort of the liberal equivalent of conservatives denying climate change and, er, on the small chance it is changing, any link between global warming and human activity. Sure, the world may be warmer. But God works in mysterious ways. Same with crime, if you listen to many of the Left.

    Here’s a new study :

    There is no evidence to support a systematic Ferguson Effect on overall, violent, and property crime trends in large U.S. cities.

    OK. But the author do admit:

    The disaggregated analyses revealed that robbery rates, declining before Ferguson, increased in the months after Ferguson. Also, there was much greater variation in crime trends in the post-Ferguson era, and select cities did experience increases in homicide.

    OK…. So doesn’t that mean there is a Ferguson Effect? Apparently not:

    Overall, any Ferguson Effect is constrained largely to cities with historically high levels of violence, a large composition of black residents, and socioeconomic disadvantages.

    “Constrained to”? Isn’t “constrained to” synonymous with “present in”? Aren’t cities with “historically high levels of violence, a large composition of black residents, and socioeconomic disadvantage” exactly where you’d expect to find a Ferguson Effect!? I mean, I wouldn’t expect to find a Ferguson Effect in Winnetka, for crying out loud! (Winnetka, Illinois: median income $211,000; 0.3 percent black.)

    Liberals, myself excluded, have long tried to discount the efficacy of policing vis-à-vis crime prevention. And now academics seem to want to deny any “Ferguson Effect” because… I don’t know. Just guessing, but maybe it goes against a Progressive narrative that police are racist enforcers of bourgeois heteronormative values?

    There’s no reason the Ferguson Effect needs to be universal or even linked specifically to one event in August, 2014. The question shouldn’t be if all cities haven’t seen an increase in all crime but rather why why some cities — most cities, in fact — have.

    What if, hypothetically to be sure, a laser-like focus on police-violence reduced police-involved killings but simultaneously allowed hundreds and even thousands of more murders to happen? If that were true, then what?

    What if “hands up don’t shoot” were built on a false narrative? What then? What if, just for the sake of debate, we assumed that most police-involved killings were actually justified (since most are) and even life saving? What if the goal of eliminating police-involved killings was, in part, counterproductive? Then what?

    Different cities have had different “Ferguson Moments.” It wasn’t like something magically changed everywhere when Michael Brown was (justifiable) killed. All policing is local.

    In New York City the Ferguson moment may have been protests after the death of Eric Garner. Cops were verbally attacked, physically attacked, and two were killed and another bludgeoned with a hatchet. If you think none of that matters… well then you haven’t talked to any New York City cop.

    In Baltimore, just thinking out loud here, perhaps it was the protests and riots after the death of Freddie Gray. And the misguided criminal prosecution of innocent cops. In Cleveland, not that I know much about Cleveland, I would assume policing changed related to the killing of Tamir Rice. In Nashville? Beats me. But maybe it was giving hot chocolate and coffee to protesters. I applauded that move. Liberals like me love that shit. But I bet it pissed off a lot of the rank-and-file.

    So no, it’s not Ferguson per se. Call it whatever you effing want. (I’ve never been a fan of the actual term “Ferguson Effect.”) I’m talking about the real-world effect of an anti-police narrative, the fear cops have of getting in trouble for doing their job, and perhaps the first-hand experience of policing anti-police protests.

    Meanwhile, in Chicago:

    Cops say they have avoided making many of the stops they would have routinely done last year. They fear getting in trouble for stops later deemed to be illegal and say the new cards take too much time to complete.

    Their reluctance to make stops was borne out by a police statistic released Sunday: Officers completed 79 percent fewer contact cards in January 2016 than over the same period last year.

    January 2016 was the deadliest first month of the year since 2001

    Just coincidence, of course. There’s no way to prove any of this. But I sure haven’t heard any good alternative explanation. (At some point, I am partial to Occam’s Razor.)

    The ACLU rejects any correlation between declining street stops and rising violence…. Other cities have scaled back their street stops without an explosion of shootings. The reduction of “invasive” street stops is actually a good thing.

    Really? Well, yes, the NYPD scaled back its stops and crime did not increase. (Not only did crime not increase, between 2011 and 2013 homicides in New York City plummeted 35 percent!)But that doesn’t mean that all police stops are bad and to be prevented.

    The ACLU released a report in March that found blacks accounted for 72 percent of [Chicago] stops between May and August of 2014, but just 32 percent of the city’s population.

    Again?! Once again we have a denominator problem. Eighty percent of Chicago homicide victims are black. And presumably murderers, too, since most homicides are intra-racial. Should only 32 percent of those arrested for homicide be black? I don’t think so. Are only 32 percent of public drug dealers black? No. So why would one expect only 32 percent of those stopped by police to be black?

    Look, cops aren’t always right. And cops will always complain. But if homicide is going up and cops are saying, “Uh, here’s the problem: I can’t do my job. And this is why….” Perhaps we should listen. What worries me is the goal to eliminate virtually all discretionary police activity couched in the language of social and racial justice. But if you want police to do less, there’s no better way than mandating a two-page form for every stop.

    We will see what happens. But crime already is up in many cities. And that — not reducing the number of police stops — should be our first concern.

    [see also this]

  • 2015 homicide increase

    I’d like to double down on the 2015 homicide increase. I’ve made a habit of offering a $100 bet to anybody says “we don’t know if homicides are up.” What’s odd is that nobody has taken my bet. Some insist that crime can’t really be up till the data is formally compiled and tell us it is. That’s an odd form of statistical oblivion. Others say that though homicide may be up, crime isn’t. That’s hard to believe. Still others think it’s not a big deal, any one-year increase. I beg to differ.

    I cannot be sure of the motives of the crime-increase deniers, but I suspect it gets to the ideology of “root causes” and the anti-police narrative built with great sweat, care, and tears over the past two years (a narrative built partly on lies). (Yesterday, Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell rather boldly wrote: “Until young activists put the same level of energy into fighting street violence as they put into fighting police violence, little will change.”

    The reason I’m doubling down is that a reporter showed me some data he compiled. I’m not going to get into the details and steal his thunder. Yeah murders are up in cities. But we knew that. We just don’t know how much and what it means. Can we assume a nationwide trend based on just the biggest cities. Well, statistically and historically, yes, we can. (Looking at homicides in these cities versus the rest of the nation over many years, I get an r of .935 with sig < .001.) As to absolute numbers, that's still anybody's guess. In 2014 there were 13,472 murders. In 2015 I think we'll see around 15,000 homicides. And that's if we're lucky.

  • There is absolutely NO NEED TO PANIC!

    There is absolutely NO NEED TO PANIC!

    The latest Brennan Center report projects the 30 largest cities will see a 14.6 percent increase in homicide this year.

    You know the last time the nation saw a 15 percent annual increase in the homicide rate?

    Never.

    Remain Calm. All is well.

    But don’t worry, they say in their best “you are getting sleepy” voice. There’s no reason to concerned:

    However, in absolute terms, murder rates are so low that a small numerical increase leads to a large percentage change. Even with the 2015 increase, murder rates are roughly the same as they were in 2012 — in fact, they are slightly lower. Since murder rates vary widely from year to year, one year’s increase is not evidence of a coming wave of violent crime.

    A handful of cities have seen sharp rises in murder rates. Just two cities, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., account for almost 50 percent of the national increase in murders.

    These serious increases seem to be localized, rather than part of a national pandemic, suggesting community conditions are a major factor. The preliminary report examined five cities with particularly high murder rates… and found these cities also had significantly lower incomes, higher poverty rates, higher unemployment, and falling populations than the national average.

    Hmmmm, Statistical aberration are always a possibility and poverty and falling population makes me drowzzzzzzzzzzzy.

    But when I snap out of it, I’m still concerned. Why do so many seem to be in denial about such a large increase in murder.

    Can’t we be politically correct and also ask what the heck is going on? When FBI director Comey said he was concerned, he received loud chiding from the political left and even a presidential rebuke.

    If you think it doesn’t matter, please let me know exactly what conditions need to be met, specifically how many more people have to die, before we are allowed to be concerned and move on from silly semantic debates. Shouldn’t we better focus our efforts and, if you’re so inclined, even your outrage?

    No, don’t panic. But frankly, I think it’s OK to be a little concerned.

    I have an idea! Instead of denying a dangerous increase in lethal crime, why don’t we put on our thinking caps and ask what has changed this year with regards to policing and violent crime. But before you answer take a deep breath and then come back after a good night’s sleep!

    sources include:

    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-13

    (Correction: Originally I missed the the fact the Brennan Report was only talking about the rate in the 30 largest cities. This post has been changed to include that rather important detail.)

    [Posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

    The latest Brennan Center report projects the 30 largest cities will see a 14.6 percent increase in homicide this year.You know the last time the nation saw a 15 percent annual increase in the homicide rate?

    Never.

    Remain Calm. All is well.

    But don’t worry, they say in their best “you are getting sleepy” voice. There’s no reason to concerned:

    However, in absolute terms, murder rates are so low that a small numerical increase leads to a large percentage change. Even with the 2015 increase, murder rates are roughly the same as they were in 2012 — in fact, they are slightly lower. Since murder rates vary widely from year to year, one year’s increase is not evidence of a coming wave of violent crime.

    A handful of cities have seen sharp rises in murder rates. Just two cities, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., account for almost 50 percent of the national increase in murders.

    These serious increases seem to be localized, rather than part of a national pandemic, suggesting community conditions are a major factor. The preliminary report examined five cities with particularly high murder rates… and found these cities also had significantly lower incomes, higher poverty rates, higher unemployment, and falling populations than the national average.

    Hmmmm, Statistical aberration are always a possibility and poverty and falling population makes me drowzzzzzzzzzzzy.

    But when I snap out of it, I’m still concerned. Why do so many seem to be in denial about such a large increase in murder.

    Can’t we be politically correct and also ask what the heck is going on? When FBI director Comey said he was concerned, he received loud chiding from the political left and even a presidential rebuke.

    If you think it doesn’t matter, please let me know exactly what conditions need to be met, specifically how many more people have to die, before we are allowed to be concerned and move on from silly semantic debates. Shouldn’t we better focus our efforts and, if you’re so inclined, even your outrage?

    No, don’t panic. But frankly, I think it’s OK to be a little concerned.

    I have an idea! Instead of denying a dangerous increase in lethal crime, why don’t we put on our thinking caps and ask what has changed this year with regards to policing and violent crime. But before you answer take a deep breath and then come back after a good night’s sleep!

    sources include:

    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-13

    (Correction: Originally I missed the the fact the Brennan Report was only talking about the rate in the 30 largest cities. This post has been changed to include that rather important detail.)

    [Posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

  • Did anybody say “crime wave!”?

    No. (Update: Actually, turns out a more people did than I thought. See the comments.)

    But lot’s of people are refuting the claim, nevertheless.

    Fivethirtyeight.com says:

    Scare Headlines Exaggerated The U.S. Crime Wave: If you’ve read reports of a U.S. crime wave this year and wondered how many cities it was really affecting, you’re not alone.

    Which headlines are these?

    In the Washington Post Radley Balko says:

    At various times over the past 12 months, we heard dire predictions of a “nationwide crime wave”

    Have we?

    According to Law Enforcement Leaders: “Some cities have seen a rise in murder, but these are isolated incidents — not a new crime wave — which local leaders are taking steps to address.” Glad we set the record straight.

    Mother Jones reassures us: “No ‘Crime Wave’”. They link to much cited Brennan Center report(much cited among lefties trying to say “everything is fine!” with regards to crime):

    One year’s increase does not necessarily portend a coming wave of violent crime.

    Indeed.

    Ultimately, all the links about “crime wave” seem to go back to this one friggin’ May headline for Heather Mac Donald piece in the Wall Street Journal. One. And Mac Donald never even said there was a “crime wave.” She never uses the phrase. It’s only in the headline.

    [Headlines are weird things. They do become how a story is known. But do not judge an article (or the author) by a headline. Authors do not write the headlines; headline editors write headlines. Authors have no say in them. And sometimes — and I speak from experience — the headline does not begin to capture the point of your piece. Other times they get it right.]

    This all came to mind because I was tweeted with my man, Andrew Papachristos, and the subject of “moral panic” came up with regards to the “crime wave”:

    Who is all this “they” hyping a “moral panic,” I wondered.

    So I googled “‘crime wave’ 2015” and found only people saying, “don’t believe the hype about the crime wave!” It’s a classic straw man argument, making up an false position in order to refute it.

    Best I can tell, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Marshall Project, the Brennan Center, Mother Jones, NPR, even Fox News… they’ve all smugly refuted the “crime wave” claimed by nobody.

    But in the meantime, let us ask why is crime sharply up in some cities and murders roughly 10 percent higher than 2014. That seems to be the touchy subject many are trying to avoid. Why? Some ideas in my previous post.

  • “The enduring commitment of antipolice progressives to the ‘root causes’ theory of crime”

    This op-ed by Heather Mac Donald is the one I wanted to write. But I didn’t. And she did.

    The point, one could say rather simply, is that police matter as a force for crime prevention. That simple concept is why I decided to study policing and then became a cop.

    In the mid 1990s I got into this gig because an entire academic field said that the crime drop couldn’t happen. Crime wouldn’t go down until we improved “root causes” and fixed a racist society. By the time I entered graduate school in 1995, it was clear that crime was going down. Something was up. And it wasn’t employment and equal opportunity.

    This link to Mac Donald’s op-ed is behind the Wall Street Journal paywall. To read it all, try googling the headline “Trying to Hide the Rise of Violent Crime” and click through. Excerpts:

    An 11% one-year increase in any crime category is massive; an equivalent decrease in homicides would be greeted with high-fives by politicians and police chiefs. Yet the media have tried to repackage that 11% homicide increase as trivial.

    Several strategies are employed to play down the jump in homicides. The simplest is to hide the actual figure. An Atlantic magazine article in November, “Debunking the Ferguson Effect,” reports: “Based on their data, the Brennan Center projects that homicides will rise slightly overall from 2014 to 2015.”

    …

    A second strategy for brushing off the homicide surge is to contextualize it over a long period. Because homicides haven’t returned to their appalling early 1990s or early 2000s levels, the current crime increase is insignificant.

    …

    The most desperate tactic for discounting the homicide increase is to disaggregate the average. … The “numbers make clear that violent crime is up in some major U.S. cities and down in others.”

    If there weren’t variation across the members of a set, no average would be needed. [Zing! Nice one. I always appreciate a snarky line about stats.]

    …

    To the Brennan Center and its cheerleaders, the nation’s law-enforcement officials are in the grip of a delusion that prevents them from seeing the halcyon crime picture before their eyes.

    …

    FBI Director James Comey noted “a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year,” and called it “deeply disturbing.”

    …

    Obama … accused Mr. Comey of “cherry-picking data” and ignoring “the facts” on crime in pursuit of a “political agenda.”

    …

    Critics of the Ferguson-effect analysis ignore or deny the animosity that the police now face in urban areas.

    …

    The St. Louis area includes Ferguson…. The Justice Department later determined that the officer’s use of force was justified, but the damage to the social fabric had already been done…. The media and many politicians decry as racist law-enforcement tools like pedestrian stops and broken-windows policing—the proven method of stopping major crimes by going after minor ones.

    Consider that background. Here’s the point I’ve been trying to make:

    The puzzle is why these progressives are so intent on denying that such depolicing is occurring and that it is affecting public safety.

    The answer lies in the enduring commitment of antipolice progressives to the “root causes” theory of crime. The Brennan Center study closes by hypothesizing that lower incomes, higher poverty rates, falling populations and high unemployment are driving the rising murder rates…. But those aspects of urban life haven’t dramatically worsened over the past year and a half.

    …

    To acknowledge the Ferguson effect would be tantamount to acknowledging that police matter, especially when the family and other informal social controls break down.

    Many of those who are driving the “there is no Ferguson effect” bandwagon still believe that police are largely irrelevant to crime prevention and, rather than having anything to do with crime prevention, serve primarily as agents of racial oppression. That sentiment lies just under the surface of anti-police protests.

    It’s not just about “Justice For [fill in the blank of latest person shot by cops].” It’s about an ideology that still won’t accept that aggressive order-maintenance policing did any good. The “root cause” brigade never accepted that crime could decrease independent of structural changes. That’s what I mean when I talk about an ideological opposition to Broken Windows.

    So the next time you hear somebody say “crime isn’t up” or “there is no Ferguson effect” or “Michael Brown had his hands up” consider that they’re not just mistaken about one detail, however important. Instead, consider that they have a fundamentally different ideological view of who police are and what they can do.