Apparently you don't need a thug like Guiliani to reduce crime

[GoodCallYouWin]

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/windows/windows.html

"Nowhere has "broken windows" become more prominent than in New York City. Upon his election in 1994, Mayor Rudolph Guiliani instituted sweeping changes in his police department adopting a zero tolerance approach stressed by "broken windows." Guiliani ordered his police to enforce even the lowest level offenses including jaywalking, vagrancy and public intoxication. Coinciding with these policies was a dramatic drop in overall crime, particularly serious crime. These declining crime rates catapulted Mayor Guiliani into the national spotlight as his policies seemed to confirm the assumptions of conservative commentators and law enforcement advocates.

During the time that New York City was being heralded as a national model, similar crime rate declines were occurring in other cities around the country. These equally dramatic crime rate decreases occurred despite the absence of "broken windows" policies. The most notable antithesis to New York City is San Francisco. In recent years, San Francisco adopted less strident law enforcement policies that reduced arrests, prosecutions and incarceration rates. Long derided by conservatives for its alternative crime policies, San Francisco registered reductions in crime that exceed or equal comparable cities and jurisdictions - including New York.

The study is the first analysis of San Francisco's crime rates in relation to more traditional or conservative jurisdictions that are typically cited as national models. San Francisco is also compared to other comparable California jurisdictions. "



The broken window they refer to has nothing to do with the broken window theory of economics rather I believe it refers to the theory that if a window is broken, people are more likely to break another.

[adios]

Thanks for posting this report. I thought one very interesting portion of this report was the section entitled:

Prison as Crime Control

This report is a good complement IMO to the thread I started on prison as a deterrent. Basically what the report states is that the declining crime rate in SF did not correlate to increased incarcerations. I'd like to highlight a portion of that section of the report:

As seen above, San Francisco's crime rate declined as arrest rates and prison commitments decreased. Declining prison commitments coinciding with falling crime rates is counter to conservative tenets about crime control. In 1995, following the election of liberal San Francisco District Attorney Terrence Hallinan, neighboring conservative Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy stated, "We're trying to decide if some of the benefit here wouldn't be that some of our problem persons would be drawn up there." However, contrary to this assumption, San Francisco outperformed Santa Clara County in almost all aspects of crime reduction since 1993. Table 10, 11 and 12 illustrate Part I crime comparisons between San Francisco and Santa Clara for the three years before and after Hallinan took office.

First let's be fair about demanding prison sentences be served. This approach is not solely a conservtive tenet. Look all the people on the left expressing outrage at Libby's sentence being commuted. He wasn't pardoned, he paid a fine and went on probation, his convictions stand. Look at all the people on this forum expressing outrage over Libby not serving prison time. It's clear that some people on the left are quite fine with imposing prison sentences when it fits in with their political agenda irregardless of whether or not the measure serves as a deterrent or not. It's clear that the people on this forum demanding Libby serve time wanted retribution. I'm fairly certain that many of these same folks would claim that retribution is a bogus reason for imprionment when it happens to people who are convicted that don't directly affect their political agenda. If retribution is a bogus reason, it's a bogus reason irregardless of who commits the crime.

Second of all I think there are many reasons why crime rates have declined, not only in SF but all over the country over a 20 year or so time period. One reason that I've read about regarding murder is that the population of those who commit the most murders has declined as a percentage of the overall population. Generally the population has aged some in the U.S. over the last 20 years is my understanding but I could be convinced otherwise. Also, the economy has been quite good for quite some time. Yeah we had a recession in early 2001 but it was mild as recessions go. Just my thoughts on two contributing factors out of many that have lead to the general decrease in crime. I'm fairly certain though that locking up repeat offenders for long prison sentences has contributed as well but again could be convinced otherwise.

[ConstantineX]

"Broken Windows" emphatically doesn't work. At least, current research cannot establish a causation; interestingly, the approach had been tried BEFORE the decrease of major crimes in large cities in the '90s. Neither does increasing the number of police on patrol, as I learned in a class I took last semester; however, though these policies greatly modify the public's perception of crime enforcement, which COULD have a causative effect on lowering crime. I think that a far greater effect that any Guiliani nannery is the large-scale gentrification of the attractive large metropolitan areas, New York especially during the heyday of financial innovation in the late '80s and throughout the '90s. Rents are so high in the area (and STILL not falling despite the housing bubble) that the poor, most likely to commit violent crimes, are simply being driven out. The government would not like to emphasize exogenous environmental factors in driving crime rates down from urban areas, migrating into the suburbs and rural areas. On the other hand, some reforms by the NYPD have helped. It seems that the COMPSAT system, involving narrow targeting of police forces in "hotspot" areas might actually contribute to the reduction of crime; I personally think my gentrification argument is much more likely.

[iron81]

Didn't California implement its very tough "3 strikes" law in the mid 90's?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't California implement its very tough "3 strikes" law in the mid 90's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aye, a detailed explaination of which can be found here

Cody

[Nielsio]

OP, I've got an avatar for you, if you like it:

[TomCollins]

Neilsio, can you make me a jackbooted thuggery avatar?

[Nielsio]

You too can become an ACist.



http://www.leva.org/JPG/iacp_1a.jpg

[Taso]

For those of us who didn't have time to read the study, what did it say the crime decrease % in say, a few cities of country were from 90-2000?

NYC was around 70%, from what I remember
Detroit - ?
San Francisco?
Los Angeles?
Philadelphia?
Chicago?

[T50_Omaha8]

Has nobody here read freakonomics?