True Crime

Robert Gordon has a nice piece in TNR making the point that though it's good that crime demagoguery has largely dropped out of our politics it would actually be a good idea for politicians to address crime since, hey, crime rates are still really high in the United States and all this murdering causes a lot of suffering. Gordon further notes that the uneven successes of crime fighting efforts in the 1990s appear to have taught us some important lessons about effective policing techniques that could do a lot of good were the federal government to help underwrite their spread.

This is all correct, and we should do it. Also, I would say, federal money for more cops. Meanwhile, one effect of the Iraq War has been to take a lot of cops out of the field fighting crime at home and send them to Iraq as Army Reserve and National Guard members instead. That's hardly a knock-down argument against the war, but it's a reminder that these visions of endless "strategic patience" don't come without cost.

Comments

I have an idea. The cops could stop breaking down people's doors in the middle of the night with military-grade equipment and shooting little old ladies because they think they're dope dealers. Especially when they're actually innocent. Just a thought.

Seriously, I think "better cops" needs to happen before we can think about "more cops." "Fewer laws" might have a better effect than "more cops," too, since it would give the cops fewer excuses to break down my door in the middle of the night and shoot at me.

Posted by too many steves | March 25, 2008 3:31 PM

A couple things to note. 1, violent crime rate is dropping. 2, much of our crime and incarceration is due to our drug laws. 3, much of the decline in violent crime is due to rising equity, not government policy. I'd write this off as a non-issue.

Posted by freddiemac | March 25, 2008 3:39 PM

when the cops can learn to stop shooting unarmed black men, I'll be a little more responsive to ideas like this.

And it's hard to look around the country and conclude that we just aren't locking up enough people.

Posted by Soullite | March 25, 2008 3:41 PM

Instead of federal money going to pay for local cops, why not just fold all local police departments into one national police force? This would be consistent with the 'progressive' idea of abolishing the local school boards, no?

"when the cops can learn to stop shooting unarmed black men"

Is this a Sean Bell reference? Because I can think of some other lessons from that incident. The biggest lesson, of course, is to not try to run over a cop with your car when he tells you to stop. Another lesson is to avoid strip clubs in sketchy black neighborhoods, where crime (and on-edge undercover cops) are rampant. Bell and friends should have taken the subway into Manhattan and gone to Scores or the Hustler club or something, or, if they wanted to save money, called in for some strippers and stayed home.

Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 3:58 PM

Yeah, Sean Bell is the only unarmed black man the cops ever shot. And they never shoot unarmed white people.

Actually, they've taken to breaking into innocent people's homes who happen to be armed, and then the homeowner shoots them, and the homeowner ends up on death row. So instead of one life pointlessly wasted, we've got two.

Posted by too many steves | March 25, 2008 4:02 PM

Christ, no, that's the last thing we need. If one good thing has come from the Iraq war and the horrid state of the economy and all the other screw-ups of the Bush administration, it's that we've had a brief respite from all that "tough on crime" hogwash on the national stage (though sadly we seem to continue along the path to a police state under the banner of "homeland security" instead).

We already have too many police officers and too many prisons. They would be a lot more effective at stopping real crime if only we could prevent them from spending so much time harassing harmless drug users, johns, noisy neighbors, and people who drive a little too fast.

I have to wonder how much of this supposed increase in crime comes simply from the increasing number of acts that are labeled as "criminal" by overzealous lawmakers eager to look like they are "working hard" while in office. Or from the simple fact that the population is increasing? It would be more instructive to look rather at a measure like murders per person per year, rather than just a static figure of murders per year.

This is supposed to be a democracy, an example for the world? And we have what, an entire percent of our population locked up, more than any dictatorship on the planet? That strikes me as fishy, if not entirely unhealthy.

First, stop calling a bunch of harmless stuff crime. Second, take the money that you waste on more cops and prisons and put it towards improving living conditions and opportunities for the lower classes. Only after you've done this can you come to me with any kind of argument that we have a real "crime problem" that needs solving.

Posted by STC | March 25, 2008 4:02 PM

To follow to many steves' post, the last time we tried "federal money for more cops," that money went to outfit the cops they had to break down doors in the middle of the night with military-grade equipment.

Fred: Another lesson would be to telepathically identify undercover officers who don't identify themselves when they draw a gun on you.

Posted by whiskey | March 25, 2008 4:03 PM

To follow to many steves' post, the last time we tried "federal money for more cops," that money went to outfit the cops they had to break down doors in the middle of the night with military-grade equipment.

Fred: Another lesson would be to telepathically identify undercover officers who don't identify themselves when they draw a gun on you.

Posted by whiskey | March 25, 2008 4:05 PM

Are we not locking up enough of the right people?

Since we appear to be locking up a lot of people (in percentage terms), does this mean we are presently locking up a lot of wrong people? Does the existence of a law impact the enforcement of that law and is there a saturation point at "n" number of laws (or is it relative to the number of enforcers)?

Do certain of our laws, like many drug and vice laws, help extend a criminal class and create profit opportunities where none/few would exist without them? (yes)

What about laws that many choose to skirt around because they are some combination of stupid nanny-state, expensive (a cost of business) and generally unenforceable? (much of the firestorm around illegal immigration is under the rule of law and who enforces the law).

I'll agree that a significant side-cost to the Iraq war is fewer experienced cops on the streets due to military service. There are a lot of other, similar, "side" (opportunity) costs impacting our economy due to the war.

Posted by mike c | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM

The reason that discussions on crime are always a bad thing is that invariable the "solution" is to beat up on poor blacks to make suburban whites feel safer. Perhaps it'd be different if the people that got worked up about crime were actually people that are affected by crime, not those who find urban blacks scary. Tough on crime is nothing more than a proxy race war.

Posted by lh | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM

You'd have to overhaul our drug laws, which doesn't make for good campaign slogan.

And (don't shoot the messenger) I've heard a few black women say they're voting for Obama so that their sons would have a good role model, instead of an athlete or rapper.

Posted by Monster | March 25, 2008 4:15 PM

"First, stop calling a bunch of harmless stuff crime."

That was the David Dinkins approach in New York. New Yorkers liked it so much that they replaced Dinkins with Giuliani. Ever heard of the "broken windows" theory of policing?

"Fred: Another lesson would be to telepathically identify undercover officers who don't identify themselves when they draw a gun on you."

No need to use telepathy if you avoid strip clubs in sketchy black neighborhoods, where crime (and on-edge undercover cops) are rampant. If you want to act the part of the thug, there's always a chance cops with think you are one. Acting like a thug isn't a capital offense, of course, but it does increase your chances of being shot in the sort of chaotic situation that happened outside the Kahlua Club.

Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 4:17 PM

Monster,

The drug laws are often (if not usually) used to lock up perps who are guilty of a lot of other crimes besides. Because of the 'no snitching' ethos, it's harder to get a convictions on violent crimes. Much easier to nail them for drug possession and get them off the street.

Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 4:34 PM

shorter Fred:

That ni**** had it comin' to him.

Posted by drjimcooper | March 25, 2008 4:34 PM

In other words, anyone found in a "sketchy black neighborhood" has only himself to blame if the cops fill him full of holes.

In Vietnam they called that a "free fire zone."

Posted by roac | March 25, 2008 4:38 PM

Why do we need federal money to pay for cops? Don't we have enough uses for federal money?

Posted by right | March 25, 2008 4:41 PM

I have heard of the theory, but I prefer to call it "bullshit". Giuliani is a thug (in the jackbooted, goose-stepping sense), and I never voted for him.

I stand by my assertion that if you want to do something about real crime against life and property, you're better off not wasting resources on persecuting people who you find to be unsightly or morally inferior to yourself and addressing the socioeconomic underpinnings that drive a lot of property crimes. You can lock people up ad infinitum but you are never addressing the root cause of anything and you work to create an environment that is very stifling of democracy and the human spirit in general.

Posted by STC | March 25, 2008 4:47 PM

Tough on crime is nothing more than a proxy race war.
Posted by lh

Yeah, the poor,poor black thugs!!

If blacks commit rapes at 6 times the frequency of whites or Asians, murder at 7 times the rate, and armed robbery at 15 times the rate...guess what??? By their predilictions and dysfunctions of a major part of their community, stopping crime will affect blacks disproportionately. And it isn't just violent crime. Blacks are again disproportionately represented in white collar crimes like fraud, bad check writing, embezzlement. 2% of America (black males aged 15-35) does the majority of crime others fear.

lh- Perhaps it'd be different if the people that got worked up about crime were actually people that are affected by crime, not those who find urban blacks scary. Two problems with that: (1)The black attitude to tribally rally around a thug with dozens of arrests since age 12 as "A Good Boy!" "A hard-working student before he dropped out at 14!" "A kind young man when he wasn't mugging or robbing." "Railroaded by racism!!" (2)The crime actually does affect communities outside the black underclass. It is now more likely in any armed robbery the assailant of a white or Asian, certainly a black citizen - will be by a black. And same with rape or murder by a stranger.

Of course many call that "racism for telling truths that shouldn't be openly said", but it is hard to find solutions without understanding who or what is the problem. And without societal consensus, different groups achieve different solutions for the black thug problem their own ways. Some effective, some ineffective.

In LA, Phoenix, SD, Houston the trend has been for Hispanics when they reach a large majority in neighborhoods to use ethnic cleansing of blacks to make their neighborhoods safer from random violent crime. Whites and Asians are OK, but Blacks are warned they are no longer welcome in certain sections, to either live there, go to school there, or walk around at night. Violators are beaten up or shot by neighborhood protection gangs.

Liberals and black apologists for their predators - classic solution is that it is not the thug, but "things" that are the problem. Not enough teachers, not enough school breakfast or midnight basketball programs. That thugs are only committing crime because of available handguns - and if guns are banned for everyone but armed government employee "heroes", eventually the thugs will obey the law and crime will end.

And of course more prison amenities.

And we have the intelligensia and lawyers who say endless, Talmudic-style due process and bazaar-style plea bargaining between justice brokers and merchants will deter crime best.

The two things that make sense in Robert Gordons article are (1)wise use of law enforcement, not just piling up expensive salaried people with badges strutting about and (2)Swift and certain punishment where no one wonders if an obviously guilty person will escape jail on a "special deal lawyers greased with money of influence" agree on, or the crapshoot of appeals or due process technicalities springing thugs. In return for certainty of punishment, lesser sentences for certain crimes.

Posted by chris ford | March 25, 2008 4:52 PM

You can lock people up ad infinitum but you are never addressing the root cause of anything and you work to create an environment that is very stifling of democracy and the human spirit in general.

Unlike social programs directed at imagined root causes, vigorous policing and sure, harsh punishment actually contain and reduce crime.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 25, 2008 5:13 PM

I won't comment long on the cop-bashers on this site because your allegations of racism and systemic oppression are simply not supported by facts (and more importantly, I don't have the hours it would take to adequately argue these points.

I do urge the NYC readers to be aware that the NYPD's operational strength is now below that of the "bad old days" of the early 90's. This is a serious problem that leads not only to insufficient coverage but also potentially to aggressive police tactics (due to limitations on crime prevention and investigations). Please urge your local legislators to support an increase of the NYPD headcount, which can only be accomplished through increasing police officer compensation (and not only at entry level), which is embarrassingly below market rate.

While I understand that many of Matt's readers do not agree with the tactics of the Department or its officers, I think that we should at least agree that the job of police officer is a profession that requires intelligence and sound judgment, and that the way to staff your police department with officers that possess these qualities is to offer a competitive rate of pay.

Posted by laborlibert | March 25, 2008 5:25 PM

Chris Ford, it seems like the choice is to believe that the system is at fault or that black people are inferior. Given the history of institutional racism in this country, it looks to me like it's the system. I see what you believe.

Posted by Gus | March 25, 2008 5:34 PM

"Chris Ford, it seems like the choice is to believe that the system is at fault or that black people are inferior. Given the history of institutional racism in this country, it looks to me like it's the system. I see what you believe."

While I do not agree with Ford, do you actually think its that simple of a choice? Black Americans do commit a staggering amount of crime relative to other groups. This is simply a fact. It does not mean that they are inferior. It also does not mean that there is not still institutional racism in this country. I think its important in addressing these issues that we not excuse anyone's criminal and immoral behavior. If I have misunderstood your point I apologize.

Posted by laborlibert | March 25, 2008 5:44 PM

Oh, come on man! You wouldn't support a law-and-order administration, cutting back on due process amid some nationwide big-city crackdown targeting the most heinous minority criminals terrorizing America's streets.

Hope you don't have a book due out on criminal justice!!

Posted by Americaneocon | March 25, 2008 5:52 PM

Chris Ford, it seems like the choice is to believe that the system is at fault or that black people are inferior. Given the history of institutional racism in this country, it looks to me like it's the system. I see what you believe.
Posted by Gus

The problem with your theory is that if you are correct, then countries that have no history of institutional racism or have been run by blacks for hundreds of years should have lower crime rates.
Yet when we look at places like Sweden, Netherlands, Italy without histories of institutional racism, black crime levels compared to other citizens are staggering. Same with the UK and France which imported their crime problem from Africa mostly after they ended their periods of colonialism and institutional racism. In Muslim countries, the same issue with disproprtionate black crime exists.

In countries long-claiming they are color-blind, and touted by black sociologists as being so - like Brazil - black crime is far disproportionate.

Same with long independent, black majority countries.

You can't argue the US "system" in isolation from what is happening globally with the correlation between blacks and high crime.

Nor are US blacks "acting out against" American institutional racism when they are in foreign countries. When you consider that American blacks accounted for a majority of crimes committed by US servicemen abroad in Europe, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, VIetnam, and from my experience of AF and naval personnel in Africa itself - visiting or stationed American blacks did disproportionate crimes in Africa..Though not at inner city levels, apparantly enough that countries once welcoming black GIs have turned wary of them. As part of orientation, we warned black enlisted, even officers, that because of previous crimes by blacks, blacks going into Asian countries can be expected to suffer additional scrutiny, even have stores and establishments barred to them. And, rather than create an incident, to back off and report what happened to their chain of command for action...

You can find a few places where black crime does not exceed other races, but very few. Antigua in the Caribbean is one example. You can cite a few examples of stable, isolated small black communities in America that have crime rates approaching other races, but they are either upper-middle class black suburbs that escaped their dysfunctional brethren, or small town rural blacks who ironically, were the source of the great black migration to cities harmed by and even destroyed by the havoc those blacks moving out of rural areas caused.

Posted by chris ford | March 25, 2008 6:37 PM

Chris Ford's point about crimes by black servicemen is an important one. Rapes by black servicemen of locals have caused a lot of friction with our Asian allies over the years.

Posted by Juan | March 25, 2008 6:51 PM

Now I know why the Celtics drafted Eric Montross. Obviously their coach in the early '90s was a racist. Maybe he poisoned Reggie Lewis!

Posted by too many steves | March 25, 2008 10:31 PM

Once again, Matt demonstrates his cluelessness.

Crime occurs for reasons. Addressing those reasons is how you stop crime.

Terrorism occurs for reasons. Addressing those reasons is how you stop terrorism.

Matt apparently has a limited understanding that pouring more troops into Iraq is not the way to "stop terrorism".

But he has absolutely no clue that pouring "more cops" on to the streets is not the way to deal with crime. If all you want to do is increase the prison population, and the cost of law enforcement - and thus the cost of crime - then "more cops" - like "more troops" - is the way to go.

Get a fucking clue, Matt.

Also get a fucking clue that the reason you had Abu Ghraib happens to be:

1) The people in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi prison system are correctional officials from states with a history of court-enforced sanctions against their prison systems.

2) Those bozo cops you complain about being sent to Iraq.

Here's Charles Graner's history for those who forget:

"From 1990 to 1994, he worked as a school custodian. In 1994, he began working as a guard during the afternoon shift at Fayette County Prison. The Washington Post remarked: "Unlike the night shift, which was typically sleepy, or the morning shift, which was busy with prisoner transfers to court hearings, the afternoon shift had a no-nonsense reputation."

Here, Graner played a practical joke on Robert Tajc, a new guard, by putting mace in his coffee [1]. No disciplinary action was taken against Graner during his employment at the county jail.

Starting on May 17, 1996 (some sources say May 20), Graner worked at State Correctional Institution-Greene, a maximum-security state prison in Greene County. The Los Angeles Times described the prison: "It was built for 1,500 of Pennsylvania's hardest-core prisoners, including about 985[citation needed] on death row, and had the perks of modern corrections, such as central air conditioning and cable TV. But it was not immune from the age-old tensions of such institutions. While almost 98% of the inmates were black, many from big cities, SCI-Greene was in a rural part of the state near the West Virginia border, and more than 95% of the guards were white."

In the state prison, several allegations involved Graner. The first occurred on July 29, 1998. Horatio Nimley, convicted of perjury, was eating mashed potatoes when his mouth started bleeding and he spat out a razor blade. According to a May 1999 federal lawsuit brought by Nimley against Graner, five other guards, and the prison nursing supervisor, Graner first planted the blade in his potatoes, ignored him, and finally brought him to the nurse, where they punched, kicked, and slammed Nimley on the floor. Nimley also alleged that when he screamed, "Stop, stop," Graner told him, "Shut up, nigger, before we kill you."

Graner denied these allegations. A federal magistrate in Pittsburgh, however, ruled that the charges have "arguable merit in fact and law." However, when Nimley was released from prison in 2000, he disappeared, and the case was dismissed, leaving much of what happened still in question. Nimley is now in Graterford prison in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, for burglary.

A second lawsuit involving Graner was brought by a prisoner who claimed that guards made him stand on one foot while handcuffed and tripped him. This allegation, however, was ruled to have been made too late. Graner, like anyone else accused of a crime, was protected by a statute of limitations.

During his time at Greene, Graner was connected with several incidents of a violent nature. The Washington Post reported that "abuse allegations had become common at Greene ... Guards beat prisoners, spit in their food, showered them with racial epithets and wrote 'KKK' in one beaten prisoner's blood. The allegations weren't without merit: In 1998, two dozen guards were fired, suspended, demoted or reprimanded." A prison spokesman said none of the allegations involved Graner.

Nick Yarris, a former inmate who was recently released after DNA tests cleared him of rape and murder charges, spent 22 years on Death Row in SCI Greene. Yarris confirms the type of abuse Nimley alleged, recounting an incident in May 1998 when Yarris saw Graner and four other guards pull an inmate who purposefully flooded the toilet out of his cell and dragged him away. Yarris says Graner was holding a can of pepper spray and said, "We're going to go get some." Yarris says the inmate was severely bruised the next time he was seen.

Yarris also said Graner "bragged about taunting anti-death-penalty protesters who would gather outside the prison, used racial epithets and once told a Muslim inmate he had rubbed pork all over his tray of food." In another interview, he said Graner was "responsible for moving prisoners within the facility and was 'violent, abusive, arrogant and mean-spirited.' "

This is how cops and correctional officers in the US prison system operate. The almost total breakdowns of the NYPD and LAPD departments in recent years illustrate a broad and deep systemic deficiency in the organization of law enforcement in this country.

Bottom line: "more cops" is definitely not an answer to any significant level of crime.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 2:44 AM

Re: You can find a few places where black crime does not exceed other races, but very few.

But even those very few cases disprove any sort of racial or genetic determinism since they shouldn't exist at all if genes were the cause of crime. This forces us to consider instead cultural factors and we should also look at other groups noted for high crime rate, including poor Southern whites.

Posted by JonF | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM