Back in 2013, New York’s stop and frisk policies were ended by federal judge Shira Scheindlin who ruled that the city had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting racially defined groups for stops based on local crime suspect data. This has resulted in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“Both statistical and anecdotal evidence showed that minorities are indeed treated differently than whites,” she wrote. In contrast to prevailing viewpoints, she found that “[o]nce a stop is made, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”
This differential in treatment, the judge ruled, has led to officers to routinely stop “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”
Under stop and frisk, cops can stop, question and search people for contraband – even without the ordinary protections of the due process of law.
The LA Times reports this morning that, while the tactic began in the early part of the 2000s, it quickly expanded its scope. In 2011, police stopped more than 685,000 people in New York, but 88 percent of those stops yielded nothing and nearly 90 percent of those who were stopped were either black or Latino.
The Times writes, “Crime rates declined in New York City from its peak in the 1990s, but criminologists attribute that to a nationwide plunge in crime over two decades, not specifically to stop-and-frisk.”
The numbers on their surface are mixed at best. Crime went down from 2013 to 2014. However, it ticked back up in New York in 2015. “In 2015, murders were up 10.8% compared with last year but remain far below the peak levels of the mid-1990s. Violent crime overall was up 3.9%, while property crime declined by 2.6% compared with 2014.”
However, this year, New York has once again seen a drop in murders over what it had been in 2015.
The Washington Post ran an article today analyzing stop and frisk data since 2002 and comparing it to FBI data on crime rates – the Post found “almost no correction.”
Part of the problem is that the crime rate peaked in 1990 and began plunging well before Mayor Rudy Giuliani even took office. The Post writes, “Giuliani’s claim that he deserves credit for New York’s crime rate is also overblown. The plunge began before he took office, in parallel with a sharp national drop in crime levels. It continued after he left.”
Basically the analysis finds, “Crime in New York declined quickly after 1990 and has generally stayed low. There was a brief uptick last year at the same time as a further drop in the stop-and-frisk count, but in four of the past five years, levels of crime fell alongside the number of stop-and-frisks. Supporters of the policy often point specifically to gun crimes as a rationale for its use (since the policy often aimed at finding illegal firearms on suspects), but 2016 saw the fewest shootings during the first six months of the year in decades.”
An earlier study from the Brennan Center for justice found similarly. James Cullen writes in a piece republished in the Vanguard, “The stop-and-frisk era formally drew to a close in January 2014, when newly-elected Mayor de Blasio settled the litigation and ended the program.”
However, he notes, “In the years leading up to the program’s official end, stops had already begun to plummet, leading article after article to claim that a jump in crime was just around the corner. All of the hard work of previous mayors and police chiefs could be undone, some said.”
“Given this large scale effort, one might expect crime generally, and murder specifically, to increase as stops tapered off between 2012 and 2014. Instead, as shown in Figure 1, the number of murders fell while the number of stops declined. Murder also continued to drop after, as stop-and-frisk wound down from its 2011 peak. In fact, the biggest fall in murder rates occurred precisely when the number of stops also fell by a large amount — in 2013,” he continues.
Mr. Cullen concludes, “Statistically, no relationship between stop-and-frisk and crime seems apparent. New York remains safer than it was 5, 10, or 25 years ago.”
The problem with stop and frisk, and why it was ultimately abandoned is “that it was applied heavily to communities of color. More than half of those detained and searched, according to the NYCLU’s data, were black, and nearly a third were Latino.”
In short, stop and frisk’s impact on crime is debatable, at best, as the Times concludes. Its impact on minorities is not clear and it may have helped to contribute to the national climate that has resulted in a huge lack of trust by people of color, particularly African Americans, in the police.
There were claims last night, in the debate, that African American “communities are absolutely in the worst shape they’ve ever been in before.”
The problem with that claim is that the crime rate has plummeted since 1990. In New York the murder rate went from 16 per 100,000 to less than four per 100,000 before ticking up to four in 2015. Violent crime went from about 1000 per 100,000 down to about 400 before ticking up to around 500 in 2015.
Never mind the glossing over of slavery and Jim Crow, there are few objective facts to back up the claim.
The Times points out, “The unemployment rate for African Americans was 8.1% in August, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; that rate has been steadily declining since it peaked at 16.8% in March 2010. Still, it remains higher than the national average, which was 4.9% in August.”
“The National Urban League, in its annual State of Black America report, found some gains for black Americans in recent generations. The percentage of African Americans obtaining bachelor’s degrees climbed from 6.6% in 1976 to 22.2% in 2016. Black life expectancy 40 years ago averaged 68.3 years. It is now 75.1 years.”
Even crime is more nuanced.
On Monday, new data from the Brennan Center revealed that “the recent increase in crime is modest and that the increased murder rate in Chicago will likely be responsible for half of the national increase in 2016.”
Do we want to go back to stop and frisk?
As the Washington Post concludes, “Chicago’s problem is serious and severe and needs to be addressed. History doesn’t suggest that stop-and-frisk is an effective way to address it — and it suggests that Rudy Giuliani may not have as many answers as he thinks.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Guiliani’s role as New Your Mayor, and his legacy that allowed him to elevate him to national prominence, has been faulted because he empowered his police force to perform tasks that were later judged as unlawful. The point is raised that crime trends were already “plunging” the statistics for New York’s crime drop were “overblown.” Reference is made to national crime rates and their “sharp drop” as a comparison.
Now, the discerning reader will take note of the forceful nature of the quoted superlatives, all intended to persuade us to accept the premise of the column. But yet, with all that compelling, persuasive, style of statistic-base argument, not so much as a single crime statistic was offered in support. We’re apparently expected to accept a sharp drop or a plunge on faith alone. Since statistics are a measure of precision, when exactly does a numerical decline become a plunge, and when does a drop in crime becomes sharpened?
A post-event analysis of Guiliani’s legal propriety were not judged in the same vein at the time of when it happened. There were similar legal challenges during and immediately after Guiliani’s enforcement policies. The fact that they continued unabated tells us the court’s rulings then. Decades later, courts now rule differently. Nothing remarkable there.
You ask any New Yorker about Guiliani, and his police enforcement efforts back then. They will say one thing, a fact that is indisputable, legalities aside. It was that one action that made Guiliani a political rock-star and sent him to Albany and national prominence.
Guiliani cleaned up Times Square.
Phil: I’m a bit confused, I cited a number of crime statistics, and moreover, the links in the article contain the stats.
Further, you state, “You ask any New Yorker about Guiliani, and his police enforcement efforts back then. They will say one thing, a fact that is indisputable, legalities aside. It was that one action that made Guiliani a political rock-star and sent him to Albany and national prominence.”
Giuliani never went to Albany and the one event that made him a rock star, was 9/11.
David,
It’s clear that NYC had a terrible crime problem under Koch and Dinkins. What, in your opinion, did cause the reduction in crime?
I think it has to do with national trends on time and I don’t think we really know the answer to that
Guiliani’s stepped up policing policies caused the reduction in crime just as NY’s reduction in crime from 2015 to 2016 was also the result of stepped up policing policies instituted in NY this year.
No, if you look at the trend line, crime was already falling for a few years by the time Guiliani became mayor.
David wrote:
> I think you’re again intentionally misconstruing
> the comment that Eric made. Why do you do this?
You and Eric have both said “stop and frisk” will make things worse.
I really want to understand why you think poor people of color will commit more crimes if they are “stopped and frisked” or will “explode” while we don’t have to worry about the mostly well off people of all races who get “stopped and frisked” before every flight.
As BP pointed out crime dropped while they had “stop and frisk” in NY. If “stop and frisk” makes things worse do you think the murder rate would have been even 25% lower without it. If not 25% how much lower 5% 35%??
“but it sure will save the lives of a LOT of “people of color””
The data certainly do not bare that point out
David wrote:
> The data certainly do not bare that point out
You don’t think that a stop and frisk program in the Chicago neighborhoods with the most gun deaths this year would find any guns or save any lives?
No, I think it would make things a lot worse in fact.
How so?
David wrote:
> No, I think it would make things a lot worse in fact.
In just NYC stop and frisk was finding a couple guns a day on average and got almost 10,000 guns out of the hand of criminals.
I’m a big fan of the Ben Franklin quote:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
I also don’t think the government should tell us who should own a gun, ride a motorcycle or smoke cigarettes, yet I agree that a ban on guns, motorcycles and cigarettes would result in less deaths from guns, motorcycles and cigarettes.
I am interested to hear how you believe that by taking almost 10,000 guns from criminals in NYC that “it would make things a lot worse in fact”. How many more deaths is “a lot”? Why did you end with “in fact” (do you have some “facts” that show cops taking guns away from criminals in other cities caused the murder rate to rise)?
Crime reates in NY came down during stop and frisk. David you feel it wasn’t because of that, but you can’t say it made things worse when crime rates continued to fall. So how in Chicago would stop and frisk make things worse?
I believe that it will make things worse in Chicago due to the conditions that exist already. It’s frankly the next city likely to explode. If you look at the way stop and frisk was conducted in New York, something like 89% of people that were stopped had nothing, then a good size percentage of the people that had something, it turned out to be marijuana or other drugs. So you’re pissing off a huge percentage of the population, already frustrated with the police – that’s just a situation to make a Baltimore.
How do women readers out there feel about macho type cops having the right to place their hands all over your body, at their discretion? How do gay males feel about that? How do parents of teenagers feel (yes, dear Frankly, I’m discusing those dreaded feelings again) about a stranger putting their hands all over your teenager?
How does a straight guy feel about a gay male cop placing their hands all over his body?
“You ask any New Yorker about Guiliani (sic)”
“the one event that made him a rock star, was 9/11.”
Rudy Giuliani has a sizeable number of detractors in NYC, many of whom would cite his grandstanding over a tragedy as an indication of his ruthlessness in pursuit of self aggrandizement.
His career has been marked by personal vendettas against his father’s and uncle’s criminal enemies, multiple affairs at the tax payers expense and a guest list of convicted swindlers, thugs and child molesters. Giuliani socializes with them, hires them at his security firm, or has them raise money for his campaigns. The most notorious is Bernard Kerik, Giuliani’s former chauffeur, who pled guilty to two misdemeanors for receiving $165,000 in renovations from a company accused of mob ties and was recentlyindicted on 16 counts for tax evasion, fraud, lying to federal investigators, and tampering with witnesses. Giuliani appointed him as police commissioner (for only 16 months), hired him for $500,000 at his security company, convinced President Bush to nominate Kerik as Director of Homeland Security (before Kerik was forced to withdraw his nomination in disgrace), and continues to defend him.
Kerik’s not the only one. A grand jury report concluded that priest Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani, molested several boys and helped cover up molestations by other priests, but he could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out. Giuliani had the priest preside over his second wedding, continues to defend him, and employs himat his security company.
Then, there’s Bob. A major supporter of Giuliani in his mayoral days went to prison in 2000 for stealing $2 million from union members. Bob Asher, convicted of bribery in 1986, was Rudy’s South Carolina campaign chairman in 2007 until he was indicted for distribution of cocaine. Etc. etc. etc. Anybody can have one crooked friend, but Giuliana has lots of them, and he hires them, even after he knows about their crimes and convictions.
But I guess loyalty counts for something.
So, stopping and checking people that are suspected as carrying weapons is in effective?
Tell that to the US military.
Tell that to every airport.
I will never understand the liberal social justice mind here. It it ignores all inconvenient facts and does mental gymnastics with uncontrolled “statistics” to help keep its ideological views from being justifiably destroyed.
And there is this great hypocrisy and ugly class-ism on display in that the liberal social justice mind will cringe at the thought of blacks being stopped in high crime black neighborhoods with a goal to save lives, but then would have no problem with officials breaking down doors of law abiding people to confiscate what used to be legal firearms just made illegal by their liberal attack on the Second Amendment… and thereby eliminating the ability of these people to defend their own life.
Stop one criminal on the street with an illegal firearm and prevent that criminal from using the firearm in violence and crime. But the value of that life is apparently not worth the pain of hurt feelings.
Screwed up thinking. Or maybe liberal social justice people somehow like all the people killed by guns in these high crime areas because it supports their attack on the Second Amendment.
Frankly wrote:
> So, stopping and checking people that are suspected
> as carrying weapons is in effective?
> Tell that to the US military. Tell that to every airport.
I don’t understand how to some people stopping and frisking EVERYONE who gets on a plane or goes in to dance club is OK, but stopping and frisking a guy the cops thinks has a gun is “racist”… But then again I don’t understand how to some people checking the ID of EVERYONE getting on a plane or going in to a dance club (or the DNC convention) is OK but checking the ID of people who want to vote is “racist”…
SOD – I agree with one part of your comment: You clearly don’t understand.
The problem is that they are not stopping people they suspect of carrying a weapon – they are stopping everyone, or at least all blacks/ Hispanics.
So throw the baby out with the bathwater. Got it.
Allow more people to be killed because of hurt feelings?
Why not demand that new protocols be adopted for how police select suspects that appear to be of greater risk of carrying?
One point I heard is that cops were targeting people with baggy clothing because it was easy to conceal wearing that clothing. And guess what? Blacks and Latinos were HIGHLY over-represented in people wearing baggy clothing.
I noted a popular rapper wearing tight-fitting clothing and my son (who is up on the current music scene) said that this is a trend.
Given this, I wonder if people in these high crime neighborhoods will ignore the hip hop fashion trends and will continue to wear baggy closing since it is hard to conceal a gun in tight-fitting clothing.
“Allow more people to be killed because of hurt feelings?”
You haven’t cited any evidence other than your feelings to back your claim.
“Why not demand that new protocols be adopted for how police select suspects that appear to be of greater risk of carrying?”
We have them – Terry v. Ohio
That’s the problem. They should spend a day stopping and frisking people of all ethnicities in all parts of the city, regardless of their appearance. See how everyone likes it.
Exactly
Yeah, that works well at the airport with TSA doing strip searches of old white women and little kids. But hey, we helped those bearded 20-30 something Muslim men to not get their feelings hurt.
Here’s the thing. There is a great cost to that. That cost is the greater risk and probability that true harm and death will happen because precious law enforcement resources are squandered trying to prevent any hurt feelings.
At least in an airport you have implied consent. You don’t have implied consent walking down a street.
Ha! Really? You are going to make that point… as if I have any choice at the airport? What is my choice at the airport? To not fly. So that equates to the choice of not walking down the street.
You are trying to split hairs on a bald man.
You do have a choice at the airport. You do not have to submit yourself to inspection you can turn around and fly. You do have a choice to refuse a field sobriety test but you will link wish your drivers license. It is called implied consent. That does not Operate when you are walking down the street and that is the difference.
You mean you can opt out of the scanner and submit to be frisked by the TSA agent? Really? That is your differentiation here? That is your excuse for the difference of choice?
You didn’t read what I said very carefully. You can opt out by turning around and not flying.
LOL. That is the “choice”? You said “you can turn around and fly.”
You can opt out by not walking too.
Frankly
“And there is this great hypocrisy and ugly class-ism on display in that the liberal social justice mind will cringe at the thought of blacks being stopped in high crime black neighborhoods with a goal to save lives, but then would have no problem with officials breaking down doors of law abiding people to confiscate what used to be legal firearms just made illegal by their liberal attack on the Second Amendment… and thereby eliminating the ability of these people to defend their own life.”
Well, let’s just turn that argument around for a moment. The United States as a whole has a much higher death rate from gun injuries ( both criminal, accidental and suicidal) than most other developed nations. So by your reasoning, if we cared about the life of our citizens, we would follow the model of stop and frisk and gun confiscation of every one who has a gun in order to save lives. After all, this strategy of not owning guns has been proven to work in many countries.
Not on board with this plan ? Why not ? After all, you are willing to allow people to be stopped and frisked because of the color of their skin and where they happen to live. So let’s just do the same for everyone regardless of skin color who owns a firearm and happens to live in the high risk neighborhood known as the United States. No ?
The stop and frisk procedure is only useful to helping to save lives in areas with high gun violence. There is a big difference between being a law-abiding gun owner and a thug willing to pop a stranger for looking at him in a disrespectful way. And it is generally ALWAYS illegal to carry.
But it would be real stupid to do stop and frisk in Davis.
Not at all stupid in the Watts neighborhood of Chicago.
If we are smart and not just hypersensitive we would take rational actions to help prevent thugs from carrying a gun around.
http://www.progressillinois.com/posts/content/2016/06/20/after-bloody-weekend-chicago-police-chief-reiterates-call-tougher-gun-crime
Thanks Don. This makes sense to me. I think we could pretty much eliminate gun crime if we both increased the number of police in these violent neighborhoods, and we toughened our sentencing to require mandatory prison time for carrying a concealed fire arm without a permit, and also increasing the number of concealed permits allowed for those passing a strict background check. Those three changes, along with stop and frisk, would seem to me to cause the average thug to leave the gun at home.
Frankly, If you are walking around a neighborhood where everyone is strapped you are going to carry a gun regardless of penalties. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Anyone who claims that there’s a causal connection between stop-and-frisk and decreasing crime rates is not basing that conclusion on any solid evidence. It is indisputable, on the other hand, that stop-and-frisk is applied disproportionately to blacks and Latinos, even when controlling for neighborhood crime rates. That’s why it has been found to be unconstitutional.
How would stop-and-frisk make things worse? Aside from the infringement on constitutional rights, it would exacerbate the current climate of distrust between police and minority communities. It would further alienate the communities with whom police have to engage.
Eric wrote:
> it would exacerbate the current climate of distrust
>between police and minority communities.
It is pretty racist to say that people of color will commit MORE crime if the cops “stop and frisk” them…
I think you’re again intentionally misconstruing the comment that Eric made. Why do you do this?
David wrote:
> The problem is that they are not stopping people
> they suspect of carrying a weapon – they are
> stopping everyone,
Would you be OK with stop and frisk if they did not “profile” and stopped “everyone”?
I really am trying to understand why you (and Eric) feel it is OK to check ID and “stop and frisk” all the white people on the direct flights from SFO to Jackson Hole (where there is a low chance that anyone will get shot), but not OK to “stop and frisk” people in places where a lot of people get shot.
P.S. Remember I don’t want cops “stopping and frisking” ANYONE not under arrest ANYWHERE (or creepy TSA agents groping me every time I fly)…
David wrote:
> I think you’re again intentionally misconstruing
> the comment that Eric made. Why do you do this?
You and Eric have both said “stop and frisk” will make things worse.
I really want to understand why you think poor people of color will commit more crimes if they are “stopped and frisked” or will “explode” while we don’t have to worry about the mostly well off people of all races who get “stopped and frisked” before every flight.
As BP pointed out crime dropped while they had “stop and frisk” in NY. If “stop and frisk” makes things worse do you think the murder rate would have been even 25% lower without it. If not 25% how much lower 5% 35%??
According to their logic crme should’ve gone up during stop and frisk.
My comment is specific to implementing stop and frisk in Chicago given the state of affairs. I tend to believe it had limited impact in New York, other than increasing tensions between police and the black community.
Frankly –
No. Again, you are assuming a causal relationship for which there is no solid evidence. I am merely suggesting that the discriminatory application of stop-and-frisk is one of many factors resulting in the strained relationships and lack of trust between law enforcement and communities of color.
Sorry. That was a BP comment I replied to, not Frankly. It’s easy to confuse them.
Like you and Biddlin.
“Like you and Biddlin.” Frankly, I think that is unwarranted. Biddlin posts rants while Eric refrains from any personal opinions at all and instead just posts the current position of the democratic legislative leadership.
quielo – good point. I meant on this topic. Eric and Biddlin are pretty closely matched in their views and opinions on this topic… IMO.
Rants and the current position of the democratic legislative leadership, LMAO
Though to be fair we have causal links for very few policies. The LCFF is based on no data whatsoever. Pre-K and any other proposal to close “the achievement gap” is based on no data whatsoever.
One activist judge rules that stop and frisk was unconstitutional as applied. In other words, it was being done incorrectly, accordingly to the judge. Then the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit excoriated her… said she was wrong, entered an injunction against the enforcement of order and removed her from the case. But the liberal Mayor of New York refused to pursue the case so he could make liberals around the country happy that they could say that it was found unconstitutional.
See how that works?
Frankly said –
That’s not really how it worked. First, an activist court of appeals precipitously removed Judge Scheindlin because of what it said was the “appearance” of bias. The appellate court never said she was wrong or ruled on the merits of her order. What the court said was:
“If the liberal Mayor of New York would have done his job instead of playing politics liberals would have lost this argument of constitutionality. You know it. ”
That’s an assumption on your part. We know that it was ruled unconstitutional and that the current mayor didn’t appeal it. You’re assuming – without basis – that it would have been reinstated.
By the way, these cities are not exploding because of law enforcement as liberals would have everyone believe… they are exploding because of decades of failed liberal policies that have destroyed economic opportunity except for the illegal drug business.
See how that works?
Just wondering –
Why do so many of your spend time arguing about issues that have nothing much to do with Davis? Is this “fun”, for you? (And then, some of you complain when the council does the same thing.)
Then again, it’s kind of interesting/entertaining to read, at times. Some take a strictly conservative view, while some take a strictly liberal view. Those in the middle don’t comment much, I guess.
And “Frankly” – I don’t know how you have time to do this, while running the business that you’ve mentioned.
Ron – My interest in the world doesn’t end at the Davis City line, does yours?
David: Good point. Also, I’d expect you to have a somewhat different answer that most, since you run the Davis Vanguard. (Not intended as criticism in any manner.)
Fair enough. To answer it more deeply, police issues in Davis are what led to the formation of the Vanguard. And we are of course looking to expand portions of our coverage to a wider, more regional audience.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
♡
” but then would have no problem with officials breaking down doors of law abiding people to confiscate what used to be legal firearms just made illegal by their liberal attack on the Second Amendment… and thereby eliminating the ability of these people to defend their own life.”
Do you read what you post? You are either disingenuous or delusional.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not a violation of constitutional rights if police break down a citizen’s door, search the home, and confiscate firearms, so long that they believe it is in the citizen’s best interest.
I consider that scary
Me too. I also think it is scary for people living in neighborhoods where so many thugs are carrying guns without any concern that cops might stop them and frisk them and find the gun.
So, why can’t people have and drink alcohol in certain public places?
If a cop suspects you are carrying a bottle of something, does she not have the right to question you and demand that you prove you are not carrying any open alcohol?
I find this conversation weird because crime is in most places at a fifty year low.
“I consider that scary.”
Not quite as scary if you read the actual case. It wasn’t based on a “best interest” standard. The court found that the police had a reasonable belief that the individual posed a threat to herself based on a treating psychiatrist’s report that he believed her to be imminently suicidal. I’m not saying the case was correctly decided, but it was based on the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirements.
The circumstances for this exception are truly rare, fortunately and the criteria are quite narrow.
Obviously Frankly didn’t read the actual decision
Crime is not at a 50-year low. your data is stale.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released
Basically his statement is correct, if you plot the crime data on a timeline, the current rate is basically at the bottom of the curve.
Here is a common sense idea. Which means that liberals would probably not support it.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/A-strategy-on-gun-violence-that-everyone-can-9242910.php?cmpid=fb-desktop
“seemingly insignificant, nonmaterial issues such as quarrels over women”
What could be more important?
Apparently when the cultural standards are lawlessness and disorder.
♡
The article says there were 28,000 shootings, the number is actually 2800
You did not read it. The author is talking about the fact that guns are likely fired 10-times for each “hit”.
I only read what you posted, if that’s his point, it’s poorly written: “To be clear, 28,000 different shooters did not commit the 28,000 shootings that have likely occurred in Chicago so far this year”
Interesting analysis from the NY Times:
We know that the social science field is hopelessly liberal biased. It is well-documented. And much of the social science “studies” that attempt to correlate the rise or fall of crime with social changes, economic changes, law enforcement and circumstances are absolutely suspect of being too left-biased to be reliable.
The most glaring examples of bias are those studies that attempt to rule out tough on crime laws and greater law enforcement investment as having any significant cause. Likewise these social scientists claim that there is no notable correlation with economic circumstances and crime. These two exclusionary conclusion lack common sense and are much too convenient to a left-political view to be accepted.
The truth is that both likely account for most of the changes in crime we experience in society. But probably lagging in ways that make correlation difficult. For example in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the economy was doing quite well we had a significant crime problem. It was the talk of the media and politics at the time. President Bill Clinton worked to get Federal legislation passed to put 10,000 more cops on the streets. Three-strikes laws were passed. States got tougher. Politicians more often succeeded in elections with a tough on crime stance. And crime rates started to plunge.
But was the economy really doing well? Not for lower income neighborhoods. In 1965 manufacturing accounted for 53 percent of the economy. By 1988 it only accounted for 39 percent, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9 percent. During the 1970s, approximately 25 percent of American workers were employed in manufacturing. From 1990 to present, manufacturing jobs have decreased every single year; since 1996, they have plummeted by almost one fifth.
These were the jobs and careers of the people living in the high crime neighborhoods today.
From any rational perspective it is clear that crime rates, although fed by falling economic opportunity, declined after they increased due to public outcry to do something about it. And that meant law enforcement… the same that liberals and activists are actually now blaming for the loss of social capital in these neighborhoods that continue to have crime rates way above the national averages.
We get a taste of what these neighborhoods would be like with weaker law enforcement each time there is a riot.
Liberals cling to these social science studies to make a case that crime has just organically fallen due to the natural goodness of those they categorize in a victim class, and would stay low even lacking any explanation for why they think crime rates rise and fall other than the silly explanation that cops are agitating people and actually fomenting anger that causes crime… and if the cops would just leave people alone that crime would stay the same or fall. Really, that is their position.
Here is a pretty good article that exemplifies this liberal disconnect on crime cause and effect. Amazingly it starts with the exact explanation that the 1990s toughening on crime correlated with the drop in crime… and then go on to claim that we just don’t know why crime rates fell. Typical mumbo jumbo of the left and left media.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/
The truth, as is often the case, is much easier to grasp… that tough on crime laws and law enforcement are needed when there is not enough economic opportunity unless we accept a higher rate of crime. And crime has been on the rise this last year per the FBI… starting with Black Lives Matter, the DNC and liberal social justice crusaders decided that they should all work with the liberal media to make the cops the scapegoat for everything wrong.