Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There has been a nationwide drop in crime rates over many years. No one knows why -- some people say it's about lead paint -- so you are definitely correct when you say that the "broken windows" approach has not been proven not to work. Since NYC is TCOTU, New Yorkers understandably see this is as a story about the particular strategies adopted by particular mayors and police commissioners -- taking account of the national trends would require acknowledging the world beyond the Five Boroughs.
|
Crime rates in New York have dropped significantly more and significantly faster than in most other major cities. For that reason, arguing that we should look to national trends can quickly end up looking like an argument that "broken windows" was key.
I don't agree with that position. I also think it's silly to claim that the approach had nothing at all to do with reducing crime. Arresting more people who commit low-level crimes tends to result in arresting more people who are likely to commit more serious crimes, partly just because you are arresting more people but more because people who commit crimes don't always sort themselves into low-vs-serious categories. As to whether the stated rationale, of making neighborhoods feel safer, etc., was also valuable, I don't know. To me saying these policies had nothing to do with reducing crime is like saying that Three Strikes had nothing to do with reducing crimes -- and I HATE the three strikes law. I just recognize that a guy who commits burglaries to feed a crack habit is likely to commit more crimes in years to come; so locking him up forever will prevent those crimes -- but at a cost (human and financial) that is intolerably high.
The question is, is it worth it? And, more importantly, is it worth it NOW? That a particular approach contributed to the reduction of crime many years ago, when crime rates were far higher, doesn't mean that it will contribute, at all or at the same level, now, when crime rates are much lower. That's the question we need to ask -- has NY come far enough that the focus on low-level crimes can safely be significantly relaxed? (This is without getting into things that go well beyond that focus -- like stop-and-frisk, or like the racist way in which policies that are not inherently were implemented).
The answer to may question seems to be "YES", given what is occurring in NY right now.
