How to Increase the Crime Rate Nationwide

Heather MacDonald, Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2013

A racial-profiling lawsuit over the New York Police Department’s “stop, question and frisk” policies is now in the hands of a judge whose decision is expected within weeks. Many New Yorkers watched the two-and-a-half-month trial nervously, concerned that a ruling against the NYPD by U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin could spell an end to a police practice that helped the city achieve an astonishing drop in violent crime.

But non-New Yorkers would do well to worry about the case too. A decision against the NYPD would almost certainly inspire similar suits by social-justice organizations against police departments elsewhere. The national trend of declining crime could hang in the balance. And the primary victims of such a reversal would be the inner-city minorities whose safety seems not to figure into attempts to undermine successful police tactics.

New York-style policing—including the practice of stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking individuals engaged in suspicious behavior—ought be the city’s most valued export. Since the early 1990s, New York has experienced the longest and steepest crime drop in the modern history of policing. Murders have gone down by nearly 80%, and combined major felonies by nearly 75%. No other American metropolis comes close to New York’s achievement. Bostonians are twice as likely to be murdered as New Yorkers, and residents of Washington, D.C., three times as likely.

The biggest beneficiaries of a dramatically safer New York have been law-abiding residents of formerly crime-plagued areas. Minorities make up nearly 80% of the drop in homicide victims since the early 1990s. New York policing has transformed inner-city neighborhoods and allowed their hardworking members a once-unthinkable freedom from fear.

But the city’s policing, whose key elements include the rigorous analysis of crime data and commander accountability for public safety, also has been dogged by misconceptions, including the notion that New York policing is racist.

That perception is what drove the just-completed litigation. The suit, Floyd v. New York, specifically targeted stop, question and frisk (critics chronically leave out the “question” part, even though only about half of stops go beyond questioning to actually entail a frisk). This practice, sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, is at the revolutionary core of New York policing, which aims to stop crime before it happens, rather than simply react to crime after the fact by making an arrest. If a neighborhood has been plagued by purse-snatchings, for example, and an officer sees someone walking closely behind an elderly lady while looking furtively over his shoulder, the cop might stop him and ask a few questions. The stop may avert a theft without resulting in an arrest.

The Center for Constitutional Rights and lawyers from the elite law firm of Covington & Burling, however, charge in Floyd that such proactive tactics are discriminatory, since blacks and Hispanics make up the large majority of individuals stopped and questioned by NYPD cops. The claim ignores the reality that the preponderance of crime perpetrators, and victims, in New York are also minorities. Blacks, for example, constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims in 2012, even though they are less than 23% of the city’s population.

Whites, by contrast, committed just over 2% of shootings and were under 3% of shooting victims in 2012, though they are 35% of the populace. Young black men in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white men—and their assailants are virtually always other black (or Hispanic) males.

Given such a crime imbalance, if the NYPD focuses its resources where people most need protection, the effort will inevitably produce racially disparate enforcement data. Blacks, at 55% of all police-stop subjects in 2012, are actually understopped compared with their 66% representation among violent criminals.

{snip}

The Obama Justice Department, which has launched multiple civil-rights actions against police departments across the country, declined a 2012 request from some New York City Council members to investigate the NYPD for its stop practices. Yet Judge Scheindlin is unlikely to be so circumspect in her ruling. It was Judge Scheindlin, after all, who invited the Center for Constitutional Rights to fileFloydin the first place, after the center missed a deadline to extend an earlier stop, question and frisk ruling of hers that required the collection of the racial stop data now fuelingFloyd. If she rules against the NYPD again, the city would most likely be saddled with a costly consent decree like Oakland’s, which puts a federal judge in ultimate control of police policy.

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    Since Shira Scheindlin is linked to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the NYPD and 8,000,000 people might as well commit suicide, since they (the 8m) are NOT allowed to defend themselves. They (the 8m) are ONLY allowed to be slaughtered on the altar of ‘DIE-versity.’

    The CCR is one of THE MOST radical left-wing institutions in this country (and that’s really saying something):
    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6148

    • Sick of it

      Yeah, no guns and no police = dead people.

    • BonusGift

      If the ruling sticks and has its intended affect, once things get bad she can always move to Israel.

    • Romulus

      Sheindlin, eh? Any relations to judge judy.

      • joemcgee

        Nah, I don’t think Judge Judy would agree with this dumb woman – “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”.

      • MekongDelta69

        Nope. She (Shira Scheindlin) is a loonie lefty.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shira_Scheindlin

        • Romulus

          I believe they share the same surname. I suppose that’s where the resemblance ends.

  • I predict this lawsuit goes nowhere. That’s because SQF helps the Top 0.01% who write big checks to and bundle for Democrat politicians remain safe.

    • Jefferson

      I do not think the ultra wealthy in New York City want to see their town turn into another Detroit.

  • Romulus

    The tribe at it again in flowing black robes.
    Here’s a little fun fact 55%of all Yales staff is the tribe.
    67% of Harvard law and about the same for all lawyers nationwide. (the dispossessed majority/Robertson).

    Gives new meaning to the movie “Devils Advocate”

    • JohnEngelman

      By “the tribe” I guess you mean Jews. Successful Jews earn their distinctions with high IQs.

      • Romulus

        Yes that is precisely who I mean. Despite their “contributions” to America, as a collective group, they’ve been instrumental in its demise. Even from a historical prospective, they are the gift that keeps on destroying since 1444bce (the accepted date of the exodus). Here’s a fun fact:
        The mass murderer Stalin’s real lAst name is Dzurgha, which loosely translates to”son of a Jew”

  • JohnEngelman

    I have been stopped and frisked by the police a few times. It did not bother me a bit. I was not doing anything wrong, I had nothing to fear.

    • Romulus

      Jews commit more “white collar and subversive” crime and are therefore unlikely candidates for stop and frisk. Their neighborhoods aren’t burdened with poverty,drugs,alcoholism,etc.

    • The__Bobster

      I’ve never been stopped and frisked. Then again I don’t frequent Asian massage parlors.

      • JohnEngelman

        What is that supposed to mean? Neither do I.

    • MikeofAges

      Good for you, but remember: The outcome of an encounter between a citizen and the police can be at best neutral. Sometime, if a motor vehicle is involved, you might get a nuisance ticket, like for bad taillight or some other non-moving violation. But sometimes things can go wrong, or the police can have wrong information about who you are and what you are doing. No, you do not want unnecessary contact between the police and innocent citizens. I don’t wish it on anybody, adult or juvenile.

      • JohnEngelman

        I would rather take my chances with the police than with violent street criminals.

        • MikeofAges

          I’ll give you that, but still there is risk with too much police power. A savvy, streetwise uniformed officer who knows the neighborhood and is a good judge of people is a better bet than someone with a head full of rules and procedures who doesn’t know what the frig is going on. Look up the story of the “woodcarver”, actually an alcoholic, middle-aged Native American street artist named John T. Williams, who was shot to death in downtown Seattle by a novice officer who wasn’t ready to work with the down-and-outers of a downtown beat. Or think about the story of Trayvon Martin. When you get someone out there who knows what he’s doing, and these kind of things don’t happen.

      • TeutonicKnight67

        That’s right Mike. The police have way too much power over a citizen once you are stopped. Any number of excuses can be generated for the cop to “haul you in” for a variety of frivolous reasons. Best to avoid contact with them at all. Most whites are compliant and believe the police are on “our” side. The police are on the side of the police. Period.

  • Alexandra1973

    I understand importing more “refugees” works!

  • Jefferson

    [QUOTE]Whites, by contrast, committed just over 2% of shootings and were under
    3% of shooting victims in 2012, though they are 35% of the populace.[/QUOTE]

    This is why I prefer to live among White people.

    • Spartacus

      YOU SO WACIST !

  • The Racisms

    The original article link at the bottom links to the “more americans identify as multiracial” story in the LA Times

  • John Smith

    The problem, of course, is that NYC has ratcheted things down to the point where people are being frisked to see if they have a diet coke or even a snickers bar on them… lol. That’s too much tyranny in my view.

    • IstvanIN

      You are wrong. New Yorkers are allowed a diet coke, it is a sugary drink of 16 oz or more than can get them big time.

  • Romulus

    Please elaborate moderator. My comments were deleted. Was it the content or the wording?

  • 5Sardonicus

    I think the stop and frisk law will be overturned in the next New York City election and New York City will resume its decline. New York City will become like it was under the administration of Mayor David Dinkins.

  • libertarian1234

    Well, put an end to stop and frisk, right after the community organizer mandated that schools can’t discipline unruly blacks who cause crime and disruptions far more than any other group, and we have a nice beginning to greater rates of crime.
    Too, add in the fact that the politicians, police and press refuse to report black on white racial assaults, beatings and murders as race-related in order to help curtail the trend, and the picture looks even more favorable for higher crime rates.
    But, really, what makes the difference? We’re imploding as a society anyway. Hurrying things along might even be a plus for many of us.

  • OhWow

    The definition of racist in 2013: doing anything a minority doesn’t like.

    • MikeofAges

      It’s a little more technical than that. Racism today, other than the issue of malignant racism, mean opposing any part of the liberal and progressive agenda minority voters, who are largely as culturally conservative as working class and lower middle class whites, have been inveigled into supporting in return for other goodies.

      • Svigor

        I prefer OhWow’s definition. Jeb Bush called ’em “more fertile,” and he meant it as a compliment, but minorities and their self-appointed champions don’t like that, so “dass raciss!”

        • MikeofAges

          It’s racist because it leads to disputing what they say the political, social and economic consequences of demographic changes should.

  • Latravius Goldsteinberg

    I don’t believe stop and frisk is within the Constitutional powers of the government, but then I don’t believe the Constitution was written with a “diverse” society such as we have today in mind.

    My gut says scrap it and let the New York libs deal with diversity.

    • “Stop and Frisk” might well be unconstitutional, but the NYPD program is called “Stop Question Frisk.” The “Question” part, depending on the answers the accosted gives, gives the cop the Terry authority to follow up with a frisk.

      • Latravius Goldsteinberg

        The New York program and Terry v Ohio both deal with searching for weapons.
        An honest interpretation second amendment (the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) would seem to contradict the legality of searching people you think “might” be doing something that is in my opinion constitutionally permitted.

        I recognize the SCOTUS and I do not see eye to eye on this issue.

        • You’re presuming that the Federal judiciary would interpret 2A + 14A + incorporation doctrine to cover CCW for all persons in all places and all circumstances. And the majority opinions in both Heller and McDonald specifically excluded that reasoning.

          Then there’s the other consideration: A lot of people see a firearms-related question and ask, “is it good for the Second Amendment?” I ask, “is it good for whites?”

          • Latravius Goldsteinberg

            No, I’m not presuming how the courts would act, just opining on how they should.

            I hold no illusion that judges appointed from either party will uphold the intent or letter of the Constitution.

            Please tell me more about your thoughts on “is it good for whites” in terms of the Second.

          • Arming whites and keeping a big majority of blacks and Chicanos disarmed, even if what we have to do to ensure that is inconsistent with 2A purist doctrine-legal theory.

          • Latravius Goldsteinberg

            There is no good answer.
            Disarming minorities will certainly lower crime, but letting them fully revert to their tribal ways will increase white awareness of the problem.

            Either way we know criminals will still do violence whether they use meat cleavers or guns, and that will be the case until we as a nation recognize and deal with the dangers of diversity.

          • Svigor

            I don’t want to disarm “minorities.” I want my property rights respected. Then I, and others of like mind, can simply form communities that exclude them from our property.

            If the letter and spirit of the Constitution were respected, white Americans would have practically none of the problems we do today. If you actually look at most of our racial problems, you’ll find a violation of the letter or spirit of the Constitution. Like banning restrictive covenants; totally contravenes the idea of property rights. Like gov’t-enforced integration; again, a contravention of property rights.

          • I wish solving all our problems was as simple as adhering in a seemingly aracial way to an aracial ideology that just so happens to have a disparate impact on obnoxious minorities. If we do that, it might work to the intended effect for awhile, but given enough time, and we’ll be right back where we are now in the same anti-racist anti-white crackpot utopia we’re in now.

            We really can’t have pro-white policies until we at first have a pro-white base mentality.

          • Svigor

            The private sector can handle the dichotomy. The 2nd just tells us that the gov’t shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It’s perfectly Constitutional for private interests (say, a community) to ban arms on the streets or in homes. Private interests can meet blacks’ and browns’ childish inability to shoulder the responsibility of gun ownership.

      • Svigor

        I think all cops and other “civil servants” who deal with the public (IRS, DMV, teachers, etc.) should have to wear cameras and microphones every minute they’re on duty. In fact, it should be a prerequisite of being on duty – no authority, pay, or legal protection unless the cameras and microphones are recording.

        If the gov’t leeches (but, I repeat myself) are doing legitimate work, they have nothing to hide, right? An ongoing record can only serve to protect and justify legitimate gov’t employees.

        I also think every part of every gov’t building (except no cameras in the bathrooms) should be similarly monitored, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

        And all of this data should be publicly available to all citizens, on a real time basis.

        Call it the reverse-Panopticon theory of gov’t.

    • The__Bobster

      It’s Constitutional if you have “reasonable suspicion”.

      • Latravius Goldsteinberg

        That is what the Supreme Court says.

  • bigone4u

    With the Snowden revelations about the government’s spying on all of us, all of the time, I oppose all govenment intrusiveness, including random roadblocks and other police stops intended to harass innocent persons. However, when probable cause is present why shouldn’t the police stop and question someone. For every robbery committed by a black man in blue jeans there are going to be 20 innocent black men in blue jeans who are just going to have to endure being stopped because they fit the description. This will skew the numbers, giving the appearance of racism, but smart people understand my example. Libtard judges are not likely to be able to figure it out, so let’s see what she has to say.

  • haroldcrews

    “And the primary victims of such a reversal would be the inner-city minorities whose safety seems not to figure into attempts to undermine successful police tactics.”

    World ends tomorrow. Women and minorities hit hardest.

    DWLs are such pathetic jokes. This articles comes as close to race realism I’ve seen in a major newspaper.

    • Svigor

      Nobody ever gives a #*@&! about the guy footing the bill for EVERYTHING. YT is chopped liver.

      • Beetlejuice

        The only thing our worthless white lives are good for in this NWO is to be cannon fodder for our masters in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. Someone has to protect Israel and it ain’t gonna be the Jews.
        Stop sending your white sons into the meat grinder for foreign interests who believe their “chosen” people’s lives are worth more than ours. Let them protect their own borders and people, we need to get busy protecting our own demographic, i.e., the white race.

  • The__Bobster

    Secretly, the White libtards in NYC like having the natives frisked. The presence of Bantus is why they favor gun control, too.

  • The__Bobster

    Blacks, for example, constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims in 2012, even though they are less than 23% of the city’s population.
    __________

    Now I’m on the horns of a dilemma. Do I want S&F or not?

    • Strider73

      That’s SQ&F. Don’t be like the lying MSM and omit the Q.

      Agreed about the dilemma part.

  • APaige

    If’ stop and frisk’ is stopping blacks from killing each other- please stop.

  • WR_the_realist

    The Center for Constitutional Rights was co-founded by William Kunstler, who defended such luminaries as the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. Spun from the same cloth as the ACLU, you can be sure that there is at least 30% of the Bill of Rights that the Center for Constitutional Rights will never defend:

    2nd Amendment

    9th Amendment

    10th Amendment

  • sbuffalonative

    And the primary victims of such a reversal would be the inner-city minorities whose safety seems not to figure into attempts to undermine successful police tactics.

    This reminds me of how black communities blamed crack dealers for ruining their neighborhoods and they demanded crack dealers receive harsher sentences. Once more blacks were arrested, blacks screamed ‘racism’ for the policy they demanded.

    Considering that most crime in black on black and blacks will be the largest group adversely affect, this will be a win.

    The liberals want it, let them have it.

  • borogirl54

    The only way to lower the crime rate is ban abortion. Since black women will not stop procreating but will get abortions, What about making abortions free for black and Hispanics. Sounds good to me.

  • NM156

    Or 3-4x Chicago, which is the number of times greater NYC’s murder rate was from the ’70s to the early ’90s.

  • IstvanIN

    We don’t need stop and frisk laws in white communities. Another blessing of diversity.

  • Latravius Goldsteinberg

    Based on a long ago Supreme Court ruling you are correct.
    However, historians do debate if that was the actual intent of the framers.
    My thoughts are Constitutional limitations would have been pointless if the framers only intended them to restrain the Federal government.

    Either way, opinions on the matter are academic at this point. The Constitution, as it stands today, does apply to the states.

    • MikeofAges

      But then there’s that pesky 14th Amendment, which is part of the constitution even though it was not put there by the framers. What did the 14th Amendment change? Only everything.

      • Latravius Goldsteinberg

        That was what I was communicating when I said “as it stands today…”

        • MikeofAges

          There are two kinds of people when it comes to the constitution. Those who know about the original and have never heard of the 14th Amendment. And those who think the 14th Amendment is the constitution and the original is a quaint old screed that doesn’t count anymore except that it sets up the hated electoral college.

    • Svigor

      My thoughts are Constitutional limitations would have been pointless if the framers only intended them to restrain the Federal government.

      How so? The entire point of the Constitution is to enumerate the powers of the federal gov’t.

      • Latravius Goldsteinberg

        My point was if every State in the Union could take it upon themselves to deprive it’s citizens of their “Federal Constitutional Rights” then the Federal protections would be pointless. I do not believe the founders intended such a possibility, but if you can provide some relevant factual information from the period I would be happy to change my mind.

        If you have a Federal right of “free speech” for example, but no State allows you to speak freely, do you really have a “right” or not? If a right is only theoretical it is not a right.

        Also, I do not believe the premise that the Constitution only “enumerates” the powers of the Federal gov is correct. “Implied Powers” go back to George Washington, and there are also items in the constitution that are restrictions on government power.

        • A moot point now because of the incorporation doctrine.

          • Latravius Goldsteinberg

            Absolutely, hence why I stated “opinions on the matter are academic at this point.” in the original comment.

  • Svigor

    I get the impression that while the NYC powers that be may or may not continue SQF, they would all delight in sending an army of shysters down to my neck of the woods to put a stop to anything resembling SQF.

    So, not much sympathy on my end.

    • We don’t have to play your hunch, b/c it has already happened.

      When Michael Bloomberg was in Florida mouthing off against Stand Your Ground during Trayvonapalooza, some media type asked him point blank about his hypocrisy vis-a-vis his supporting SQF in his own city, when both SYG and SQF are alike in a lot of ways, especially for the “disparate impact” it has on Bellcurvius.

      His only answer was that of the last refuge of the elitist hypocrite that he is:

      “That’s different.”

    • Beetlejuice

      Forget SQF. Those same shysters are happy to shove Section 8 housing into your neighborhood and then call you an irredeemable racist if you resist.

  • Svigor

    Not that I know of. Not that I’m the expert, but if I had to guess, the last science or math legal types get is within the first two years of undergraduate education, and would usually consist of something like Biology 1 & 2 or Calculus. After that the majority of them run from science and math as fast as their bestockinged legs will carry them.

  • Svigor

    The links are busted.

  • MarcB1969

    “And the primary victims of such a reversal would be the inner-city
    minorities whose safety seems not to figure into attempts to undermine
    successful police tactics”.

    These measures are designed to ease the concerns of big city liberals (who are propping up the tax base) so they can continue to frolic in their urban playgrounds while city officials work on exporting the problem populations via Section 8 vouchers to surrounding suburbs, cities, and small towns.

  • me

    They follow wherever we go….they hate whitey, but love what he can make/build/invent. They also like whitey’s nice schools, neighborhoods, and businesses.

  • MikeofAges

    Without some serious intervention, Martin was on the big train to nowhere, that seems pretty obvious. In terms of the specific incident, if a street savvy cop had been involved, it would have had a different outcome. That was my point.

  • Paleoconn

    It doesn’t matter if a practice greatly reduces crime, especially murder and other violent activity. If it can perceived as racist, it must be stopped. This is the bizarro world we live in.