Did Guliani get rid of crime in NYC?

[slickpoppa]

Or would that have happened anyway?

The story told by Guliani fanbois is that Guliani got rid of the squeegie guys, grafittists, and porn shops in Times Square and that this led to a greater respect for the law that scared away all the murderers and rapists.

I thnk we can all probably agree that Guliani played at least some role on the rebirth of NYC. But I just don't buy the idea that he singlehandedly cleaned up NYC.

There is a very strong possibility that other forces were much more important in the drop in crime. Many of you have probably read Freakonomics, which argues that Roe v. Wade and the subsequent increase in abortions in the late 1970s was one of the biggest factors in the nationwide drop in crime in the 1990s. And of course there could be many other demographic or economic trends that could have played a role in the drop in crime as well.

So what do you guys think? If Guliani becomes a strong candidate for President, I'm sure this storyline will come up ad nasuem.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Guliani law and order strategy being discredited because I can easily see the alleged successes of such a program being used as arguments in favor of ramping up the war on drugs or general police thuggery at the expense of civil liberties.

[TomCollins]

Broken Window theory

Proof in Action

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Broken Window theory

Proof in Action

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard of the broken window theory before, but I've never seen any proof of its effectiveness other than mere anectdotal stories like NYC, which as I pointed out could be explained by other factors. In fact, the article that you just cited seem to be overall more critical than supportive of the theory. For example, citing one paper:
[ QUOTE ]
"...social science has not been kind to the broken windows theory. A number of scholars reanalyzed the initial studies that appeared to support it ... Others pressed forward with new, more sophisticated studies of the relationship between disorder and crime. The most prominent among them concluded that the relationship between disorder and serious crime is modest, and even that relationship is largely an artifact of more fundamental social forces."


[/ QUOTE ]

And although that video you posted is amusing, its hardly relevant here.

[DVaut1]

I think the problem when dealing with phenomenons that almost certainly have multiple causal variables (like crime) is that it's very easy to make false (or at least hasty) conclusions about causation. So I can't answer the question of whether or not Guiliani helped rid NYC of crime, or whether or not he was the beneficiary of good timing, but I'll suggest that from your point of view, the answer shouldn't matter.

Those who claim that an escalation in the war on drugs or an increase in general police presence/surveillance could reduce drug use, and/or crime, and/or terrorism are most likely right; certainly, some overly-authoritarian and Orwellian police state could prevent crime, drug use, acts of terrorism, etc. much better than the US currently does. But such a state would likely trample over the current freedoms and legal entitlements many Americans value.

So, if the only justification for a heavy-handed law and order strategy is that it efficiently reduces/prevents crime, I wouldn't worry about trying to discredit whether or not that's empirically true. Rather, those who oppose a move towards ubiquitous police presence and aggressive law enforcement should merely maintain that an ideal society is forced to tolerate some level of crime in exchange for something more valuable -- namely, the utility derived from liberty -- a liberty that can only be preserved if police power is limited.

In sum, I wouldn't bother trying to harness empirical data to prove/disprove claims about Giuliani's effectiveness in reducing crime. If you're worried that President Giuliani or merely an embrace of Giuliani-like policies may infringe on civil liberties you value, that's a normative ethical claim with justifications which ought to be irrespective of whether or not Giuliani's crime fighting philosophy is effective.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem when dealing with phenomenons that almost certainly have multiple causal variables (like crime) is that it's very easy to make false (or at least hasty) conclusions about causation. So I can't answer the question of whether or not Guiliani helped rid NYC of crime, or whether or not he was the beneficiary of good timing, but I'll suggest that from your point of view, the answer shouldn't matter.

Those who claim that an escalation in the war on drugs or an increase in general police presence/surveillance could reduce drug use, and/or crime, and/or terrorism are most likely right; certainly, some overly-authoritarian and Orwellian police state could prevent crime, drug use, acts of terrorism, etc. much better than the US currently does. But such a state would likely trample over the current freedoms and legal entitlements many Americans value.

So, if the only justification for a heavy-handed law and order strategy is that it efficiently reduces/prevents crime, I wouldn't worry about trying to discredit whether or not that's empirically true. Rather, those who oppose a move towards ubiquitous police presence and aggressive law enforcement should merely maintain that an ideal society is forced to tolerate some level of crime in exchange for something more valuable -- namely, the utility derived from liberty -- a liberty that can only be preserved if police power is limited.

In sum, I wouldn't bother trying to harness empirical data to prove/disprove claims about Giuliani's effectiveness in reducing crime. If you're worried that President Giuliani or merely an embrace of Giuliani like policies may infringe on civil liberties you value, that's a normative ethical claim which ought to be irrespective of whether or not Giuliani's crime fighting philosophy is effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the above is a good and well-thought-out post.

It's probably unclear just how much Giuliani's anti-crime campaign really contributed to crime reduction in NYC. I would think it contributed at least a fair bit, though.

Personally, I'm not generally in favor of trading away civil liberties to reduce crime rates.

This country was founded to protect civil liberties, not to prevent crime. It seems to me that a lot of people, from politicians to pipe-fitters, have lost sight of that.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]

And although that video you posted is amusing, its hardly relevant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The video is not conclusive proof or anything, but it is anecdotal in nature. Notice how not really much happens to Albert when he is standing up, looking proper. As soon as he gets knocked to the ground, the pandemonium starts. Someone who might not have kicked him down then starts breaking his arm off, etc...

Guiliani never took credit for singlehandedly dropping crime. Although crime rates dropped across the country, NYC did more than other cities (including big cities). He used a variety of methods to do this, including stopping petty crime. If you really are interested in techniques he used, read his book. I found it to be very interesting.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And although that video you posted is amusing, its hardly relevant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The video is not conclusive proof or anything, but it is anecdotal in nature. Notice how not really much happens to Albert when he is standing up, looking proper. As soon as he gets knocked to the ground, the pandemonium starts. Someone who might not have kicked him down then starts breaking his arm off, etc...

Guiliani never took credit for singlehandedly dropping crime. Although crime rates dropped across the country, NYC did more than other cities (including big cities). He used a variety of methods to do this, including stopping petty crime. If you really are interested in techniques he used, read his book. I found it to be very interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it coms down to how much you value reduced crime rates versus civil liberties or even just the liberty to not be hassled by the authorities over minor things. Personally I'd rather deal with a greater chance of being mugged than have to worry about getting tickets for minor offenses like, say, jaywalking.

If you could have a ZERO chance of being mugged how much freedom would you be willing to cede to the government and how much hassle would you be willing to put up with in order to achieve that zero chance?

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
If you could have a ZERO chance of being mugged how much freedom would you be willing to cede to the government and how much hassle would you be willing to put up with in order to achieve that zero chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

The joe bag-o-donuts response to this question would make our founding fathers cry.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And although that video you posted is amusing, its hardly relevant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The video is not conclusive proof or anything, but it is anecdotal in nature. Notice how not really much happens to Albert when he is standing up, looking proper. As soon as he gets knocked to the ground, the pandemonium starts. Someone who might not have kicked him down then starts breaking his arm off, etc...

Guiliani never took credit for singlehandedly dropping crime. Although crime rates dropped across the country, NYC did more than other cities (including big cities). He used a variety of methods to do this, including stopping petty crime. If you really are interested in techniques he used, read his book. I found it to be very interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it coms down to how much you value reduced crime rates versus civil liberties or even just the liberty to not be hassled by the authorities over minor things. Personally I'd rather deal with a greater chance of being mugged than have to worry about getting tickets for minor offenses like, say, jaywalking.

If you could have a ZERO chance of being mugged how much freedom would you be willing to cede to the government and how much hassle would you be willing to put up with in order to achieve that zero chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh damn, I no longer have the civil liberties to display my artistic talents in rock throwing, busketing, or grafitti. The founding fathers are crying.

[Emperor]

I read Freakonomics recently and while some of their theories were interesting, I continually had the feeling they were trying to think up interesting theories that matched data they already had.

They also provided no statistical analysis. In poker we are always giving probabilites to certain known and unknown information. The authors of Freakonomics didn't do any of this.

It would have been interesting for someone to crunch the data and say, "Well there is a 42% chance that Guliani reduced crime, and a 57% chance that legalized abortion and economic improvement reduced crime. With a 93% chance that both had some affect." However we didn't get that, I was disappointed.