One solution that would reduce many problems is for the Federal government to accept all who ask for a job with a National Service Corps. They would get starting salaries of some 80% of the lowest US Army salary. They would do locally decided upon jobs, including possible part time payment for additional study.
There is a lot of talk about UBI (universal basic income), which is a mistake. Because giving people cash to do nothing makes it less likely, for many people, to do more. But "getting a job" is not always so easy. The gov't should make it easy, and tell people what work to do.
This is also the main way for folks to earn <b>Self-Respect </b>. Working for and achieving something, so they gain value in their own eyes.
Lots of loose echo-chambery talk here. If one subscribes to Andrew Sullivan's passion for rational response to risk, it behooves one to not just write 'crime is up 200% in X!', but to provide the baseline number. After all, $3 is a 200% increase over $1. It doesn't mean you got rich. Moreover, the claim that "the sense of unease in NYC, for example, is palpable if you talk to everyday New Yorkers" is an anecdote, not a fact. I talk to everyday New Yorkers every day, and *my* anecdote is: there is no palpable fear of crime particularly -- there's still the low-level anxiety that has come with Covid Time. New York is a big , and overall still quite historically safe, City. It would take good polling and surveying of New Yorkers to document widespread 'palpable fear', and one also has to account for the effect of the 'if it bleeds, it leads' ethos of the tabloids and local news.
Reporting from Saint Louis here. The rise in crime here is palatable and undeniable. I’m a life long city dweller and while my family and I have accepted a certain risk of city life (I’ve been jumped, friends businesses shot at with semi-automatic weapons, family members shot at, car theft) these used to be rare. But in recent years they are not. In just the first half of this year, my parents experienced 4 such incidents including a friend who was tied up by an armed home invader and robbed.
While I support the idea of releasing non-violent criminals serving disproportionately long sentences, I also know the many violent offenders are never charged with those crimes because they are difficult to prosecute. Instead they prosecute on drug offenses; it’s easier to prove. I would love to see an analysis of this if anyone knows of one.
There is also a question of reporting crime. I have gotten the answering machine when calling 911. I have other friends who waited 3 hours for the police to show up. Others who were told an officer cannot come to a car jacking and they needed to make their report over the phone. So I’m asking myself, how many crimes are going unreported?
I’m glad she talked about the real choices young black men face, given society has failed them. But I’m increasingly frustrated that no one is willing to touch the roots of that failure or even considers there might be a limit to what government actually has the power to do about it. It’s all systemic racism all the time.
The major difference between this crime spike and the one in the 1960s and 70s is that people know this one didn't have to happen. In the 60s and 70s people thought crime was a force of nature that was just emerging from the social tumult.
The reforms starting with Giuliani in NY in the 90s, and spreading across the country proved this wasn't true. Crime could be controlled in the Gov't acted properly, and people's lives (especially poor people's) could be made dramatically better by drastically lowering crime.
This current spike in crime was chosen. The political elites of most of our large cities chose to end the police and criminal justice practices that brought crime under control. That's why people are pissed. Our government chose to allow a crime wave,
Two great letters. I hope they represent a thus-far silent majority that is preparing to speak up. Loudly. Here are a couple of highlights that jumped out at me.
"I find the extant crime statistics to be misleading, as they conflate what I think are three distinct types of violence with differently-weighted causes and possible interventions: domestic/intimate-partner, transactional/acquaintance, and stranger. Public fear in a city like New York is about stranger violence; people know how to avoid the other forms by taking adequate precautions."
Exactly! Asians in San Francisco are being attacked and robbed by complete strangers not only on downtown streets but while working in their own yards and garages. Even inside their homes.
They feel safe nowhere.
"To many progressives, the state does the victim a favor by taking account of his grievance, for they perceive the purpose of the state to be a well-ordered society that grants rights to the individual. The libertarian individualist, on the other hand, believes that we grant (outsource, really) a legal monopoly on force/violence to the state (except in the case of self-defense) with the expectation that the state acts in a just and timely manner."
Exactly, again! That's not a way I would normally think about it, but the e-mail writer is right on target. I have definitely been feeling frustration that we as a society have decided on laws and funded the enforcement of those laws, and yet the enforcement seems to be overridden by the media political propaganda. We tell the state what we want and think is best, not the other way around.
Glenn published some of the responses to this discussion that he found notable; The first responder wrote:
"The sense of unease in NYC, for example, is palpable if you talk to everyday New Yorkers. Middle-aged and older New Yorkers have gotten accustomed to “safe NYC” and don't want to go back to the way things were before Giuliani began to get crime under control and Bloomberg finished the job. New Yorkers in their 20s and younger have never known anything other than “safe NYC. Eric Adams' candidacy resonated with New Yorkers of all stripes because he was the most credible candidate when it came to addressing concerns about the violent crime spike"
BUT DO NOTE: Yes, the sense of unease is VERY palpable. However, white Manhattanites did not vote for Eric Addams in the primary. So they can't be as afraid as this states. That said, I am was an Upper West Side NYers of 35 years but have left for Connecticut primarily because I am alarmed by the violence. Just recently, a 26-year old black man was arrested for mowing down a 65-year-old white actress with his motorized scooter causing her death; He never stopped to help her, he left the crime scene and was apprehended weeks later. Just before COVID struck, a group of young black girls were marauding West End Avenue, shaking down white elderly people. They would surround the victim and then attack.
Even though, this has been happening with increasing frequency under DeBlasio - whites on the Upper East and West sides did not put their support behind Adams, the candidate who promised to be tough on crime. White liberals supported the white candidate that offered nothing in the way of protection, whereas black and Latino communities are looking for more safety. It's nuts out there.
As a 74-year-old lifelong New Yorker, I once believed, as does the writer of the second letter, that crime is a "symptom of deeper problems." I remember being an undergraduate in Sociology 101 when a man was shot in the head on the subway and then-mayor Robert Wagner responded by ordering all police to be in uniform traveling to and from their posts. He essentially "flooded" the subways with police. I remember that my instructor at the time remarked that Wagner's response was an understandable political and practical one but presumably did not get to the "root" of the problem.
I have long ago stopped believing in "roots" and believe that the cause of crime is essentially criminality. This is less of a tautology than it might at first seem. Criminal behavior for most is a choice and most people make a conscious choice not to use criminal means. And this applies to people of all classes, races, and social backgrounds. Criminal behavior involves making choices as to means of obtaining societally valued objects or symbols and people are generally free to make other choices unless they have guns to their heads in the choice process.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that the proper response to violent crime is some sort of repression. I have lived through crime-filled and relatively crime-free periods in New York City and am clear as to what I prefer.
One solution that would reduce many problems is for the Federal government to accept all who ask for a job with a National Service Corps. They would get starting salaries of some 80% of the lowest US Army salary. They would do locally decided upon jobs, including possible part time payment for additional study.
There is a lot of talk about UBI (universal basic income), which is a mistake. Because giving people cash to do nothing makes it less likely, for many people, to do more. But "getting a job" is not always so easy. The gov't should make it easy, and tell people what work to do.
This is also the main way for folks to earn <b>Self-Respect </b>. Working for and achieving something, so they gain value in their own eyes.
Lots of loose echo-chambery talk here. If one subscribes to Andrew Sullivan's passion for rational response to risk, it behooves one to not just write 'crime is up 200% in X!', but to provide the baseline number. After all, $3 is a 200% increase over $1. It doesn't mean you got rich. Moreover, the claim that "the sense of unease in NYC, for example, is palpable if you talk to everyday New Yorkers" is an anecdote, not a fact. I talk to everyday New Yorkers every day, and *my* anecdote is: there is no palpable fear of crime particularly -- there's still the low-level anxiety that has come with Covid Time. New York is a big , and overall still quite historically safe, City. It would take good polling and surveying of New Yorkers to document widespread 'palpable fear', and one also has to account for the effect of the 'if it bleeds, it leads' ethos of the tabloids and local news.
Reporting from Saint Louis here. The rise in crime here is palatable and undeniable. I’m a life long city dweller and while my family and I have accepted a certain risk of city life (I’ve been jumped, friends businesses shot at with semi-automatic weapons, family members shot at, car theft) these used to be rare. But in recent years they are not. In just the first half of this year, my parents experienced 4 such incidents including a friend who was tied up by an armed home invader and robbed.
While I support the idea of releasing non-violent criminals serving disproportionately long sentences, I also know the many violent offenders are never charged with those crimes because they are difficult to prosecute. Instead they prosecute on drug offenses; it’s easier to prove. I would love to see an analysis of this if anyone knows of one.
There is also a question of reporting crime. I have gotten the answering machine when calling 911. I have other friends who waited 3 hours for the police to show up. Others who were told an officer cannot come to a car jacking and they needed to make their report over the phone. So I’m asking myself, how many crimes are going unreported?
I’m glad she talked about the real choices young black men face, given society has failed them. But I’m increasingly frustrated that no one is willing to touch the roots of that failure or even considers there might be a limit to what government actually has the power to do about it. It’s all systemic racism all the time.
The major difference between this crime spike and the one in the 1960s and 70s is that people know this one didn't have to happen. In the 60s and 70s people thought crime was a force of nature that was just emerging from the social tumult.
The reforms starting with Giuliani in NY in the 90s, and spreading across the country proved this wasn't true. Crime could be controlled in the Gov't acted properly, and people's lives (especially poor people's) could be made dramatically better by drastically lowering crime.
This current spike in crime was chosen. The political elites of most of our large cities chose to end the police and criminal justice practices that brought crime under control. That's why people are pissed. Our government chose to allow a crime wave,
Two great letters. I hope they represent a thus-far silent majority that is preparing to speak up. Loudly. Here are a couple of highlights that jumped out at me.
"I find the extant crime statistics to be misleading, as they conflate what I think are three distinct types of violence with differently-weighted causes and possible interventions: domestic/intimate-partner, transactional/acquaintance, and stranger. Public fear in a city like New York is about stranger violence; people know how to avoid the other forms by taking adequate precautions."
Exactly! Asians in San Francisco are being attacked and robbed by complete strangers not only on downtown streets but while working in their own yards and garages. Even inside their homes.
They feel safe nowhere.
"To many progressives, the state does the victim a favor by taking account of his grievance, for they perceive the purpose of the state to be a well-ordered society that grants rights to the individual. The libertarian individualist, on the other hand, believes that we grant (outsource, really) a legal monopoly on force/violence to the state (except in the case of self-defense) with the expectation that the state acts in a just and timely manner."
Exactly, again! That's not a way I would normally think about it, but the e-mail writer is right on target. I have definitely been feeling frustration that we as a society have decided on laws and funded the enforcement of those laws, and yet the enforcement seems to be overridden by the media political propaganda. We tell the state what we want and think is best, not the other way around.
Glenn published some of the responses to this discussion that he found notable; The first responder wrote:
"The sense of unease in NYC, for example, is palpable if you talk to everyday New Yorkers. Middle-aged and older New Yorkers have gotten accustomed to “safe NYC” and don't want to go back to the way things were before Giuliani began to get crime under control and Bloomberg finished the job. New Yorkers in their 20s and younger have never known anything other than “safe NYC. Eric Adams' candidacy resonated with New Yorkers of all stripes because he was the most credible candidate when it came to addressing concerns about the violent crime spike"
BUT DO NOTE: Yes, the sense of unease is VERY palpable. However, white Manhattanites did not vote for Eric Addams in the primary. So they can't be as afraid as this states. That said, I am was an Upper West Side NYers of 35 years but have left for Connecticut primarily because I am alarmed by the violence. Just recently, a 26-year old black man was arrested for mowing down a 65-year-old white actress with his motorized scooter causing her death; He never stopped to help her, he left the crime scene and was apprehended weeks later. Just before COVID struck, a group of young black girls were marauding West End Avenue, shaking down white elderly people. They would surround the victim and then attack.
Even though, this has been happening with increasing frequency under DeBlasio - whites on the Upper East and West sides did not put their support behind Adams, the candidate who promised to be tough on crime. White liberals supported the white candidate that offered nothing in the way of protection, whereas black and Latino communities are looking for more safety. It's nuts out there.
As a 74-year-old lifelong New Yorker, I once believed, as does the writer of the second letter, that crime is a "symptom of deeper problems." I remember being an undergraduate in Sociology 101 when a man was shot in the head on the subway and then-mayor Robert Wagner responded by ordering all police to be in uniform traveling to and from their posts. He essentially "flooded" the subways with police. I remember that my instructor at the time remarked that Wagner's response was an understandable political and practical one but presumably did not get to the "root" of the problem.
I have long ago stopped believing in "roots" and believe that the cause of crime is essentially criminality. This is less of a tautology than it might at first seem. Criminal behavior for most is a choice and most people make a conscious choice not to use criminal means. And this applies to people of all classes, races, and social backgrounds. Criminal behavior involves making choices as to means of obtaining societally valued objects or symbols and people are generally free to make other choices unless they have guns to their heads in the choice process.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that the proper response to violent crime is some sort of repression. I have lived through crime-filled and relatively crime-free periods in New York City and am clear as to what I prefer.
FYI, I didn't receive an email notification of this post.