Crime Up & Crime Down In NYC

[TomAuch]

I'm probably overreacting to this. In reading about J.B.Hehman's (TLOZ Link5) death, and how there had been a rash of robberies in a part of Harlem undergoing gentrification and the like, I'm wondering if New York is seeing a wider trend, wider than just this one incident. If city-wide crime is going up, it should not be surprising, as crime is going up in most big cities. What has been remarkable in this decade, given the country's economic state and NYC's post-9/11 economy, is that NYC did not revert back to the "bad old days," where from the mid 1970's to early 1990's, where it was infected and infested with crime and racial tension. Although for most of my life I do not have a palpable memory of what it was like in New York at this time (I'm only two years younger than TLOZ) there is no way in hell that I would ever want to live in or travel to a New York that was like the '70s-early '90s NYC, despite how some bemoan the city for being "sanitized" today. Even if the overall crime-rate in NY is not climbing, is it possible that it's climbing in select areas?

[Marty]

I’ve always been interested in criminal activity and what fuels it! Demographic changes, gentrification social policies, political and governmental breakdowns etc.

NYC has gone through the biggest change since the 1950’s no doubt the tapestry of the city will be affected hence tension within the fabric.

I’d like to see numbers in terms of crime and compare, even though the NYPD cooks the books we’d get an idea. If you look at current high crime areas they were not always like this IE: Mott Haven Bed Stuy, ENY. Alphabet City one of the worst crimeinfested areas in NYC over the past 30 years has now become trendy and hip.

Media coverage of these incidents might taint reality and present a perception of rising crime. I must admit that I hear much more gunplay in the Bronx then I’ve ever heard. Quality of life compared to 1985 in the South Bronx might be better today but I believe it’s a much more violent place to be in today then back then.

m.

[macreator]

While crime fluctuates a bit, I don't think long term that crime is going back up again in NYC. We've had years in the last decade where crime has gone up from the year before, but overall it has gone down over those ten years.

A lot of the places you're hearing about crime going up is suburban communities. Typically suburbs that are pretty close to big cities. NBC did a story on this, and the FBI is trying to crack down on it early.

While some act dumb as to why crime is rising in surrounding suburbs, the reason seems simple to me --- rejuvenation in the cities.

With City neighborhoods being rejuvenated, and rents going up drastically, low-income people are being forced out of most big cities and into nearby suburbs that are more affordable.

With violent crime statistically higher among low-income residents, this would make sense as to why crime is rising in the 'burbs and going down in the City.

So, why are there still every so often clashes in places like the Lower East Side, Harlem and spots in Brooklyn where rejuvenation has taken place nearby? Simple --- housing projects. Projects are artificially retaining many low-income people who now find themselves in a neighborhood they can't afford and with people that have very different means than them.

Don't take me wrong people --- I am not hating on the poor. Many low-income people are perfectly humble and law-abiding but we have to look at statistics that show the trends. Corporate money laundering is more likely with white-collar workers. That's just statistically true.

[Ninjahedge]

The less you have to lose, the more you are willing to risk.

Violent (obvious) crime is similar in that respct to desperation crime (addiction, terrorism).

Unfortunately, since we do everything by demographic, we seem to ignore the fact that it is poverty that motivates many of these people to do this, and instead focus on race. While race does act as a channel for the acts, it is rarely the primary motivator.

Now add to it the whole demographic differential (such as posh next to poverty) and you get additional hatred and tension, also similar to what we see in other areas in the world.

If not havnig something irritates you, then seeing someone that does, that is different than you, in a way that you have been programmed is somehow wrong, then you will get more "motivated" to "balance the scales".

What they have to do in these areas is promote the kind of living that does not strain so much at demographic strata. You get a bunch of hard working poor in an area, who are proud of what they have been able to get through their labors, and you will get less reaction than from a bunch of people who have been handed stuff just because they had none. Humans are like that.

There will still be resentment (The Blue Collar members of my family still scorn the "pieces of paper" others in my family, myself included, have gotten from school, but that has not lead to them, or anyone else in their neighborhood, to go out yuppie-bashing). But there will not be as much outright disrespect and aggression.

Just my thoughts...

[MrSpice]

I'm probably overreacting to this. In reading about J.B.Hehman's (TLOZ Link5) death, and how there had been a rash of robberies in a part of Harlem undergoing gentrification and the like, I'm wondering if New York is seeing a wider trend, wider than just this one incident.

The gentrification that is going on in Harlem does not affect that much the poor housing projects that still breed crime and poverty. The income levels among residents of many of those housing projects is way below the poverty live and new developments often means that prices go up in the neighborhood stores and the cost of life goes up. That's a problem that can only be solved by better education and changes in the way we view the subsidized housing, I believe.

[nycbound]

The less you have to lose, the more you are willing to risk.

Violent (obvious) crime is similar in that respct to desperation crime (addiction, terrorism).

Unfortunately, since we do everything by demographic, we seem to ignore the fact that it is poverty that motivates many of these people to do this, and instead focus on race. While race does act as a channel for the acts, it is rarely the primary motivator.

Now add to it the whole demographic differential (such as posh next to poverty) and you get additional hatred and tension, also similar to what we see in other areas in the world.

If not havnig something irritates you, then seeing someone that does, that is different than you, in a way that you have been programmed is somehow wrong, then you will get more "motivated" to "balance the scales".

What they have to do in these areas is promote the kind of living that does not strain so much at demographic strata. You get a bunch of hard working poor in an area, who are proud of what they have been able to get through their labors, and you will get less reaction than from a bunch of people who have been handed stuff just because they had none. Humans are like that.

There will still be resentment (The Blue Collar members of my family still scorn the "pieces of paper" others in my family, myself included, have gotten from school, but that has not lead to them, or anyone else in their neighborhood, to go out yuppie-bashing). But there will not be as much outright disrespect and aggression.

Just my thoughts...


Ninjahead- I have to agree w/you. I think crime has more to do w/socioeconomics, than it does race. People living in poverty, and below the poverty level, for that matter, simply do not have the same opportunities that those w/financial means do. People don't commit crimes because they are black, white, aisian, hispanic, or whatever... most crimes are committed out of desperation (I'm not talking about out & out sicko's - murderers, etc); I'm talking about people that feel that they don't have other options, not that they don't have other options, but that are made to feel that they don't. Maybe it's b/c we have a school system that would rather put their money into installing metal detectors in the schools, instead of making sure that all kids in all schools, not just the privileged ones have computers, current text books, decent facilities, etc...Until we as a society begin to value all citizens equally, via education, opportunity, etc... we will continue to have crime. Just my opinon...

[krulltime]

The gentrification that is going on in Harlem does not affect that much the poor housing projects that still breed crime and poverty. The income levels among residents of many of those housing projects is way below the poverty live and new developments often means that prices go up in the neighborhood stores and the cost of life goes up. That's a problem that can only be solved by better education and changes in the way we view the subsidized housing, I believe.


The city should destroy those ugly and segragated housing projects and built some that have more interaction to the neighborhoods they are in. Maybe the people then will feel that they will be part of the community, not part of an underclass. An example might be what they are doing in Chicago... just check the video on this website.

http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/cabrini_green_homes.html

[ablarc]

Still sterile. Still segregated, still zoned by use. Where are the shops? Oh there they are in the strip mall with the parking lot. Do the residents get in their cars and drive there?

When the newness wears off will anyone still think it's great?

[krulltime]

Ok I agree about the shops. In NYC that won't work. But I like how these new buildings have larger windows and the size makes them ideal for places like Harlem.. Also they are suppose to be mixed for all incomes.

[ablarc]

Ok I agree about the shops. In NYC that won't work.
Why would it work in Chicago?

But I like how these new buildings have larger windows and the size makes them ideal for places like Harlem.. Also they are suppose to be mixed for all incomes.
True, the big windows are nice (and the glossy hardwood floors). But when I look at this as a whole, I see projects. Right down to the unassigned open space and the iron fencing. I see standardized landscape and future dead grass. Once the pushers move in, the middle class will move out, and we'll be right back where we started.

[krulltime]

Well I am not sure if that will work in Chicago neither. But I assume that most people in Chicago drive more than people in NYC?

Anyway... I agree that the fencing is a give way that they are just projects. That I will do with out aswell. I say something similar shown on the video but without those fences. and ofcourse shops on every corner and on the big avenues. Just like you find on every NYC streets, but lack on those big ugly housing projects.

[ablarc]

Well I am not sure if that will work in Chicago neither. But I assume that most people in Chicago drive more than people in NYC?

Anyway... I agree that the fencing is a give way that they are just projects. That I will do with out aswell. I say something similar shown on the video but without those fences. and ofcourse shops on every corner and on the big avenues.
In other words, a different approach... :)

One that isn't a project.

[Clyde]

Crime will go up, it's cyclical. I wouldn't believe anything the NYPD says, since it's in their best interest to lie and cook the books, as Marty mentioned above. Shootings have increased over the past couple years, along with rape. I see people get robbed all the time, but it isn't reported. When you increase the amount of people with middle-high incomes, it also increases the number of potential victims.

[ablarc]

I see people get robbed all the time.
Where do you see this?

[ZippyTheChimp]

To say that the NYPD cooks the books and that crime is really going up, you have to assume that they didn't cook the books in the past.

[ablarc]

^ Maybe they do it always, as a matter of course.

[Clyde]

Where do you see this?

Did you want a specific neighborhood(s) or area?

To say that the NYPD cooks the books and that crime is really going up, you have to assume that they didn't cook the books in the past.

Yes, but now that it is an important issue for Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD in their marketing for tourism and attracting people to move into the city, they have to do it to a more extreme level to supress any notion of a rise.

[ablarc]

Did you want a specific neighborhood(s) or area?
Yes. Where do you see this?

[ZippyTheChimp]

It was an important issue for the same reasons last year, the year before, etc. If all the data is faulty, then you can't pick and choose what you will accept as true fact, and draw any conclusions.

It is ridiculous to think that anyone without access to data can have a feel for whether crime rates rise or fall year-to-year. You can only make that assessment over the long term.

[ablarc]

It was an important issue for the same reasons last year, the year before, etc. If all the data is faulty, then you can't pick and choose what you will accept as true fact, and draw any conclusions.
This may be the Age of Information, but that makes it also the age of disinformation.

[Clyde]

Yes. Where do you see this?

Mid-Queens, in Elmhurst, Ridgewood, Woodside, etc.

[ablarc]

^ Do you call the police?

[Clyde]

^ Do you call the police?

Nope. The police in the area are notorious for their slow arrival time, so I don't bother. I've called them before for other issues and they never showed up.

[ablarc]

So, are these crimes even reported?

[Clyde]

So, are these crimes even reported?

Probably not. I've been robbed and not reported it, so I imagine some people don't report it either.

[ablarc]

Have you seen the person who robbed you since?

[Clyde]

Have you seen the person who robbed you since?

No, why?

[ablarc]

It probably means he was not from your neighborhood.

And if you did see him, what would you do?

[Clyde]

It probably means he was not from your neighborhood.

And if you did see him, what would you do?

Uhh.. What do you suggest?

[ablarc]

Lethal force.

What else? ;)

Not much you can do.

[krulltime]

Probably not. I've been robbed and not reported it, so I imagine some people don't report it either.


If people don't report it than you can't blame the NYPD for cooking the books.

But I do have a feeling that alot of crime has been happening to alot of new immigrants for years without been reported. But since they are immigrants they just don't report it for fear of been deported to their countries. So alot of criminals tend to attack this group of immigrants more than a USA citizen.

When I used to live in Philadelphia, I used to work at this Colombian restaurant and alot of the clientele (especially the Mexicans) will have stories of been mugged or assaulted by criminals. I will encourage them to call the police and most of them did not want to for fear of deportation. So they shrugged off.

When I heard that those muggers who attacked TLOZ had though of attacking a hispanic man, I though of those hispanic immigrants back in Philadelphia.

[ablarc]

^ Equal-opportunity crime.

[BrooklynRider]

Here are two conflicting reports for today. Talk about Bloomberg spin...


Murder, Robbery on Rise in Big Cities
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Big-city murders rose sharply in 2006 as violent crime increased nationally for the second straight year, the FBI reported Monday. Homicides committed in small towns and mid-size cities took a dramatic downswing - resulting in an overall 0.3 percent increase in the murder rate across the country, the new preliminary data show.

Year-end totals for murders rose in eight of the nation's 10 largest cities: Chicago, Houston, Las Vegas, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio and San Diego. That contributed to a 6.7 percent murder rate increase in cities with populations over 1 million people.

The murder rate dropped in two other big cities, Dallas and Los Angeles. And it plummeted by an overall 11.9 percent in smaller cities, towns and rural areas, the data show.

The growing homicide numbers contributed to an overall 1.3 percent hike in violent crime nationwide in 2006. A year earlier, violent crime rose by 2.3 percent, the first increase since 2001.

FBI Assistant Director Ken Kaiser, detailing the new numbers to reporters in Washington, said it's too soon to expect a long-term increase in violent crime.

"Am I happy with the increase in violent crime? Absolutely not. I'd have to be a fool to say I was," Kaiser said. "But I would tell you I think (police) are working very hard out there."

Kaiser also noted "dips and rises" in the nation's violent crime rate over the last several decades, and he described some successes in prosecuting and convicting criminals by teams of federal agents working with local and state police.

The new numbers come in the wake of the Bush administration's shifting focus - evidenced by lessening Justice Department grants and FBI investigators - from fighting crime to combating terrorists after the 2001 attacks. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has pledged to devote millions of additional dollars and a surge of federal agents to aid crime-riddled cities.

Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, a Democrat who presides over the National League of Cities, said local officials nationwide are asking Congress for more than $1 billion annually to restore stretched-thin police departments back to their full force. He attributed the rise, in part, to increased gang activity, violent youths and domestic crimes.

Indianapolis' murder rate rose by 30 percent - from 108 homicides in 2005 to 140 in 2006, the data show.

"We've faced some of the same problems," Peterson said. "It's been a huge concern to us."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who chairs a Senate panel overseeing crime issues, said the new numbers should serve as "a wake-up call" to the administration, which he accused of slashing funding that would have put more local cops on the street.

"For years we drove down the crime rates - but now we're in reverse gear," said Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. "This administration has repeatedly ignored the needs to law enforcement, giving short shrift to the men and women who keep us safe every day."

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said crime remains historically low in America and noted Gonzales' efforts to crack down on violence.

"We are concerned about crime in our communities and are taking action to protect our citizens from violent crime," Roehrkasse said.

The FBI report, compiled with data from more than 11,700 law enforcement agencies nationwide, also showed:

-Robberies spiked by 6 percent, marking the highest increase in any category of crime surveyed.

-Property crimes decreased overall by 2.9 percent from 2005. Burglaries, however, rose slightly - particularly in mid-size cities, where the rate grew by 3.3 percent.

-Violent crime rose in every region of the country except for the Northeast, the FBI reported. Western states saw the largest jump in violent crime, by 2.8 percent.

The FBI's 2006 preliminary Uniform Crime Report:

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/ucr060407.htm

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
__________________________________________________

June 5, 2007
Metro Briefing
Manhattan: New York Remains Safest Big City

Crime fell 5.3 percent in New York City last year, and New York is still the safest big city in the United States, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced yesterday in releasing statistics from the F.B.I.’s preliminary crime report for 2006. Violent crime in New York dropped 4.6 percent, and the city reported the fewest crimes per 100,000 residents among the nation’s largest cities, the mayor said. Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said crime had fallen an additional 8.5 percent in the first several months of this year. Nationwide, crime increased 1.3 percent last year, according to the F.B.I. report.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[pianoman11686]

The AP article talks only about murders in reference to New York. The NY Times article talks about crime in general, and violent crime. Lot of room there for contradictory data.

[krulltime]

Well murder is actually down in NYC. ;) Well according to this website...

Year to Date (NYC):

Type of Crime____(2007) <--- (2006)

Murder:_______ 191 <------ 225
Rape:_________ 586 <------ 695
Robbery:______ 8,062 <---- 9,152
Fel. Assault:___ 6,736 <---- 6,802
Burglary:_____ 8,357 <----- 9,292
Gr. Larceny:__ 17,428 <--- 18,179


http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf

[krulltime]

Actually that is kind of funny. A mistake somewhere with the Associated Press reporting perphaps? Here is the CNN story, not a mention of NYC...


Murders, robberies drive up U.S. violent crime rate



STORY HIGHLIGHTS


Violent crime up 1.3 percent in 2006, FBI reports
Murders in big cities jumped 6.7 percent
Robberies up 6.1 percent nationwide
More guns, gangs and younger, more violent offenders blamed for increase




http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/06/04/usa.crime.reut/story.philadelphia.murder2.jpg
Mourners wore memorial T-shirts at
the funeral of Primitivo Sanchez, 20,
who was shot in an argument over
his car.


June 4, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- More murders and robberies in 2006 sent U.S. violent crimes higher for the second straight year, the FBI said on Monday, with the increase blamed on gangs, youth violence, gun crimes and fewer police on beats.

The FBI reported that the number of violent crimes nationwide went up by 1.3 percent last year, following a 2.3 percent increase in 2005. That had been the first rise in four years and the biggest percentage gain in 15 years.

The report showed that murders in big cities jumped last year by 6.7 percent. Robberies, an important indicator of crime trends, increased 6 percent nationwide.

Cities with big increases in the number of murders included Orlando and Miami in Florida; Oakland and San Diego in California; Phoenix, Arizona; Corpus Christi, Texas; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Reno, Nevada and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Even though the higher violent crime numbers had been expected, they still represented bad news for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has targeted violent crime as a top priority for the U.S. Justice Department.

A department study released last month of 18 metropolitan areas cited more violence by local gangs or street crews, a greater prevalence of guns in the hands of criminals and younger, more violent offenders as key reasons for the rising crime rates.

Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.

"The fact that we are seeing these increases several years in a row should be a wake-up call," said James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston.

"There's a tendency to think the sky is falling. It's not," said Fox, noting the increases have been relatively small. "We're not talking about an epidemic here."

David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the crime problems appear to be spreading to medium-sized and smaller cities.

He said the emergence of deadly drug crews or street gangs can have a potentially profound impact on a city's homicide or gun assault rate.

Lawrence Sherman, director of a criminology center at the University of Pennsylvania, called it an unusual pattern that murder is going up in some big cities, but down in others.

One possible explanation is that some police departments are doing much more to catch people illegally carrying concealed weapons, he said.

In the FBI report, murders nationwide increased overall by 0.3 percent. The increase in big cities was nearly offset by declines in non-metropolitan areas.

In the violent crime category, burglaries and murders increased nationwide while the number of rapes declined by nearly 2 percent and aggravated assaults fell slightly.

Violent crime went up in every region of the country except for the Northeast. The largest increase occurred in the West at 2.8 percent.


© 2007 Cable News Network. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/04/usa.crime.reut/index.html)

[krulltime]

NYC is also facing the fewer cops problems...


Criminologists agreed with those reasons and also said there are fewer police on the beat. They cited the Bush administration's shift in emphasis to prevent terrorism since the September 11 attacks and funding cuts for programs to put more police officers on the street.


HIRE & LOWER AS TOP COPS SING THE BLUES


By JAMIE SCHRAM
June 5, 2007

The NYPD will fall more than 2,000 recruits short of the target for its next academy class, and several precincts have already suffered substantial drops in manpower, police brass testified yesterday.

At a City Council hearing, Rafael Pineiro, the department's chief of personnel, said he anticipated hiring between 700 and 800 recruits for the Police Academy class on July 9. The department had set a hiring goal of more than 3,000 cops for that class.

He also noted that there are just under 36,000 officers on the force, a decrease of 5,000 from October 2000, when the department reached a high of nearly 41,000 officers.

"We have serious problems," Pineiro said, adding that the difficulty in attracting new recruits boils down to the low starting salary of $25,100.

The NYPD is trying to manage an expected rise in attrition rates in 2010, as cops hired as part of the Safe Street, Safe City program 20 years earlier become eligible for retirement.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has also blamed the low starting salary for a looming manpower crisis.

Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, also testified at the hearing and said the situation has reached a "crisis point."
"Specifically, the NYPD is unable to recruit and retain enough qualified candidates to staff the precincts and commands in the city at a level that is safe," Lynch said.

As examples, Lynch pointed to the considerable drop in patrols and staffing rates in the 111th Precinct in Bayside, Queens, and at the 28th Precinct in Harlem.

At the 111th, which covers 9.4 square miles and has 116,000 residents, Lynch said it's "simply not enough" to have two or three patrol cars to cover such a large area.

In the 28th, Lynch said, there are currently 188 officers compared with 252 in 2000.

Critics say the police union is itself responsible for the low starting pay, accusing it of selling out its own recruits' salary in order to get raises for existing members. Union leadership denies the charge.

Peter Vallone Jr., chairman of the council's Public Safety Committee, echoed Lynch's view on the department's staffing troubles, saying, "It is a crisis waiting to happen."

The meeting grew testy when Vallone asked NYPD Deputy Chief John Gerrish, "Do you know of any other police force in any major city since 9/11 that has decided that the best strategy would be to downsize?"
Stunned, Gerrish responded, "I can't answer that question."

Then Vallone took aim at Pineiro, noting that in December 2004, in connection with arbitration proceedings, Pineiro testified that the NYPD did not have a recruiting problem.

But Pineiro fired back with statistics showing that there was a "precipitous drop" in the number of people applying for the NYPD exam after the contract introducing the $21,500 starting pay was announced in 2005.

For example, Pineiro said, there were 35,039 applicants in October 2004, 28,737 applicants in February 2005 and 29,027 applicants in June 2005.

When the contract was announced on June 27, 2005, there were just 21,124 applicants in October that year, 23,275 applicants in February 2006 and 21,000 in June 2006.


Copyright 2007 NYP Holdings, Inc. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052007/news/regionalnews/hire__lower_as_top_cops_sing_the_blues_regionalnew s_jamie_schram.htm)

[pianoman11686]

NYC is also facing the fewer cops problems...

If it's a problem, then how come we're still seeing crime go down?

[kliq6]

If it's a problem, then how come we're still seeing crime go down?

Economy is strong, once recession sets in, NYC crime will pop

[pianoman11686]

Violent crime is still going down significantly. It has been shown that there's no statistical relationship between violent crimes and the health of the economy. (Not the case for property crimes.)

[kliq6]

Maybem, but in NYC history, and feel free to look at the numbers. When economy is good, crime has always been lower. Worse crime was in the 1970's when NYC economy was in the pits

[pianoman11686]

Right, but if you look even further back, the crime rates started rising quickly in the 60s, precisely when the economy was booming. The high crime rates of the 70s didn't just materialize within a few years. It was part of a longer trend.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Maybem, but in NYC history, and feel free to look at the numbers. When economy is good, crime has always been lower.There are too many "anomalies" that counter that statement.

We were already saturated with crime in the early 80s. The city economy steadily improved, to the point where we had a real-estate hit in the late 80s, followed by a quick recovery into the 90s.

Yet, all during that time, crime across the board got steadily worse.

[ablarc]

^ So if it's not economic, what is it?

[BrooklynRider]

The 80's was a big drug decade.

[macreator]

The 80's was a big drug decade.

Indeed. And the crack epidemic later in the decade was a huge crime issue.

[Eugenius]

According to Freakonomics, the single biggest factor contributing to the drop in crime over the last decade is the legalization of abortion in 1973. In other words, many of those people who otherwise were the most likely to grow up in broken families and turn to crime were never born.

This factor has been demonstrated to be more statistically significant than any other, including increase in police presense, different police tactics, gun control, state of the economy, etc.

[pianoman11686]

^ So if it's not economic, what is it?

Well, let's be clear about something, since people are throwing out answers to two different questions:

1) What causes crime rates to rise?

2) What causes crime rates to fall?

The health of the economy is not a statistically significant factor in either of these scenarios. Levitt - an economist (and author of Freakonomics) - notes that a one percent drop in the unemployment rate causes about a one percent drop in property crimes, but no drop in violent crimes. Think about it this way: when a crime has a financial incentive (like robbery), the economy can play a contributing role. But most homicides, rapes, and other violent crimes don't have financial incentives, thus they're unaffected.

It's safe to say that black markets in drugs and guns are tied into a significant chunk of violent crimes, and may be viewed as "causative" factors. This makes it plausible to conclude that crack was responsible for both an increase in crime, when the business was good, and a decrease, when business got worse. But for most crimes, you can't assign a statistical variable to what motivates the behavior - things like being involved in a gang, growing up in a violent neighborhood, having a stronger tendency to get into fights, etc. These are sociological questions.

Factors that you can put numbers on, which, depending on whether they're on the rise or fall, are not causative per se, but what I'd call "enabling." These are: prosecution/incarceration rates; abortion rates; police hiring. For all three, data analysis has shown significant, negative correlation, which means: when the rates go up, there is a corresponding decrease in crime.

[lofter1]

Re: Abortion = lower crime rates

A guess ^^^ of questionable merit -- and impossible to prove.

[eddhead]

^^ maybe, but Levitt does a pretty good job of trying..there is a lot of circumstantial evidence if not hard p[roof provided in the book.. if nothing else, it is thought-provoking.

[pianoman11686]

The ideas about the decrease in crime as related to abortion are not circumstantial. They're based on research papers that Levitt worked on for several years prior to publishing the book. Freakonomics tries very hard to be readable, likeable, and comprehensible - which doubtless causes some to question its seriousness and rigor. But believe me, there is real math and science behind it.

[eddhead]

^^

Didn't mean to suggest there was no real math behind the analysis but stastical evidence doesn't really constitue hard proof in my mind. He makes a very strong case though.

[NYatKNIGHT]

In case anyone was wondering, I merged this thread with another that was entitled "Do you think that crime is on the rise again in NYC", not to be confused with Under Bloomberg, Crime Falls Again (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3058&page=9). I almost merged all three threads for a more coherent discussion of Crime in New York City, but this one differs in that it examines whether crime is in fact falling or not. I hope this helps those of you involved in these threads know where to direct your posts.

So my post isn't a complete interruption in the conversation:
Man charged in Subway robberies (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/nyregion/07mbrfs-robberies.html)

[krulltime]

New model police
Why crime continues to fall in America's biggest cities even as it rises elsewhere


http://www.economist.com/images/20070609/2307US1.jpg


Jun 7th 2007 | LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

WILLIAM BRATTON, the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), likes to say that “cops count”. They certainly seem to count when Mr Bratton is in charge of them. New York's crime rate withered when he ran its police force in the mid-1990s, and Los Angeles has become more law-abiding ever since he arrived in 2002. Burglaries are down by a fifth, murders by a third and serious assaults by more than half. The setting for innumerable hard-boiled detective novels and violent television dramas is now safer than Salt Lake City in Utah.

Yet Los Angeles's good fortune is not replicated everywhere. Compared to ten years ago, when crime was in remission across America, the current diagnosis is complex and worrying. Figures released this week by the FBI show that, while property crimes continue to fall, the number of violent crimes has begun to drift upwards. In some places it has soared. Oakland, in northern California, had 145 murders last year—more than half again as many as in 2005. No fewer than 406 people died in Philadelphia, putting the murder rate back where it had been in the bad old days of the early 1990s.

The most consistent and striking trend of the past few years is a benign one. America's three biggest cities are becoming safer. Robberies in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York have tumbled in the past few years, defying the national trend (see chart). Indeed, the big cities are now holding down increases in overall crime rates. Between 2000 and 2006, for example, the number of murders in America went up by 7%. Were it not for Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, all of which notched many fewer, the increase would have been 11%.

This is especially surprising given the big cities' recent woes. Thanks to a cut in starting salaries and poaching by suburban forces, New York's police department has lost more than 4,000 officers since 2000. Chicago and Los Angeles also have fewer cops than they did in the late 1990s—and the latter has more people. The LAPD labours under a court decree, imposed in 2001 following revelations of corruption and brutality, which forces it to spend precious time and money scrutinising itself.

The three police forces, though, look increasingly alike when it comes to methods of tackling crime. The new model was pioneered in New York. In the mid-1990s it began to map crimes, allocate officers accordingly (a strategy known as “putting cops on the dots”) and hold local commanders accountable for crime on their turf. Since 2002 it has flooded high-crime areas with newly qualified officers. The cops' methods are sometimes crude—police stops in New York have increased five-fold in the past five years—but highly effective. Crime tends to go down by about a third in the flooded areas, which has a disproportionate impact on the overall tally.

In the past few years Chicago and Los Angeles have adopted similar methods: although, having fewer officers, they are less extravagant with them. The Los Angeles police targeted just five hot spots last year. But both cities have put local commanders in charge of cutting crime on their patches. And, like New York, they are moving beyond putting cops on the dots. They now try to anticipate where crimes will occur based on gang intelligence.

Wesley Skogan, a criminologist at Northwestern University, reckons such methods are the most likely cause of the continued drop in big-city crime. He has diligently tested most of the explanations proffered for Chicago's falling crime rate and has been able to rubbish most of them. Locking lots of people up, for example, may well have helped cut crime a decade ago. But it can't account for the trend of the past few years: the number of Chicagoans behind bars has declined since 1999. The police simply seem to be doing a better job of deterring lawlessness.

The big cities' methods may sound obvious, yet they are surprisingly rare. Many police forces are not divided into neighbourhood units. Oakland's struggling force, for example, is organised into three daily shifts, or “watches”, which makes it hard to hold anybody accountable for steadily rising crime in a district. Even when smaller police forces track emerging hot spots, they often fail to move quickly enough to cool them down.

There is, however, a limit to what even the best police forces can do. Outside New York, in particular, the thin blue line can be very thin indeed. Los Angeles, a city of 3.8m people, tends to have about 500 officers on general patrol at any time. However shrewdly the cops are deployed, they might not have cut crime so dramatically if social trends had not also been moving in the right direction.

The most obvious change is that, thanks in part to high property prices, all three cities are shedding young people. Together they lost more than 200,000 15-to 24-year-olds between 2000 and 2005. That bodes ill for their creativity and future competitiveness, but it is good news for the police. Young people are not just more likely to commit crimes. Thanks to their habit of walking around at night and their taste for portable electronic gizmos, they are also more likely to become its targets.

Another change is that poor Americans have been displaced by poor immigrants—who, as studies have repeatedly shown, are much better behaved than natives of similar means. This trend is symbolised by the disappearance of blacks. Roughly half of America's murder victims and about the same proportion of suspected murderers are black. In five years America's three biggest cities lost almost a tenth of their black residents, while elsewhere in America their numbers held steady.

None of which detracts from the achievement of America's biggest police forces. After all, they managed to cut crime when several trends, from the growing availability of crack cocaine to the continued breakdown of poor families, were against them. It is nice to have some help, but cops do count.



http://www.economist.com/images/20070609/CUS468.gif



Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2007 (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9302881)

[Capn_Birdseye]

Has New York beaten the Mob yet? Or are there still some great films yet to be made?