"Why it matters: Violent crime arrests have dropped 39% in 2021 compared to 2019, which means violent crimes are going up but arrests are going down. Why?
What they're saying: "Arrests are down likely for a variety of reasons, some related to the pandemic and public health protocols, as well as the decrease in community trust in police as well as a general pulling back of proactive policing," Roseanna Ander, executive director of the UChicago Crime Lab, tells Axios. "
In terms of "Defund the Police", it was a euphemism for demoralize/abolish police and policing. And yes, some people clearly foresaw what the effects of that would be, especially that the heaviest price would likely be paid by poor people.
But there was also suspicious that if the rich felt threatened, they would respond by going Rio de Janeiro on us. Well, that moment has come in the ritzy parts of Los Angeles:
"High-Profile L.A. Crimes Spark Rush for Bullet-Proof Cars, Rolex Replicas and Safe Rooms......Security agencies say wealthy clients are increasing protective measures: "They want someone who knows how to get them out of any situation."
Rav, thank you for your writings and I hope that Dr. Loury will soon invite you to write more. You and Dr. Loury have been very kind in describing Mr. Robinson's contribution which at least one commenter had characterized as essentially trolling.
And speaking of things Philadelphia, this happened a few hours ago there (BTW, Mr. Robinson may say that calling attention to this is "cherry picking"):
"US Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon Carjacked At Gunpoint In FDR Park, Vehicle Recovered In Delaware, Police Say"
"A Larry Krasner Christmas: Happy holidays from Philadelphia’s criminals to a wedding party and even a U.S. Congresswoman." By The Editorial Board | Dec. 22, 2021
"On the unseasonably warm night of Dec. 10, a groom stepped outside of his wedding reception for a breath of fresh air. Two men saw him. One drew a handgun, and they demanded the groom’s Rolex watch. The robbery occurred downtown a short stroll away from the Liberty Bell. ...
"Philadelphia has seen a record 544 homicides so far this year, up from 347 in the entirety of 2019. Police have recorded some 1,785 nonfatal shootings this year. More than 84% of the victims of the gun violence in 2021 were black, according to the Philadelphia Office of the Controller.
"Police data also shows some 2,283 gun robberies as of Dec. 19, a 28.6% increase over the same period last year. Retail theft is up more than 20% this year, and auto theft more than 15%, ...
"Even as we were writing this, a report came over the wire that U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon was carjacked and robbed at gunpoint on Wednesday afternoon shortly after finishing a meeting at FDR Park in Philly. Ms. Scanlon was walking back to her car when she was approached by two armed men who demanded her car keys and personal belongings, according to a spokeswoman. She handed over her belongings, including personal and government cell phones—and the two men drove away in her 2017 Acura MDX."
Philadelphia has a bad attitude. The Philadelphia School District now allows students to become non-binary. (1) The goal is to make children feel safe. On November 30 2021 a "13-year-old shot after argument over scooter, witnesses say Police said Jefferson was shot 18 times throughout his body. The boy died at a local hospital a short time later. More than 500 homicides had been recorded in the city as of Monday, the highest number since at least 1990."(2)
Shot 18 times? That shows a lot of intentionality, anger, and hate. What Philadelphia needs is a not non-binary environment. It needs a way to identify kids that are at risk. I disagree with the Social Justice initiatives, but agree with PANORAMA SURVEYS in those cities to identify at risk kids and remove them from the environment they are in.
"It’s time that the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it to come to an end,” Breed said. “And it comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement … and less tolerant of all the bullsh*t that has destroyed our city.”
Chesa Boudin, SF's Larry Krasner, was not pleased.
The truly sad part is there was an opportunity to improve policing methods and very likely reduce crime, too. Instead, defund sucked the air out. The working class and poor pay the worst price.
"In my view, the key determinant behind Philadelphia's violence epidemic is de-policing in the wake of cascading anti-police protests in 2020". I suspect that Rav Arora is all or mostly correct, but my suspicion and Rav's view are not sufficient to draw conclusions. So I must agree with Nathan that the best way to judge the validity of Rav's supposition is to not only look at Philadelphia and specific things that happened there but to also look at other cities where the socio-economic conditions are similar but where the prosecutorial approach is different and to then compare the same crime statistics. In other words are all large cities seeing the same spikes in the same types of crime or is there something unique happening in The City of Brotherly Love?
Yes, "crime spike in US". But it does not immediately follow that the crime spike in the US is because of lax policies. That may very well be the case, or at the very least be a large factor. My point is that Rav offered no data that shows that lax policies are actually the determinative factor. Yes, it makes sense. But "makes sense" is not data or proof, whether in Philly or in the entire US. If someone wants to say that Philly's problem is due to lax policies, then it would be more persuasive show that a different city (or many cities) with similar societal conditions but more strict policing and prosecutions did not see the same problems. That's the smoking gun, as it were. I read and listen to Glenn a lot, and he rightly criticizes the woke mob for making assertions about things like "the epidemic of police killing of minorities" which are not supported by facts. In this case, Glenn seems supportive of Rav's assertion that Philly's crime wave is in no small part due to Krasner's policies and accepts that assertion without any hard data. What I'm saying is I'd really like to see some data that supports a causal link. It would make the assertion much more persuasive.
ICBW (I Could Be Wrong). When You think of crime and "dependent variables," or whatever they're called...
In the society WE live in, it would be difficult IMHO to make up perfect control subjects. Too MANY variables. You wanna isolate a few? You not looking at crime realistically, IMV.
In a totally PLANNED society, You'd have better luck. No luck to the people IN such-a country, so there is that.
Scott Adams spoke about making your own luck, He said he had the intention co becoming a cartoonist and a special on becoming a cartoonist just popped up o PBS. Scott believes he is in a simulation.
I am searching identity and have been listening to Joseph Rodriguez and Identity, consciousness, imagined identity, subconsciousness and God. His belief is creating abundant space thinking in subconscious mind goes to super conscious and you create your world from the subconscious mind.
I almost NEVER watch YouTube. Videos just so much slower than reading. I made an exception.
Far-reaching topic. M ROdriguez mentions Gandhi. Subconscious? Superconscious? Gandhi (close)... "Happiness is when what You think, say and do are the same thing." TOUGH discipline.
AFAIK, "they" know next to nothing about the subconscious. But believe Earl Nightengale had the right of it, Way back when. Don't recall much but the five words: "You are what You think."
Problem *I* with the Universal Mind (forget if that's what he called it)...
...Weeeel, not saying there's NO Truth to it. But saying not ALL the Truth. Idea that we'll have a frictionless society if everybody pursued their "destiny" shown them by their intuitions? Not real world we live in.
And, for ME only, I find people who think they have a destiny and access to Superconscious and feel the divine...
...Hard-ta say, EXACTLY. I guess problem I have is that these almost without exception believe they're BETTER than those who don't.
Given the scope of what Rav has written, I think Nathan has gone well beyond "a serious and substantive critique". Rav isn't writing a PhD thesis here. He's writing a relatively short substack post that Glenn has supportively published. This is the kind of article that could appear in City Journal, the NY Post, the WSJ..................or The NY Times if one of their editors screw up and publish something non-lefty.
You know, when you’re a poet with an associates degree from a community college, people are just impressed that you can sound good. Imagine me saying I’m a serious poet who has worked closely with top tier talents in literacy. I went to school and had some conversations, nothing to brag about, that’s what school is for. Make the point. Make it in plain English. Tell an anecdote to make it relatable. Let the point be a shovel, pulling out credentials is digging with the hands. Pulling out an anecdote is asking a friend for help digging.
Jack Posobiek had documented three black girls beating an Asian girl and several Philly teens robbing a group of people at gun point. In the Strawberry Mansion section a film maker documenting gun violence was killed.
In dangerous cities, I'm surprised, Philadelphia this year wasn't op 100, Chicago made #98, New York and LA, Seattle were not there also. Atifastan (Portland) was #9 but it looks like Missouri had the most violent cities. St Louis, Kansas City and others. Data I had been reading was wrong about Philadelphia. Philadelphia just had a high percentage of change in crime this year
Yeah I struggle with that. When Loury pulls out charts and starts talking economics, I don’t know what he’s talking about, and I’m taking it on faith he knows what he’s talking about. That’s a problem. It could apply to any economist.
Sorry but there are many stories like this. Rape on the Philadelphia Subway, The three black girls beating the Asian girl on the subway. This was just one of many. Not a poet like you or as polished. Maybe you could make this poem work.
I subscribed to you to read your writing. I am trying to figure out how to pay so I can get in. Wuthering Heights Going to Dogs was well written. I am sarcastic and not eloquent at writing.
That’s very kind of you. Thank you! I was covering the writing of Woke Racism as it was being written. I told Professor Loury I think I’m Simone, the student he refers to, he never told I was wrong. I’ve been here a while.
I subscribed to your page but can't activate the ability to pay. I would like to read your writing. I was a psych registered nurse and have seen murderers because of mental illness at the state hospital. I want to see what kind of psychological manifestations your people have.
The response is confusing and imprecise. It furthers my conviction that the author is selecting data to tell a story consistent with conservative political ideology rather than trying to conduct an open-minded inquiry into the incredibly complicated questions about what actually causes crime.
I am told that I have misconstrued the argument because Arora "never claimed that the sole or even predominant cause of Philadelphia's record-breaking homicide wave is the D.A's de-prosecution efforts" and the "the key determinant behind Philadelphia's violence epidemic is de-policing in the wake of cascading anti-police protests in 2020." If I was misled, however, it was by the sentence "Law enforcement in the city is dangerously depleted, but even more concerning are the de-prosecution efforts led by Krasner" and the argument that Krasner's "prosecutorial approach continues to wreak havoc on the city." I am further confused by the fact that, while Arora now discusses a nationwide, non-Philadelphia-specific trend of de-policing as primarily responsible for the rise in homicides, he also presents a side-by-side chart showing a correlation between Krasner's rates of prosecution in Philadelphia and the homicide rate in order to illustrate "the dangers of Krasner's approach." What I am asking for is to see these two charts for cities other than Philadelphia, preferably some cities where numbers of prosecutions have not declined. If the rise in homicides is similar across cities regardless of whether they have seen overall numbers of prosecutions decline, then the charts would NOT necessarily illustrate "the dangers of Krasner's approach" at all. It could be that the difference being made by Krasner's reduction in prosecution relative to other (non-"progressive") prosecutors is actually negligible. I would like to know the answer to this question. If it is negligible, and can be reduced to one or two unrepresentative anecdotes (the reason I do not respond to the anecdotes is that in order to evaluate whether they are evidence for the theory I have to know whether they are typical or atypical and I do not have adequate information to assess this), then the BENEFITS of Krasner's policies (of which there are many, including the fact that punishing "drug dealers" is an injustice—I am a libertarian on drugs—and SHOULD be reduced) may well outweigh the costs.
I did not comment on the link between de-policing and homicides, which I am open to but even if true, would raise the question of who one things is responsible for that, a matter on which instincts will differ based on ideology. (I would argue that police themselves, through failing to curtail unjust brutality, are responsible for the loss of trust in their institution that has resulted in widespread national protests against them, and I would point not to the killing of George Floyd but the Justice Department's horrifying investigations of police departments around the country showing a large scale pattern of unpunished misconduct.) This is, however, a separate issue. I am asking for a serious and open-minded inquiry into the relative significance of Larry Krasner's policies, and what I have received here is what looks to me like backtracking (from de-prosecution is more concerning to de-policing is more concerning) followed by an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too by putting charts side by side showing a correlation between Larry Krasner's prosecutions and homicides.
As someone without much of a statistical background I'll sympathize with your assertion that in the mainstream media there have been a lot of conversations about the increase in crime over the past couple of years that maybe haven't been necessarily backed up by statistical rigor. This is why although I've been alarmed by the trend of public policies in many progressive cities, I've personally refrained from making any sort of strong casual assertions because of the complexity of the underlying factors involved.
That being said, I think articles like Rav's are still very useful. They highlight policies that many of us not on the left feel are intuitively wrong or counterproductive, even if we can't rigorously quantify the effect of those policies in the manner you propose. Furthermore, many of Rav's observations about the increase in crime in cities like Philadelphia over the past couple of years, coupled with statistics pertaining to how progressive DAs like Krasner have been prosecuting crime are certainly informative and suggestive, even if that alone doesn't meet some more rigorous threshold of causality.
At the very least it should make open minded people question whether or not we're headed in the right direction in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests, which has clearly seen the zeitgeist shift against policing. Efforts to defund the police or decriminalize myriad offenses have clearly made many people nervous and in conjunction with increasing crime rates over the past couple of years should at least make it reasonable for people to question whether such policies have had deleterious effects.
I agree that there's been a tendency in the media to jump from folk intuitions about what the impact of decriminalization or de-policing should be, coupled with statistics that are congruent with although not necessarily dispositive of such folk intuitions, to strong assertions of causality when one should perhaps be more cautious. But I still believe these types of articles are useful conversation starters.
Nathan, I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of Rav's remarks, but I agree with you that they ring more in social commentary than social science. There isn't a 'control' to disaggregate the importance of the different factors. I imagine it wouldn't be easy to find a city of comparable size and complexity that hasn't experienced a degree of reduced policing and prosecution, although the social science approach would then compare the degree in those reductions to the extent of increase in crime in a number of cities.
More importantly for the argument regarding Rav's emphasis on Krasner's efforts to reduce prosecution and incarceration are citations for the extent to which previous [often drug] arrests predict later implication in murder. That doesn't mean I believe in the drug wars, but is your contention that it could be a good policy to leave so many participants in this sometimes violent trade out of jail and the resulting explosion in violence will incentivize the legalization of drugs? I'm not suggesting that is absur, per se, but it seems a potentially fraught policy that can inspire alternative reactions.
Expressing such careful neutrality in the face of the stark inverse correlation of prosecution and homicide in Philadelphia can seem determinedly resistant to the idea that where there is smoke there is fire–even while reasonably asking that the smoke signals from other municipalities be compared. Interestingly, most of the record presented is pre-covid eliminating that confounder (other than the steepest finish to the homocide graph so i'm setting that aside).
Here is an ABC article, ...and the link below is to all-time high, not mere increases since 1990 or 2019, etc. One thing to note: Philadelphia is on this list, whereas NYC and LA and Chicago are not, but keep in mind that these cities may be very close to records, within a digit or so.
(One thing that may be keeping current numbers somewhat down in comparison to many years ago is improvement in medical technology: People live today who 30 or 20 years ago would have died from similar injuries.)
"'It's just crazy': 12 major cities hit all-time homicide records"
Some observations from a modestly educated person that’s lived in rough neighborhoods.
You write:
“Rav Arora's post is not a serious examination of the issue and is clearly partisan and ideological. Let us do social science, not propaganda please.”
A bold claim, considering the amount of corroborating data for Rav's assertion, but I’m willing to entertain a perspective that you see as more “serious”. And pardon me for stating something that might not be majority opinion, but the opinion of many nonetheless; everything is clearly partisan and ideological now. Everyone has taken a stance, and drawn a line, save for the few middle and lower class heads of households trying to make ends meet; people that don’t have time for examining political tiffs like this one on a granular level. It’s obvious, so feeling the need to preempt what you’re about to say with a stately and confident claim, punctuated with fallacious (ad hominem) pontificating, seems like not the best move, if the goal is a good faith argument based on facts, data, and life on the ground in those neighborhoods. I’m no scholar, I’m quite common, so I don’t know the guiding principles of sociology, but one as ignorant as me still feels compelled to hope that it starts with compassion for the people suffering in those social systems and hierarchies. Yet, your first instinct is to posture. Telling.
Your response is the empirical contention. Rav’s piece was an empirical claim based on evidence he presented that received your contention. I agree with you. A valid, evidence-based claim is a comparison with a control group, and this is imperative. It is also, however, a single data point. Another data point might also be cities in which a “progressive prosecutor” resides and whose city shares a similar troubling increase in violent crime and murders. One such city is Tucson Arizona, where Laura Conover, a progressive, was elected as the DA in 2020. She ran on principles of reform rooted in admonishment of historically high prosecutorial numbers for Pima County AZ, many of which were for drug charges. As of October 21, 2021, Tucson, AZ has broken a 13 year record for murders, with two months left in the year. And if it makes a difference, the Mayor is also a Democrat.
I was going to research the others, but I have two kids, 5 schedules to manage, and a 50 hour a week job for which I’m on call this week. Not complaining, just explaining. How serendipitous, though, to pick what I thought would be an obscure location based on the other “big city” comparisons in the article, only to find the same patterns of demands for policy reform from the DA’s office- the justification that is founded on decrying incarceration, correlating with an increase in violent crime to disturbing proportions. Even a dolt like me knows that correlation does not mean causation, but you simply asked for an examination of the other cities. This is an (albeit rudimentary) examination of one- of a possible 11 in your reference. The first one I picked at random. I’m confused as to why you linked an article, and used it to prop the notion that Philadelphia is an outlier. It is not.
Try a thought experiment: Let's assume you're tasked with explaining the reason for the children's deaths in Philly to their parents. Consider venturing into those neighborhoods and uttering verbally what you stated in your response. I want to visually witness the audacity to tell anyone that has lost a seven year old child, that the horrible story of that child’s murder wasn’t persuasive evidence that crime is out of control. Or, to be more specific, how would you go about convincing the parent of a child eviscerated by a bullet for the infraction of playing on his front porch, that a policy that lets convicted violent felons out at a higher rate doesn’t negatively affect their neighborhoods? Are you unaware that violent criminals have at least a 5% recidivism rate in Philadelphia- on top of an already alarming rate of violent crime and number of violent criminals? How is it you’re planning to persuade these grieving people with a straight face if they can do basic math?
And by the way, no one has to die from a gunshot wound to make their life miserable and fraught with anxiety and stress and the constant unexpected surge of the fight or flight response. Anyone that’s ever lived in an area rife with crime knows this. It isn’t just violent crime that affects these neighborhoods. I can assure you, if someone is trying to break into your house at night, especially if it happens more than once, the persistent heightened state of awareness is a drain on the quality of life for anyone that has anything to lose. The recidivism rate for theft and burglary-related offenses is much higher than the violent crime recidivism rate. Based on numerous studies on the challenges of recently-released ex-cons, and their likelihood to return the communities from whence they came, and the correlating rise in homeless numbers for those same areas, and increases in crime that in many places correlate with a recent increase in releases for convicts in the same area, which is the case in Philadelphia, it seems to me to be willfully obtuse to say essentially; “this isn’t enough”. Particularly so, when considering that you haven’t put forth an alternative cause, from a sociological perspective, of course.
How might one avoid inspiring the victims' parents to deform and wrinkle their faces in disgust and emotional agony while explaining that the murder of their children probably has nothing to do with the fact that there’s an abnormally high crime rate in Philadelphia to begin with, violent criminals perform violent acts against innocent victims, many past offenders return to the neighborhoods they’re from, a policy that their local government passed released a higher rate of past offenders, and so it’s likely that there are now more violent offenders in their neighborhood?
Completely unrelated? Good luck. That thought experiment extrapolated into reality doesn’t end well.
I submit to you that if Christopher Hermann cannot see a link between a nationwide public political campaign to neuter police, the increasing likelihood of police being investigated and castigated for doing what they are trained to do (I will not do the throat clearing that often accompanies these factual claims, only leave this parenthetical in its stead), and then found to be not guilty only after their character has been assaulted for months, and the alarming increase in police early retirement, resignations and excess leave-taking, then the NYPD is probably better off without him. Doesn’t seem like he’s a very good crime analyst. It is simply fact that in areas where there is already a concentration of crime, especially violent crime, a drastic reduction in police presence is a proven causal factor in a correlative increase in crime. We see this in myriad examples across the country, and at record rates in some places. This seems, forgive me, imprecise to state vaguely or to diminish the impact that a decreased police presence has, and quite frankly I’m confused why polling numbers from multiple sources say that on average roughly 60% of the minority communities in these areas don’t want a reduction in police presence precisely for that reason. Something like 20% would like an increase in police presence. But again- it’s just too easy to say “nothing to see here” when so many people will believe it and not bother to look at the actual numbers or talk to the members of the affected community.
I can guarantee you that these folks can give Christopher Hermann one good reason. I don’t know whether you were hoping to garner some clout with the official-looking “ABC News article” as if it’s infallible and unfalsifiable, but what that NYPD crime analyst states is just shy of completely nonsensical- given the available data.
I believe as you do. There’s no question that these are complicated questions, but as a social scientist, do you have a hypothesis on what policies if any, what stimulus, what cultural phenomenon might be contributing? I’ll concede that Rav might be biased. I don’t know anyone that isn’t slightly biased one way or the other. I certainly am. I can tell you are. Hell, you state it outright. And that’s good. Own it. You clearly don’t lack the courage of your conviction, but your conviction lacks any foundation other than emotional appeal. That simply will not do.
Also, dismissing something by attaching it to ideology that you disagree with, without actually shattering any merit of the argument, not even “marginally disrupting” it, isn’t sufficient refutation for people that live in reality and not in safe neighborhoods that are in or near Ivy League campuses. If you’re going to point out a problem and you call yourself a social scientist, and you’re not proposing a theory rooted in social science that offers an alternative cause in opposition to what you claim is incorrect, and you’re not proposing a socially scientific solution, then at best you’re squandering what I can only assume is a very expensive education. At worst you’re intellectually dishonest.
The revolt of the public has begun. Regular, ordinary lower and middle class people that are subject to the policies of the elite talking heads; policies that do not align with reality on the ground, will see and scrutinize the words of the academically elite. It is no longer sufficient to simply “speak truth to power”. That's academic jargon that has no impact whatsoever to affected communities, and people are tired of hearing rich, privileged people spout that toothless mantra. People want tangible answers to real problems in their neighborhoods so that they can lead lives that aren’t dystopian and not be used as pawns to accrue votes from a particular demographic. If this is all you have, it’s not enough, and certainly isn't "serious".
By "punishing drug dealers is wrong" you do realize that you are arguing along the lines that Al Capone was a "punished tax evader". Do you really think that in the current state of the world, that many of the people who choose to deal drugs have committed no other crime, or are not a danger to society?
While I agree generally, there are shades of gray here. A LOT of the people in jail for drug offenses, are non-violent offenders and enter the penal system as such, but they often don't leave as such. If we hold up Portugal et al as examples of what an across-the-board legalization of all drugs looks like, the numbers are positive. This policy has led to less drug-related violent crime, less death from overdoses, and lower rates of addiction to opiates. Al Capone isn't a good analogy, because he was a violent offender, several orders of magnitude worse that the average jailed drug offender in Philly and other large urban centers.
It seems to me you are combining those convicted of drug distribution and drug use. I’m specifically referring to those convicted of distribution, and it’s possible their record speaks to a non-violent history, when reality does not
Understood. However, there is, an almost across-the-board reduction in drug-related violent crime reported in places that instituted drastic legalization policies. I concede that success of policies elsewhere are not necessarily indicative of potential success here, based on factors such as culture, gun ownership and availability, enormous population, vast expanse of area, etc.
I've "said" this, mebbe, a million times. Automation and Robotics is gonna do a job on society that will make the 'Net and social media like a blip on the radar, right? Only question ABOUT it is... How long do we have to PREPARE for the transition? (Okay, not the ONLY question. But IMHO, the main one. ;)
To be sure, unemployment will exacerbate the level and/or severity of dysfunction in any community that sees an increase in unemployed persons. Exhibit A: Detroit. The answer to your question is: As long as it takes, and we should welcome more time to prepare, for the alternative is quite ugly. Being unprepared when low-wage service and mixed-wage driving jobs, from freight-moving to Amazon deliveries and everything in between is in-sourced to non-human components is going to upend the United States to a degree that few seem willing to acknowledge in our current dialogue. It is a grim prospect indeed. However, the potential correlation between this, crime rates and the result of de-criminalizing drugs of every variety, remains unclear. The only thing we can draw from is the aforementioned pool of examples, which do offer some hope in that regard.
Yeah, to a degree few seem willing. But before too long after that the high end jobs will go too, right?
This is anecdotal, but I'd say the time people spend, on social media and Netflix and all, points to most people being more than happy to waste a lotta time. Can only suspect what will happen if people on UBI have a whole life to waste.
A little brain-fogged. I'd like to see anything that would offer some hope, but I missed it.
Your first response reminded me of the evasiveness of Big Tobacco against early reports of smoking causing cancer, and this last response continues that. It's not a PhD thesis, it's a simple theory, which most folk already believe:
less police action means more crime.
You bring up a colorful, and likely accurate view of "the Justice Department's horrifying investigations of police departments around the country showing a large scale pattern of unpunished misconduct."
Human police make two kinds of mistakes: too much force, or not enough force.
Any change to reduce one error will increase the other.
Too much crime means ... police not using enough force, possibly not enough police officers being minimally but effectively forceful.
I'm sorry, but Your ideology is showing. IOW, I'm not certain how far You're ABLE to be open-minded.
Me? Not educated. So, for that an other reasons (primarily that anything IMPORTANT to discuss isn't quantifiable), I tend to rely on common sense.
George Floyd protests were, in actual FACT, about the deaths of approximately EIGHTEEN (18) unarmed black men. I draw inferences. BLM? Pffft. Bunch-a Marxists who want to "liberate" black people. From WHOM, pray tell? WHat the end game after they're LIBERATED. Sheesh. More people died FROM the protests, than what they were protesting about, right?
Result? Less policing/prosecuting outta line? No. I think it was a direct RESULT, but that's just me.
Less policing/prosecuting -> much MORE crime? Outta line? That's just me again.
What I see is a lotta words to discuss what should be plain regardless of ideology.
Police reform? Needed. Police? NEEDED. Prosecutions? NEEDED. Lower crime rates a result of aforementioned? I S'POSE Your guess is as good as mine, sir. (NOT in any Way sarcastic, note.)
I said I wasn't gonna comment, and have been doing almost none. But I'd repeat something I've "said" before now. IMHO, "social science" is an oxymoron. Just because You can put some numbers down, doesn't make it a science. And analyzing people in this way? Soon, we may be able to quantify what a person is. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-science-of-mind-reading
In case this is paywalled, I'd like to bring this to the attention of anyone that's interested:
"Some epileptic patients about to undergo surgery have intracranial probes put into their brains; researchers can now use these probes to help steer the patients’ neural patterns away from those associated with depression. With more fine-grained control, a mind could be driven wherever one liked. (The imagination reels at the possibilities, for both good and ill.)"
IMHO, doesn't take any imagination, does it now? Of COURSE it will be USED for good and ill. Likely dead before then, but still.
The main point? Summing up people is a very left-hemisphere activity. I don't see adequate solutions will come about unless the right hemisphere is put forward.
Things are pretty much the same here in Baltimore. It’s been home to my family for quite a few generations, I’m the last one here, though not for much longer.
For someone who constantly shouts about what a Serious Social Scientist he is, not much actual science and no citations other than from a media outlet are presented as refutations.
From his bio "I am presently a PhD student in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University" - so no submitted or examined thesis, but willing to assume the mantle and authority of "Serious Social Scientist"
Demonizing or defunding police or police pulling back from their usual jobs and a general lack of respect for enforcing the law contributes to a climate in which more and more people push the boundaries of what they can get away with. And the more some people get away with crime, the more others are incentivized to give it a try themselves. Leading to a significant increase in crime because the inhibitions that most people have to committing a crime become reduced. If everybody is benefiting by grabbing stuff from stores without consequence, why shouldn't I participate also? I would be a fool not to. If you don't think anyone will bother trying to catch or prosecute you for shooting someone or if you perceive no one will stop someone else from shooting you, you are far more likely to pick up a gun yourself and do something you would not necessarily otherwise do. They call it the Thin Blue Line for a reason. Policing can be the difference between order and chaos. And a bunch of cities are seeing that now
That 300 figure should be revisited. The supporting article never claims that Philly had 6400 officers. 300 is a shortfall of potential officers.
I hope Nathan will cut the condescension - please.
And in Chicago:
"Why it matters: Violent crime arrests have dropped 39% in 2021 compared to 2019, which means violent crimes are going up but arrests are going down. Why?
What they're saying: "Arrests are down likely for a variety of reasons, some related to the pandemic and public health protocols, as well as the decrease in community trust in police as well as a general pulling back of proactive policing," Roseanna Ander, executive director of the UChicago Crime Lab, tells Axios. "
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2021/12/21/violent-crime-arrests-way-down-2021
In terms of "Defund the Police", it was a euphemism for demoralize/abolish police and policing. And yes, some people clearly foresaw what the effects of that would be, especially that the heaviest price would likely be paid by poor people.
But there was also suspicious that if the rich felt threatened, they would respond by going Rio de Janeiro on us. Well, that moment has come in the ritzy parts of Los Angeles:
"High-Profile L.A. Crimes Spark Rush for Bullet-Proof Cars, Rolex Replicas and Safe Rooms......Security agencies say wealthy clients are increasing protective measures: "They want someone who knows how to get them out of any situation."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/local-news/crimes-los-angeles-rush-for-bullet-proof-cars-rolex-replicas-safe-rooms-1235062227/?fbclid=IwAR0fMsE1yswPiSTxXDIttE42bCWSnEA7m_UP_vhzOMDiOIOCqHUAqRr-u3E
Insane article. Even the Hollywood crowd is having to face reality. About time.
Rav, thank you for your writings and I hope that Dr. Loury will soon invite you to write more. You and Dr. Loury have been very kind in describing Mr. Robinson's contribution which at least one commenter had characterized as essentially trolling.
And speaking of things Philadelphia, this happened a few hours ago there (BTW, Mr. Robinson may say that calling attention to this is "cherry picking"):
"US Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon Carjacked At Gunpoint In FDR Park, Vehicle Recovered In Delaware, Police Say"
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/22/representative-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacked-gunpoint-fdr-park/
"A Larry Krasner Christmas: Happy holidays from Philadelphia’s criminals to a wedding party and even a U.S. Congresswoman." By The Editorial Board | Dec. 22, 2021
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-larry-krasner-christmas-crime-philadelphia-11640208516
"On the unseasonably warm night of Dec. 10, a groom stepped outside of his wedding reception for a breath of fresh air. Two men saw him. One drew a handgun, and they demanded the groom’s Rolex watch. The robbery occurred downtown a short stroll away from the Liberty Bell. ...
"Philadelphia has seen a record 544 homicides so far this year, up from 347 in the entirety of 2019. Police have recorded some 1,785 nonfatal shootings this year. More than 84% of the victims of the gun violence in 2021 were black, according to the Philadelphia Office of the Controller.
"Police data also shows some 2,283 gun robberies as of Dec. 19, a 28.6% increase over the same period last year. Retail theft is up more than 20% this year, and auto theft more than 15%, ...
"Even as we were writing this, a report came over the wire that U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon was carjacked and robbed at gunpoint on Wednesday afternoon shortly after finishing a meeting at FDR Park in Philly. Ms. Scanlon was walking back to her car when she was approached by two armed men who demanded her car keys and personal belongings, according to a spokeswoman. She handed over her belongings, including personal and government cell phones—and the two men drove away in her 2017 Acura MDX."
If Social Science can't explain these facts, so much the worse for social science.
Philadelphia has a bad attitude. The Philadelphia School District now allows students to become non-binary. (1) The goal is to make children feel safe. On November 30 2021 a "13-year-old shot after argument over scooter, witnesses say Police said Jefferson was shot 18 times throughout his body. The boy died at a local hospital a short time later. More than 500 homicides had been recorded in the city as of Monday, the highest number since at least 1990."(2)
Shot 18 times? That shows a lot of intentionality, anger, and hate. What Philadelphia needs is a not non-binary environment. It needs a way to identify kids that are at risk. I disagree with the Social Justice initiatives, but agree with PANORAMA SURVEYS in those cities to identify at risk kids and remove them from the environment they are in.
(1) https://6abc.com/philadelphia-school-district-non-binary-gender-identity-policy/11335669/
(2) https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/northeast/philadelphia-boy-shot-18-times-while-waiting-for-bus/
A few days ago, SF Mayor London Breed said this:
"It’s time that the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it to come to an end,” Breed said. “And it comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement … and less tolerant of all the bullsh*t that has destroyed our city.”
Chesa Boudin, SF's Larry Krasner, was not pleased.
In July she was cutting the budget by $120 million.
A few thousand smash and grabs must have caused her to reconsider.
I thought the timing was interesting, myself. :)
The truly sad part is there was an opportunity to improve policing methods and very likely reduce crime, too. Instead, defund sucked the air out. The working class and poor pay the worst price.
She's already getting pushback.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/586716-san-francisco-officials-push-back-on-mayors-plan-to-crack-down-on-crime
Boudin is no doubt worried about his recall election in June.
"In my view, the key determinant behind Philadelphia's violence epidemic is de-policing in the wake of cascading anti-police protests in 2020". I suspect that Rav Arora is all or mostly correct, but my suspicion and Rav's view are not sufficient to draw conclusions. So I must agree with Nathan that the best way to judge the validity of Rav's supposition is to not only look at Philadelphia and specific things that happened there but to also look at other cities where the socio-economic conditions are similar but where the prosecutorial approach is different and to then compare the same crime statistics. In other words are all large cities seeing the same spikes in the same types of crime or is there something unique happening in The City of Brotherly Love?
The question you ask is a simple google search. In your browser type in "crime spike in US"
and you will get many articles.
Here is one sample article:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040904770/fbi-data-murder-increase-2020
https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453
Yes, "crime spike in US". But it does not immediately follow that the crime spike in the US is because of lax policies. That may very well be the case, or at the very least be a large factor. My point is that Rav offered no data that shows that lax policies are actually the determinative factor. Yes, it makes sense. But "makes sense" is not data or proof, whether in Philly or in the entire US. If someone wants to say that Philly's problem is due to lax policies, then it would be more persuasive show that a different city (or many cities) with similar societal conditions but more strict policing and prosecutions did not see the same problems. That's the smoking gun, as it were. I read and listen to Glenn a lot, and he rightly criticizes the woke mob for making assertions about things like "the epidemic of police killing of minorities" which are not supported by facts. In this case, Glenn seems supportive of Rav's assertion that Philly's crime wave is in no small part due to Krasner's policies and accepts that assertion without any hard data. What I'm saying is I'd really like to see some data that supports a causal link. It would make the assertion much more persuasive.
Try Dallas and work your way through major cities.
ICBW (I Could Be Wrong). When You think of crime and "dependent variables," or whatever they're called...
In the society WE live in, it would be difficult IMHO to make up perfect control subjects. Too MANY variables. You wanna isolate a few? You not looking at crime realistically, IMV.
In a totally PLANNED society, You'd have better luck. No luck to the people IN such-a country, so there is that.
Just In My Humble Opinion.
Scott Adams spoke about making your own luck, He said he had the intention co becoming a cartoonist and a special on becoming a cartoonist just popped up o PBS. Scott believes he is in a simulation.
I am searching identity and have been listening to Joseph Rodriguez and Identity, consciousness, imagined identity, subconsciousness and God. His belief is creating abundant space thinking in subconscious mind goes to super conscious and you create your world from the subconscious mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGWrsVyhzBA&t=1202s
I almost NEVER watch YouTube. Videos just so much slower than reading. I made an exception.
Far-reaching topic. M ROdriguez mentions Gandhi. Subconscious? Superconscious? Gandhi (close)... "Happiness is when what You think, say and do are the same thing." TOUGH discipline.
AFAIK, "they" know next to nothing about the subconscious. But believe Earl Nightengale had the right of it, Way back when. Don't recall much but the five words: "You are what You think."
Problem *I* with the Universal Mind (forget if that's what he called it)...
...Weeeel, not saying there's NO Truth to it. But saying not ALL the Truth. Idea that we'll have a frictionless society if everybody pursued their "destiny" shown them by their intuitions? Not real world we live in.
And, for ME only, I find people who think they have a destiny and access to Superconscious and feel the divine...
...Hard-ta say, EXACTLY. I guess problem I have is that these almost without exception believe they're BETTER than those who don't.
Nothing further from Truth, right?
TYTY, NROL34 Odin... :)
Given the scope of what Rav has written, I think Nathan has gone well beyond "a serious and substantive critique". Rav isn't writing a PhD thesis here. He's writing a relatively short substack post that Glenn has supportively published. This is the kind of article that could appear in City Journal, the NY Post, the WSJ..................or The NY Times if one of their editors screw up and publish something non-lefty.
You know, when you’re a poet with an associates degree from a community college, people are just impressed that you can sound good. Imagine me saying I’m a serious poet who has worked closely with top tier talents in literacy. I went to school and had some conversations, nothing to brag about, that’s what school is for. Make the point. Make it in plain English. Tell an anecdote to make it relatable. Let the point be a shovel, pulling out credentials is digging with the hands. Pulling out an anecdote is asking a friend for help digging.
Credentialed analysis isn’t indicative of accuracy or granularity by default- but I do get your point.
Jack Posobiek had documented three black girls beating an Asian girl and several Philly teens robbing a group of people at gun point. In the Strawberry Mansion section a film maker documenting gun violence was killed.
In dangerous cities, I'm surprised, Philadelphia this year wasn't op 100, Chicago made #98, New York and LA, Seattle were not there also. Atifastan (Portland) was #9 but it looks like Missouri had the most violent cities. St Louis, Kansas City and others. Data I had been reading was wrong about Philadelphia. Philadelphia just had a high percentage of change in crime this year
https://www.alarms.org/top-100-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/
https://www.roadsnacks.net/most-dangerous-cities/
Yeah I struggle with that. When Loury pulls out charts and starts talking economics, I don’t know what he’s talking about, and I’m taking it on faith he knows what he’s talking about. That’s a problem. It could apply to any economist.
Sorry but there are many stories like this. Rape on the Philadelphia Subway, The three black girls beating the Asian girl on the subway. This was just one of many. Not a poet like you or as polished. Maybe you could make this poem work.
I eat some bugs and eat some grass
I use my hands to wash my face
Merry Christmas (RING THOSE CHRISTMAS BELLS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXhsqsh1uX0
Are you saying you want to read my stuff? I’m flattered. I write about murder and rape in Kansas City cos I live there. Is that ok?
I subscribed to you to read your writing. I am trying to figure out how to pay so I can get in. Wuthering Heights Going to Dogs was well written. I am sarcastic and not eloquent at writing.
That’s very kind of you. Thank you! I was covering the writing of Woke Racism as it was being written. I told Professor Loury I think I’m Simone, the student he refers to, he never told I was wrong. I’ve been here a while.
I subscribed to your page but can't activate the ability to pay. I would like to read your writing. I was a psych registered nurse and have seen murderers because of mental illness at the state hospital. I want to see what kind of psychological manifestations your people have.
I really appreciate it. I don’t how to explain it in the comments section or I’d be more helpful. I just appreciate the thought.
The response is confusing and imprecise. It furthers my conviction that the author is selecting data to tell a story consistent with conservative political ideology rather than trying to conduct an open-minded inquiry into the incredibly complicated questions about what actually causes crime.
I am told that I have misconstrued the argument because Arora "never claimed that the sole or even predominant cause of Philadelphia's record-breaking homicide wave is the D.A's de-prosecution efforts" and the "the key determinant behind Philadelphia's violence epidemic is de-policing in the wake of cascading anti-police protests in 2020." If I was misled, however, it was by the sentence "Law enforcement in the city is dangerously depleted, but even more concerning are the de-prosecution efforts led by Krasner" and the argument that Krasner's "prosecutorial approach continues to wreak havoc on the city." I am further confused by the fact that, while Arora now discusses a nationwide, non-Philadelphia-specific trend of de-policing as primarily responsible for the rise in homicides, he also presents a side-by-side chart showing a correlation between Krasner's rates of prosecution in Philadelphia and the homicide rate in order to illustrate "the dangers of Krasner's approach." What I am asking for is to see these two charts for cities other than Philadelphia, preferably some cities where numbers of prosecutions have not declined. If the rise in homicides is similar across cities regardless of whether they have seen overall numbers of prosecutions decline, then the charts would NOT necessarily illustrate "the dangers of Krasner's approach" at all. It could be that the difference being made by Krasner's reduction in prosecution relative to other (non-"progressive") prosecutors is actually negligible. I would like to know the answer to this question. If it is negligible, and can be reduced to one or two unrepresentative anecdotes (the reason I do not respond to the anecdotes is that in order to evaluate whether they are evidence for the theory I have to know whether they are typical or atypical and I do not have adequate information to assess this), then the BENEFITS of Krasner's policies (of which there are many, including the fact that punishing "drug dealers" is an injustice—I am a libertarian on drugs—and SHOULD be reduced) may well outweigh the costs.
I did not comment on the link between de-policing and homicides, which I am open to but even if true, would raise the question of who one things is responsible for that, a matter on which instincts will differ based on ideology. (I would argue that police themselves, through failing to curtail unjust brutality, are responsible for the loss of trust in their institution that has resulted in widespread national protests against them, and I would point not to the killing of George Floyd but the Justice Department's horrifying investigations of police departments around the country showing a large scale pattern of unpunished misconduct.) This is, however, a separate issue. I am asking for a serious and open-minded inquiry into the relative significance of Larry Krasner's policies, and what I have received here is what looks to me like backtracking (from de-prosecution is more concerning to de-policing is more concerning) followed by an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too by putting charts side by side showing a correlation between Larry Krasner's prosecutions and homicides.
As someone without much of a statistical background I'll sympathize with your assertion that in the mainstream media there have been a lot of conversations about the increase in crime over the past couple of years that maybe haven't been necessarily backed up by statistical rigor. This is why although I've been alarmed by the trend of public policies in many progressive cities, I've personally refrained from making any sort of strong casual assertions because of the complexity of the underlying factors involved.
That being said, I think articles like Rav's are still very useful. They highlight policies that many of us not on the left feel are intuitively wrong or counterproductive, even if we can't rigorously quantify the effect of those policies in the manner you propose. Furthermore, many of Rav's observations about the increase in crime in cities like Philadelphia over the past couple of years, coupled with statistics pertaining to how progressive DAs like Krasner have been prosecuting crime are certainly informative and suggestive, even if that alone doesn't meet some more rigorous threshold of causality.
At the very least it should make open minded people question whether or not we're headed in the right direction in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests, which has clearly seen the zeitgeist shift against policing. Efforts to defund the police or decriminalize myriad offenses have clearly made many people nervous and in conjunction with increasing crime rates over the past couple of years should at least make it reasonable for people to question whether such policies have had deleterious effects.
I agree that there's been a tendency in the media to jump from folk intuitions about what the impact of decriminalization or de-policing should be, coupled with statistics that are congruent with although not necessarily dispositive of such folk intuitions, to strong assertions of causality when one should perhaps be more cautious. But I still believe these types of articles are useful conversation starters.
Nathan, I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of Rav's remarks, but I agree with you that they ring more in social commentary than social science. There isn't a 'control' to disaggregate the importance of the different factors. I imagine it wouldn't be easy to find a city of comparable size and complexity that hasn't experienced a degree of reduced policing and prosecution, although the social science approach would then compare the degree in those reductions to the extent of increase in crime in a number of cities.
More importantly for the argument regarding Rav's emphasis on Krasner's efforts to reduce prosecution and incarceration are citations for the extent to which previous [often drug] arrests predict later implication in murder. That doesn't mean I believe in the drug wars, but is your contention that it could be a good policy to leave so many participants in this sometimes violent trade out of jail and the resulting explosion in violence will incentivize the legalization of drugs? I'm not suggesting that is absur, per se, but it seems a potentially fraught policy that can inspire alternative reactions.
Expressing such careful neutrality in the face of the stark inverse correlation of prosecution and homicide in Philadelphia can seem determinedly resistant to the idea that where there is smoke there is fire–even while reasonably asking that the smoke signals from other municipalities be compared. Interestingly, most of the record presented is pre-covid eliminating that confounder (other than the steepest finish to the homocide graph so i'm setting that aside).
Here is an ABC article, ...and the link below is to all-time high, not mere increases since 1990 or 2019, etc. One thing to note: Philadelphia is on this list, whereas NYC and LA and Chicago are not, but keep in mind that these cities may be very close to records, within a digit or so.
(One thing that may be keeping current numbers somewhat down in comparison to many years ago is improvement in medical technology: People live today who 30 or 20 years ago would have died from similar injuries.)
"'It's just crazy': 12 major cities hit all-time homicide records"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453
Some observations from a modestly educated person that’s lived in rough neighborhoods.
You write:
“Rav Arora's post is not a serious examination of the issue and is clearly partisan and ideological. Let us do social science, not propaganda please.”
A bold claim, considering the amount of corroborating data for Rav's assertion, but I’m willing to entertain a perspective that you see as more “serious”. And pardon me for stating something that might not be majority opinion, but the opinion of many nonetheless; everything is clearly partisan and ideological now. Everyone has taken a stance, and drawn a line, save for the few middle and lower class heads of households trying to make ends meet; people that don’t have time for examining political tiffs like this one on a granular level. It’s obvious, so feeling the need to preempt what you’re about to say with a stately and confident claim, punctuated with fallacious (ad hominem) pontificating, seems like not the best move, if the goal is a good faith argument based on facts, data, and life on the ground in those neighborhoods. I’m no scholar, I’m quite common, so I don’t know the guiding principles of sociology, but one as ignorant as me still feels compelled to hope that it starts with compassion for the people suffering in those social systems and hierarchies. Yet, your first instinct is to posture. Telling.
Your response is the empirical contention. Rav’s piece was an empirical claim based on evidence he presented that received your contention. I agree with you. A valid, evidence-based claim is a comparison with a control group, and this is imperative. It is also, however, a single data point. Another data point might also be cities in which a “progressive prosecutor” resides and whose city shares a similar troubling increase in violent crime and murders. One such city is Tucson Arizona, where Laura Conover, a progressive, was elected as the DA in 2020. She ran on principles of reform rooted in admonishment of historically high prosecutorial numbers for Pima County AZ, many of which were for drug charges. As of October 21, 2021, Tucson, AZ has broken a 13 year record for murders, with two months left in the year. And if it makes a difference, the Mayor is also a Democrat.
I was going to research the others, but I have two kids, 5 schedules to manage, and a 50 hour a week job for which I’m on call this week. Not complaining, just explaining. How serendipitous, though, to pick what I thought would be an obscure location based on the other “big city” comparisons in the article, only to find the same patterns of demands for policy reform from the DA’s office- the justification that is founded on decrying incarceration, correlating with an increase in violent crime to disturbing proportions. Even a dolt like me knows that correlation does not mean causation, but you simply asked for an examination of the other cities. This is an (albeit rudimentary) examination of one- of a possible 11 in your reference. The first one I picked at random. I’m confused as to why you linked an article, and used it to prop the notion that Philadelphia is an outlier. It is not.
Try a thought experiment: Let's assume you're tasked with explaining the reason for the children's deaths in Philly to their parents. Consider venturing into those neighborhoods and uttering verbally what you stated in your response. I want to visually witness the audacity to tell anyone that has lost a seven year old child, that the horrible story of that child’s murder wasn’t persuasive evidence that crime is out of control. Or, to be more specific, how would you go about convincing the parent of a child eviscerated by a bullet for the infraction of playing on his front porch, that a policy that lets convicted violent felons out at a higher rate doesn’t negatively affect their neighborhoods? Are you unaware that violent criminals have at least a 5% recidivism rate in Philadelphia- on top of an already alarming rate of violent crime and number of violent criminals? How is it you’re planning to persuade these grieving people with a straight face if they can do basic math?
And by the way, no one has to die from a gunshot wound to make their life miserable and fraught with anxiety and stress and the constant unexpected surge of the fight or flight response. Anyone that’s ever lived in an area rife with crime knows this. It isn’t just violent crime that affects these neighborhoods. I can assure you, if someone is trying to break into your house at night, especially if it happens more than once, the persistent heightened state of awareness is a drain on the quality of life for anyone that has anything to lose. The recidivism rate for theft and burglary-related offenses is much higher than the violent crime recidivism rate. Based on numerous studies on the challenges of recently-released ex-cons, and their likelihood to return the communities from whence they came, and the correlating rise in homeless numbers for those same areas, and increases in crime that in many places correlate with a recent increase in releases for convicts in the same area, which is the case in Philadelphia, it seems to me to be willfully obtuse to say essentially; “this isn’t enough”. Particularly so, when considering that you haven’t put forth an alternative cause, from a sociological perspective, of course.
How might one avoid inspiring the victims' parents to deform and wrinkle their faces in disgust and emotional agony while explaining that the murder of their children probably has nothing to do with the fact that there’s an abnormally high crime rate in Philadelphia to begin with, violent criminals perform violent acts against innocent victims, many past offenders return to the neighborhoods they’re from, a policy that their local government passed released a higher rate of past offenders, and so it’s likely that there are now more violent offenders in their neighborhood?
Completely unrelated? Good luck. That thought experiment extrapolated into reality doesn’t end well.
I submit to you that if Christopher Hermann cannot see a link between a nationwide public political campaign to neuter police, the increasing likelihood of police being investigated and castigated for doing what they are trained to do (I will not do the throat clearing that often accompanies these factual claims, only leave this parenthetical in its stead), and then found to be not guilty only after their character has been assaulted for months, and the alarming increase in police early retirement, resignations and excess leave-taking, then the NYPD is probably better off without him. Doesn’t seem like he’s a very good crime analyst. It is simply fact that in areas where there is already a concentration of crime, especially violent crime, a drastic reduction in police presence is a proven causal factor in a correlative increase in crime. We see this in myriad examples across the country, and at record rates in some places. This seems, forgive me, imprecise to state vaguely or to diminish the impact that a decreased police presence has, and quite frankly I’m confused why polling numbers from multiple sources say that on average roughly 60% of the minority communities in these areas don’t want a reduction in police presence precisely for that reason. Something like 20% would like an increase in police presence. But again- it’s just too easy to say “nothing to see here” when so many people will believe it and not bother to look at the actual numbers or talk to the members of the affected community.
I can guarantee you that these folks can give Christopher Hermann one good reason. I don’t know whether you were hoping to garner some clout with the official-looking “ABC News article” as if it’s infallible and unfalsifiable, but what that NYPD crime analyst states is just shy of completely nonsensical- given the available data.
I believe as you do. There’s no question that these are complicated questions, but as a social scientist, do you have a hypothesis on what policies if any, what stimulus, what cultural phenomenon might be contributing? I’ll concede that Rav might be biased. I don’t know anyone that isn’t slightly biased one way or the other. I certainly am. I can tell you are. Hell, you state it outright. And that’s good. Own it. You clearly don’t lack the courage of your conviction, but your conviction lacks any foundation other than emotional appeal. That simply will not do.
Also, dismissing something by attaching it to ideology that you disagree with, without actually shattering any merit of the argument, not even “marginally disrupting” it, isn’t sufficient refutation for people that live in reality and not in safe neighborhoods that are in or near Ivy League campuses. If you’re going to point out a problem and you call yourself a social scientist, and you’re not proposing a theory rooted in social science that offers an alternative cause in opposition to what you claim is incorrect, and you’re not proposing a socially scientific solution, then at best you’re squandering what I can only assume is a very expensive education. At worst you’re intellectually dishonest.
The revolt of the public has begun. Regular, ordinary lower and middle class people that are subject to the policies of the elite talking heads; policies that do not align with reality on the ground, will see and scrutinize the words of the academically elite. It is no longer sufficient to simply “speak truth to power”. That's academic jargon that has no impact whatsoever to affected communities, and people are tired of hearing rich, privileged people spout that toothless mantra. People want tangible answers to real problems in their neighborhoods so that they can lead lives that aren’t dystopian and not be used as pawns to accrue votes from a particular demographic. If this is all you have, it’s not enough, and certainly isn't "serious".
Nice, M. Jake!
Read it again. Same opinion!
By "punishing drug dealers is wrong" you do realize that you are arguing along the lines that Al Capone was a "punished tax evader". Do you really think that in the current state of the world, that many of the people who choose to deal drugs have committed no other crime, or are not a danger to society?
While I agree generally, there are shades of gray here. A LOT of the people in jail for drug offenses, are non-violent offenders and enter the penal system as such, but they often don't leave as such. If we hold up Portugal et al as examples of what an across-the-board legalization of all drugs looks like, the numbers are positive. This policy has led to less drug-related violent crime, less death from overdoses, and lower rates of addiction to opiates. Al Capone isn't a good analogy, because he was a violent offender, several orders of magnitude worse that the average jailed drug offender in Philly and other large urban centers.
It seems to me you are combining those convicted of drug distribution and drug use. I’m specifically referring to those convicted of distribution, and it’s possible their record speaks to a non-violent history, when reality does not
Understood. However, there is, an almost across-the-board reduction in drug-related violent crime reported in places that instituted drastic legalization policies. I concede that success of policies elsewhere are not necessarily indicative of potential success here, based on factors such as culture, gun ownership and availability, enormous population, vast expanse of area, etc.
My understanding is that there are parts of Britain, and one-a the Scandanavian countries that came up with similar results.
Professor McWhorter advocated legalizing drugs, mainly for the purpose of keeping police OUTTA the way of blacks. Could be, dunno.
My only hesitancy about this? UBI:
https://forum.quillette.com/t/work-or-welfare/38171
I've "said" this, mebbe, a million times. Automation and Robotics is gonna do a job on society that will make the 'Net and social media like a blip on the radar, right? Only question ABOUT it is... How long do we have to PREPARE for the transition? (Okay, not the ONLY question. But IMHO, the main one. ;)
To be sure, unemployment will exacerbate the level and/or severity of dysfunction in any community that sees an increase in unemployed persons. Exhibit A: Detroit. The answer to your question is: As long as it takes, and we should welcome more time to prepare, for the alternative is quite ugly. Being unprepared when low-wage service and mixed-wage driving jobs, from freight-moving to Amazon deliveries and everything in between is in-sourced to non-human components is going to upend the United States to a degree that few seem willing to acknowledge in our current dialogue. It is a grim prospect indeed. However, the potential correlation between this, crime rates and the result of de-criminalizing drugs of every variety, remains unclear. The only thing we can draw from is the aforementioned pool of examples, which do offer some hope in that regard.
Yeah, to a degree few seem willing. But before too long after that the high end jobs will go too, right?
This is anecdotal, but I'd say the time people spend, on social media and Netflix and all, points to most people being more than happy to waste a lotta time. Can only suspect what will happen if people on UBI have a whole life to waste.
A little brain-fogged. I'd like to see anything that would offer some hope, but I missed it.
Your first response reminded me of the evasiveness of Big Tobacco against early reports of smoking causing cancer, and this last response continues that. It's not a PhD thesis, it's a simple theory, which most folk already believe:
less police action means more crime.
You bring up a colorful, and likely accurate view of "the Justice Department's horrifying investigations of police departments around the country showing a large scale pattern of unpunished misconduct."
Human police make two kinds of mistakes: too much force, or not enough force.
Any change to reduce one error will increase the other.
Too much crime means ... police not using enough force, possibly not enough police officers being minimally but effectively forceful.
I'm sorry, but Your ideology is showing. IOW, I'm not certain how far You're ABLE to be open-minded.
Me? Not educated. So, for that an other reasons (primarily that anything IMPORTANT to discuss isn't quantifiable), I tend to rely on common sense.
George Floyd protests were, in actual FACT, about the deaths of approximately EIGHTEEN (18) unarmed black men. I draw inferences. BLM? Pffft. Bunch-a Marxists who want to "liberate" black people. From WHOM, pray tell? WHat the end game after they're LIBERATED. Sheesh. More people died FROM the protests, than what they were protesting about, right?
Result? Less policing/prosecuting outta line? No. I think it was a direct RESULT, but that's just me.
Less policing/prosecuting -> much MORE crime? Outta line? That's just me again.
What I see is a lotta words to discuss what should be plain regardless of ideology.
Police reform? Needed. Police? NEEDED. Prosecutions? NEEDED. Lower crime rates a result of aforementioned? I S'POSE Your guess is as good as mine, sir. (NOT in any Way sarcastic, note.)
I said I wasn't gonna comment, and have been doing almost none. But I'd repeat something I've "said" before now. IMHO, "social science" is an oxymoron. Just because You can put some numbers down, doesn't make it a science. And analyzing people in this way? Soon, we may be able to quantify what a person is. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-science-of-mind-reading
In case this is paywalled, I'd like to bring this to the attention of anyone that's interested:
"Some epileptic patients about to undergo surgery have intracranial probes put into their brains; researchers can now use these probes to help steer the patients’ neural patterns away from those associated with depression. With more fine-grained control, a mind could be driven wherever one liked. (The imagination reels at the possibilities, for both good and ill.)"
IMHO, doesn't take any imagination, does it now? Of COURSE it will be USED for good and ill. Likely dead before then, but still.
The main point? Summing up people is a very left-hemisphere activity. I don't see adequate solutions will come about unless the right hemisphere is put forward.
This the short version, less than a dollar: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18901042-the-divided-brain-and-the-search-for-meaning
Things are pretty much the same here in Baltimore. It’s been home to my family for quite a few generations, I’m the last one here, though not for much longer.
For someone who constantly shouts about what a Serious Social Scientist he is, not much actual science and no citations other than from a media outlet are presented as refutations.
From his bio "I am presently a PhD student in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University" - so no submitted or examined thesis, but willing to assume the mantle and authority of "Serious Social Scientist"
Demonizing or defunding police or police pulling back from their usual jobs and a general lack of respect for enforcing the law contributes to a climate in which more and more people push the boundaries of what they can get away with. And the more some people get away with crime, the more others are incentivized to give it a try themselves. Leading to a significant increase in crime because the inhibitions that most people have to committing a crime become reduced. If everybody is benefiting by grabbing stuff from stores without consequence, why shouldn't I participate also? I would be a fool not to. If you don't think anyone will bother trying to catch or prosecute you for shooting someone or if you perceive no one will stop someone else from shooting you, you are far more likely to pick up a gun yourself and do something you would not necessarily otherwise do. They call it the Thin Blue Line for a reason. Policing can be the difference between order and chaos. And a bunch of cities are seeing that now