Artificially Driving Down Crime Rates

By David A. Clarke Jr., Sheriff (Ret.) Milwaukee County

Keeping crime and violence in check has always been a challenge with major urban city law enforcement agencies. Agencies are almost maniacally driven about crime statistics. Staffing and deployment strategies are being determined based on how much crime is occurring and where. Neighborhood residents get nervous when news reports of crime waves set in. Safe city rankings are determined by crime rates. Insurance rates are calculated by how much property crime occurs in a particular city. Crime reduction matters.

You may recall that beginning in the late 1980s and lasting for nearly two decades, a renaissance occurred all across the country when a crime reduction strategy called Fixing Broken Windows emerged. Its authors, George Kelling and James Wilson, put forth a thesis that was based on police putting a higher priority on going after lesser crimes like property crimes and acts of disorder. The theory was that quality-of-life offenses were an indication to criminals that nobody cared about their behavior and that citizens were numb to it and were not likely to call police nor would anything be done about it. This cynicism allowed the criminal element to operate in the open as resident fear increased. It caused people to withdraw from engaging in neighborhood life. Social interaction can reduce crime. Kelling and Wilson’s thesis was that the occurrence of property crimes and other quality-of-life offenses were the precursor to more serious crimes.

When William Bratton became commissioner of the New York Police Department, a top commander named Jack Maple came up with a strategy based on the Broken Windows theory of policing. He called it Comp Stat, short for computer statistics. When crime was mapped using computers, patterns emerged. The thought was to “put the cops on the dots” thus going from reacting to crime to preventing crime. Computer generated statistics allowed neighborhood precinct commanders to get information to front line officers in real time. It allowed officers to identify the criminals on their beat where they could be focused on while targeting specific offenses. Quality of life offenses like subway turnstile jumpers and squeegee men were harassed. It brought that disorder to an end. Policing went from being reactive to being proactive. Citations began to be issued for lesser crimes and disorder. When fully implemented and over time, not only did property crime and disorder go down, violent crime was reduced by record numbers. New York City went from having over 2,200 murders a year to just over 250. Gotham went from being considered unlivable to becoming America’s safest large city based on low crime rates.

Many of you reading here might remember the period of what was called the great crime decline. It is important to have a reference point to compare what was an intolerance toward crime at the end of the 20th century to what some policy makers are proposing today.

As if ideas like defunding police, abolishing and re-imagining police is not crazy enough, now get this out of the cities of Seattle, Portland and Minneapolis. These lunatics are actually talking about reducing crime not through sensible crime reduction strategies like were done in the 1990s. No, they are actually talking about declassifying certain types of lesser crimes and inserting clauses into certain categories of crime that allow the perpetrator an escape from arrest and accountability if they can show a basic need to have committed a crime. In other words, poverty will absolve the perp along with mental health or addiction. That’s right. If you are a drug addict and you commit crime in furtherance of that addiction then you walk. So what if you throw a rock through the plate glass window of a business or damage your car? If you claim the devil made you do it, you are absolved of that being classified as a criminal act. And get this. Selling property that you stole from somebody else is now lawful if you can show a basic need like poverty.

In any other time period, this would be considered unfathomable. Unfortunately, however, we are no longer applying common sense to public policy. We are going from what worked in keeping neighborhoods safe to a model of social engineering using neighborhoods as petri dishes and human subjects as lab rats.

This is not going to end well. It never does when people in position of suggesting public policy and who should know better behave irresponsibly and in what is nothing more than an act of moral preening. As this, let’s make believe it is not crime, is being proposed, both property crime and crimes of violence are escalating in the cities I mentioned. The shame is that these policy-makers will not be held accountable for this insane policy nor are they likely to be the victims of this buffoonery.