My friend Suhith Wickrema sent me the following analysis of the position two leading candidates for Mayor of Cincinnati have taken regarding crime. His is a cogent analysis. I find it persuasive.
Cincinnati has a real battle for Mayor this election and the issue of public safety has dominated the political discussion. Three of the candidates have announced their Public Safety plans. Let’s examine their proposals.
Mr. Pepper and Mr. Winburn tout the “broken window” theory popularized by John Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling who wrote, in 1982: “one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares and, breaking more windows costs nothing.”
When it comes to policing theory this translates to zero tolerance for “quality of life crimes.” This was the rational used by New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton in the 1990’s to start arresting minor lawbreakers such as “squeegee” men and panhandlers.
Mr. Pepper and Mr. Winburn would have us believe that if there are no squeegee men and panhandlers, dope peddlers will stop selling dope, gang-bangers will stop shooting each other and men will stop raping women. Even discredited theories take twenty years to come to Cincinnati!
Mr. Pepper’s plan to decrease the violent crime rate in Cincinnati is to have zero tolerance for “quality of life concerns” such as “noise graffiti and litter.” He makes an obligatory mention of treatment, but no mention of increasing treatment slots. He claims that Cincinnati is “under staffed when it comes to its police force.”
Mr. Winburn promises to increase the Cincinnati Police Department by 200 officers at a cost of $8.5 million. He also promises to build a new jail. He does not say how he is going to find the money for these projects. Although Mr. Winburn claims that he will fight violent crime from “all directions and angles” he does not address treatment.
Mr. Pepper and Mr. Winburn cite New York City as a model in reducing crime –– is it the best model? During the same period when New York City took this approach and coincidentally saw a reduction in crime rates, San Francisco took a different approach –– alternative sentencing and community involvement –– and saw a larger decrease in crime rates than in New York City. From 1995 to 1998 San Francisco’s violent crime rate went down 33%. NY City’s violent crime rate went down only 26 % in the same time period.
While claiming that the CPD is understaffed, both candidates have omitted some interesting figures about the CPD compared to other cities: Cincinnati has 31 police officers per 10,000 residents while San Francisco has 29, Louisville has 27, Columbus has 25, and Lexington has 19. The salary of an entry-level officer in Cincinnati is $37,487, in Columbus it’s $30,480, in Lexington $30,274, and in Louisville $27,689. (All figures are for the year 2000)
Mr. Mallory is pushing boot camps to fight crimes. Boot camps may satisfy the punitive instinct in most of us. Boot camps by themselves are purely punitive and have not shown to be effective. However, Mr. Mallory does include the after care component for boot camps that have shown to reduce crime.
Having a parent in prison is a strong predictor that their child will end up in prison. A policy that promises to lockup people will only increase the prison population. It will not reduce crime. It will not reduce the number of victims. The ‘Lock them up’ mentality makes most of us feel safe. It does not make us safe. So, think before you vote! It is time that we got smart on crime!
Thanks, Suhith!

Post a Comment