Jackson Free Press

OK, call me a conspiracy theorist, but why is that a new report comes out about daily newspaper circulation dropping, and suddenly The Clarion-Ledger (boo! hiss!) is back on the the-city-will-not-come-back-until-every-single-stinkin'-criminal-is-behind-bars-once-and-for-all beat. Today in his column, columnist Orley Hood repeats the tired, and well incorrect, mantra that the city must take care of crime before it can rebuild itself. Deep breath. THIS IS EXACTLY WRONG. DO SOME FRIGGIN' HOMEWORK, LEDGE. The truth is that cities help lessen their crime with community efforts to bring themselves back (not to mention by funding public education, dealing with poverty, helping the police catch criminals and so on). Renaissance areas put people on the streets (not to mention police and private security), and thus help lower crime. Doh.

But there's more ...

Orley opines: "No matter how nifty a facility we build, the customers eventually have to step outside. If they don't like what they see on the other side of our convention center doors, we'll never get them — or anybody they know — back on the inside." Besides the faulty logic already referenced, Orley simply ignores the fact that crime downtown is already the lowest in the city. Doh. And crime in the city overall is steadily dropping. Doh. And the areas where it's worse could use some development and renaissance efforts (and owners fixing crumbling buildings). Doh.

Orley started the column with this gem of a statement:

Read a piece in The New York Times the other day about crime. Seems that crime's down, but the prison population's up. Hmmm ... Gee, go figure.

Could be, the Times was putting the sentence before the perp, so to speak. Fewer crimes didn't cause the prison population to rise; the rising prison population caused the crime rate to fall. ...

Orley's first sentence indicates that he's got it all figured out ... apparently without the need for any homework. He has simply felt the truth. Fact is: there is plenty of actual research out there that shows that even after crime has dropped in much of the U.S. that the prison population has kept rising, costing taxpayers and benefitting private prisons. And the Times report I'm sure he was referring to is about the increased number of women in prison now and the dramatically increased prison population THAT DOES NOT CORRELATE PROPORTIONATELY WITH THE ACTUAL CRIME BEING COMMITTED. Certain people—and they're of all races and genders, but usually poorer—are going to prison longer for things like possession of marijuana or cocaine. And many women are going to prison because they lived with someone selling or possessing drugs.

Here is his coups de grace, though:

The difference? A no tolerance policy in New York under Rudy Giuliani. No littering. No jaywalking. No nothing. The theory? Take care of the little things, and the big things will fall into place. Jackson could learn a lesson from the Big Apple. Figure out a way to close the hourly-rate motels. Adopt a policy that no crime is petty, that everything is important.

Once again, a Jackson basher references Rudy Giuliani's strategies (no jaywalking!) as the answer to why crime fell in NYC, ignoring all the research that the good 1990s economy was a primary factor, and the fact that Rudy's policies (many of which DID NOT work) led to many pricey lawsuits in the city of New York. He also ought to go read a bit of Kelling and "Broken Windows" research and so on. Or just drive a few blocks over to Jackson State (go ahead, Orley, nobody will bite you) and talk to Dr. Jimmy Bell in the criminology department, who knows about as much about policing strategies and theories as any of those criminal-justice bigwigs I used to interview up north about it.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that Orley's column makes no sense whatsoever—except if all he's trying to do is to bash Jackson in order to help Ledge (boo! hiss!) circulation go back up out in the boonies because they like nothing better than to read about how awful Jackson has become since they hightailed it away. And Orley wouldn't do that, now would he?

Of course, it could just be about throwing a bit more red meat to the non-Jackson letter-writers (an angry bunch, no?) now that the election talk is becoming passé. Or it could have something to do with a certain upcoming mayoral election.

Gee. go figure.

Previous Commentsshow

Such Cynicism! :) I agree. Orley used to be good, before he became a corporate stooge.

Ironghost

Nov 10 2004

Yes, I know. I'm trying to be less of a cynic these days, but I'm so over The Corporate-Ledger (boo! hiss!). They put me over with those two nonsensical, fence-straddling endorsements. I could have written a more convincing endorsement for Bush than they did! And the gay-marriage one was simply horrifying from a *newspaper* that's supposed to value constitutional and civil liberties. And to see them immediately start banging the Jackson-is-a-crime-cesspool drum the week after the election mess ends is just more than I can stand. So, so predictable. So, yes, both barrels of my cynicism are focused on the Ledge (boo! hiss!) right now. Everyone tells me about Orley's good ole days. I'll believe you, but I sure did miss that columnist.

ladd

Nov 11 2004

Oh yes, I miss the old Orley too. At least he's not... David Lampton? The old Metro Section Bleeding Liberal Columnist? I know his name was David, not sure about Lampton. That guy was so far out in left field, they were growing dope. :)

Ironghost

Nov 11 2004

You mean Hampton.

Ex

Nov 11 2004

David Hampton. He's a nice guy, as far as I knowóand I've surely never seen evidence that he is some radical leftist. ;-) But I could have missed those glory years. I will say, he doesn't seem too willing to rock the corporate boat these days. But let's not get too personal on him or Orley or whomever. It's fine to give your opinion on his writings (or lack of), of course, but no ad hominems please. (Not to say you have, but this thread could go that way if we don't reel it in.)

ladd

Nov 11 2004

Fully realizing that I'm spending too much energy caring about what suburbanite Orley Hood, and his buds, thinks of my city, I must rave a bit more about how clueless he is on the nexis between efforts to revitalize a city and lowering crime. Clueless, as this column above proves. In Noo Yawk Sitty -- the city these folks love to hate unless they're talking about Giuliani putting "scum" behind bars for squeegee-ing -- for instance, entire neighborhoods have been brought back and crime lowered because of damn art galleries and the (often-snooty) people who frequent them. In fact, such renaissance efforts are often the *only way* to lower crime in certain neighborhoods, such as the East Village where I used to run a couple newspapers. If they did any homework at all, they would find good ideas for lowering crime, which doesn't always involve packin' heat. These guys need to start using that common horse sense they (surely) were born with. It's about people, stupid! Not big, fat, macho guns. Or throwing people into Barbour's private jails for life for possessing a joint. It's about community-building, and these whiny little (figuratively, of course) men can keep bitchin' and moanin' all they want -- but, guess what, there is a helluva lot of community building going on in the city of Jackson, and no one is asking them whether they like it or not. Because their obsessions don't help anything -- including, drum roll, lowering crime. Rhetoric is rhetoric. So come on, crime-whiners, get with the program. Or be left behind. Your choice.

ladd

Nov 11 2004

Sorry, I'm being mean again. I'll stop. ;-D

ladd

Nov 11 2004

Hampton! Thanks! I dunno... I suppose he could have some type of Jekyl/Hyde thing going on when he goes to work and all... ;) On other topics, however, I agree. if we get some economic juice moving in the city, things might start getting better. Otherwise all the police in the world won't help.

Ironghost

Nov 11 2004

On other topics, however, I agree. if we get some economic juice moving in the city, things might start getting better. Otherwise all the police in the world won't help. Amen, bro (or sis)! This is *so* the point I'm trying to make amid all my sarcasm . Those guys with their big-ass guns would just shoot one of Jackson's toes off after the other. Maybe it's their point; maybe they're so soaked in crime rhetoric about "those people" (left over from the '60s Jim Crow justifications that they've been raised hearing) that they can't see beyond the haze. But the great news is that people, left and right, in Jackson are seeing the big picture these days. Those guys seem able to hold one thought at a time: get the bastards! Smarter folk are saying, "what else can we do while we help the police get the bastards?" For one, we can put aside differences and race politics and work together to revitalize the city and re-build its tax base. And we can shout those guys down when they start screaming about how much our city sucks. They don't really leave us much choice. They seem incapable of having a real conversation that gets past their own rhetoric. (I'm purposelly using "they" a lot here, to give them back their own medicine. And they know who they are. Plus, they're obsessed with reading this site. Hey, y'all.)

ladd

Nov 11 2004

That'd be Bro. :) One problem is that police work can work fast; couple more patrols and people get the idea. Economic development means money and power, which everyone loves to argue about. Everyone wants it in their backyard and too bad for the other guys. I'm amazed the Convention Center passed. I'm happy, but amazed.

Ironghost

Nov 11 2004

Doing some research tonight on a related topic, I found this summary of the problems of the assumptions of Kelling/Wilson's "Broken Windows" theory, which Orley seems to be referencing in his summary of Rudy Giuliani's "no-tolerance" policy for petty "quality of life" crimes; Rudy was a big believer in this policy of going after petty criminals, to "clean up the streets" of such heathens before they grew up into worse criminals. The problem with the theory, of course, is that it was faulty in many, yet not all, ways. Here are some excerpts from this report about "broken windows"/no-tolerance policing. This summarizes the problems pretty well, but there is much more out there, and a number of links in this that you can follow, should you be interested in how to actually prevent crime in a community. (Quick hint: It's about building community, not whining like a bunch of scaredy cats.) The germ of the idea is simple and compelling. A broken window--or a littered sidewalk, a graffito, or what you like--does no great harm to a neighborhood if promptly addressed. But left untended, it sends a signal: that no one cares about this neighborhood, that it is a safe place to break things, to litter, to vandalize. Those who engage in such behaviors will feel safe here. And once these minor miscreants have become well established, perhaps it will seem a safe enough neighborhood in which to be openly drunk, in which to beg for money, and possibly extort it. In short the smallest symptoms of antisocial behavior will, left to fester, breed greater and greater crimes, all the way down to murder. This is the theory famously expounded by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in an article entitled Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety, which appeared in Atlantic Monthly in March 1982. They make the consequences of small-scale neglect very clear and very direct: A piece of property is abandoned, weeds grow up, a window is smashed. Adults stop scolding rowdy children; the children, emboldened, become more rowdy. Families move out, unattached adults move in. Teenagers gather in front of the corner store. The merchant asks them to move; they refuse. Fights occur. Litter accumulates. People start drinking in front of the grocery; in time, an inebriate slumps to the sidewalk and is allowed to sleep it off. Pedestrians are approached by panhandlers. [...] So, does it work? That of course has always been the question at the heart of the furor over the theory: do the broken windows, the small instances of street disorder, really represent a slippery slope that can draw a neighborhood into worse problems with violent crime? And on either side, few have actually produced figures with which to settle it. "I still to this day do not know if improving order will or will not reduce crime," Wilson said, in 2004. "People have not understood that this was a speculation."[...]

ladd

2004-11-14T21:21:03-06:00

ID

173125

Comment

MORE A decade after the Atlantic Monthly article, the theory got its most celebrated trial run. Rudy Giuliani implemented his own vision of Broken Windows policing across New York City. Two much-repeated slogans were added to the discussion by the mayor's initiative: "zero tolerance," referring to the aggressive zeal with which the police were mandated to stamp out minor public disorder, and "quality of life," that elusive societal value against which disorderly behaviors were held to trangress. Among the "quality of life" offenders targeted were jaywalkers and the notorious "squeegee men," in addition to the usual litany of panhandlers, drunks, and noisy teens. The police were given a great deal of latitude, and went to their work with a will. And it worked. Crime in New York dropped like a stone in the 90s; it is still falling now. Whether this steep decline owes to a Broken Windows philosophy is endlessly debated. The market for crack cocaine slacked, and began generating far less violence, some point out. Improved medical and emergency-response capabilities may be blunting murder rates by saving victims who would once have died, others suggest.5 The 90s were boom times, many argue, and high crime rates are associated with economic hardship. Boston is often emphasized as a counter-example, a city whose own precipitous decline in crime followed a very different approach by the authorities, marked less by vigorous arrests and stiff sentences and more by police-community cooperation. Indeed crime fell in many other cities during the same time--in some cases more markedly so, notes Bernard Harcourt in the Boston Review, in April 2002: One recent study found that New York City's drop in homicides, though impressive, is neither unparalleled nor unprecedented. ... Another study looked at the rates of decline in homicides in the seventeen largest U.S. Cities from 1976 to 1998 and found that New York City's recent decline, though above average, was fifth largest. But even if the crime decline in New York doesn't vindicate the Broken Windows theory, none of these arguments can quite discredit it--not in the face of that undeniable decline, at any rate. Something has gone right, and much of the country has been more than ready to embrace Giuliani's message.6Cities across the country clamored to adopt zero tolerance policies.

Author

ladd

Date

2004-11-14T21:21:58-06:00

ID

173126

Comment

MORE It needs to be noted that George Kelling, as a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute, associated closely with mayor Giuliani from the beginning of his term.7 The motto of the Manhattan Institute is "Turning Intellect into Influence;" and Wesley Skogan describes Kelling--approvingly enough--as an "academic policy entrepreneur."8 The Broken Windows school of thought didn't find its way to Giuliani's ear by chance. [...] One of the inevitable critiques, maybe a fundamental critique, of Broken Windows is that the types of "disorderly conduct" it targets are notably offenses typical of the poor. Crimes typical of the rich, or even the reasonably affluent, are never mentioned; there is to be no crackdown on predatory lenders, on embezzlers, on slumlords, on crooked accountants, on redlining banks. Is this because these practices are held to have no adverse effect on a neighborhood that might foster crime later on?[...] The Wilson and Kelling model of policing is founded on a "two kinds of people" worldview. There are upstanding, "decent" citizens and there are "disreputable" troublemakers. And most or all of the problems with city life arise from the actions, however minor, of the troublemakers. This, I realize, is not a charge to be leveled lightly, but the authors have spent much of their careers mapping just such a pattern of thought in exhaustive detail. "Wicked people exist," wrote Wilson in 1975.13 "Nothing avails except to sat them apart from innocent people." Earlier yet14 he set down a list that tells, us, perhaps, a little more about the people he sees on the other side of this divide: "...[the] teenager hanging out on a street corner late at night, especially one dressed in an eccentric manner, a Negro wearing a "conk rag" (a piece of cloth tied around the head to hold flat hair being "processed"--that is, straightened), girls in short skirts and boys in long hair parked in a flashy car talking loudly to friends on the curb, or interracial couples--all of these are seen by many police officers as persons displaying unconventional and improper behavior."[...]

Author

ladd

Date

2004-11-14T21:22:48-06:00

ID

173127

Comment

MORE As we have already heard from Wesley Skogan, Kelling is highly mistrustful of the motives of the very poor. Notable among the problems named in Wilson and Kelling's frequent litanies of street disorder is that of teenagers; noisy teenagers, teenagers in groups, teenagers at night, teenagers standing on the corner. And the older quote from Wilson, of course, shows that people can become problematic not only by virtue of their age but their race, their clothes, the length of their hair. One more look into Wilson's career greatly amplifies this concern: three years after Broken Windows,he wrote with co-author Richard Herrnstein a book called Crime and Human Nature, which was devoted entirely to the exercise of divining the traits by which we can classify and identify criminals--based on an unshakable faith that there is such a line to be drawn in reality, between intrinsic law-abiders and intrinsic "calculators." An entire book of their findings on the ages, social classes, races, and even body types of those they believe to be criminals by nature is grim indeed when juxtaposed with Wilson's earlier remarks about certain wicked people who must be set apart from the innocent. And as if to underscore the point, Herrnstein went on to co-author with Charles Murray, in 1996, a notorious volume called The Bell Curve--the latest in an ignoble tradition stretching back to Samuel Morton of scientific "proofs" that intelligence is real, that it can be and has been accurately and fully measured, and that to no one's surprise, the most cherished stereotypes held by the powerful against the less powerful are all demonstrably true. The Broken Windows theory cannot be judged on its provenance alone, of course. But it does have its ideological underpinnings, and some of them are unsavory. "For all their effectiveness in cracking down on a wide range of antisocial behaviors," write Paul S. Grogan and Tony Proscio in Comeback Cities: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival, "the New York City police never repaired a single broken window, fixed up a single house, or cleaned one vacant lot." (p164) Why, then are police the means indicated for arresting social disorder, if they are powerless against its archetypical manifestations? Responding to a report by the Manhattan Institute on the successes of the NYPD and their meanings, Bernard Harcourt suggests that the purpose of Broken Windows policing has been misunderstood, or perhaps misstated. [...]

Author

ladd

Date

2004-11-14T21:23:26-06:00

ID

173128

Comment

MORE The connection between disorder and crime, long the subject of furious debate with little real evidence on either side, appears to have been invalidated. Community presence, rather, is what deters crime. "It's not so much that broken glass or disarray in neighborhoods is the source or root of crime," Earls told National Public Radio; it's really in the social relationships that exist among neighbors, among people who work in neighborhoods, among services and so forth, that the social conditions are there to engage or not to engage citizens, neighbors in watching out for crime or crime-related activity in the neighborhoods.17 So there is, definitely, a set of clear and powerful ideas at the heart of Broken Windows. But the central mythology of it is mistaken--not only the underlying, poisonous notion of a criminal class with an inborn inclination to wrongdoing, but the very centerpiece of its discussion, the doctrine of the slippery slope from the first traces of disorder to a nadir of rampant crime, is falsified by a sweeping and painstaking study, the only comparable study of real data about neighborhoods and crime. Instead, what holds its value is Wilson's and Kelling's conviction that a safe neighborhood is one in which the residents feel safe enough to take a hand in defending it. They are right to urge communities to work with the police, and the police to become part of the community. What they missed is only that the specific focus of this cooperative attention--street crime, neighborhood disorder--matters less than the palpable presence of the community. Link to This Overview of "Broken Windows"

Author

ladd

Date

2004-11-14T21:24:16-06:00

ID

173129

Comment

A primary problem with the "Broken Windows" theory is that it was funded by the Manhattan Instituteóyou know that eugenics-pushing think tank I've discussed on other threads. I know it becomes hard to fathom, but there is big money behind the efforts to prove that certain people are inferior in various ways, that they're more prone to crime, that they deserve less public resources because they're hopeless anyway, that kind of thing. Then what happens is that this "research" from the think tanks filter all the way down to folks like Orley Hood who don't bother to do the homework and just repeat it like it's gospel. It's not, thankfully. And the people who repeat it ad nauseum are not necessarily racist -- and may well be well-meaning. But they grab onto these faulty nuggets and then just repeat them without having any actual idea of what they're talking about. "We have to do what Rudy did in New York!" All the while, they haven't really looked at what he did, how effective it was, what other factors were at play, and how much money his strategies cost the city in lawsuits because he violated the consitutional rights of so many people, including the innocent. These are important issues, and just should not be taken so lightly and flippantly as they are by the talk-radio crowd. If you really want to help crime in Jackson, there's a helluva more to it than whining about crime and the police all the time. It's about getting the community involved, getting people out of their homes and involved and, as this overview, points out, getting the absentee landlords to fix the damn windows and not let neighborhoods decay in the first place. Rant over.

Author

ladd

Date

2004-11-14T21:30:23-06:00

ID

173130

Comment

Nice rant. I liked this part: Crimes typical of the rich, or even the reasonably affluent, are never mentioned; there is to be no crackdown on predatory lenders, on embezzlers, on slumlords, on crooked accountants, on redlining banks. Is this because these practices are held to have no adverse effect on a neighborhood that might foster crime later on?[...] Because, yeah, they're less important than littering.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-15T08:38:35-06:00

ID

173131

Comment

A primary problem with the "Broken Windows" theory is that it was funded by the Manhattan Institute This is an ad hominem fallacy: the validity of a theory does not depend on the author of it. Granted, causation is always difficult if not impossible to demonstrate, but there is a strong correlation between physical neglect of properties and crime. I helped with a study in grad school that concluded this. But returning to ladd's point earlier, that urban revitalization IS a anti-crime tool- I completely agree, especially the type of development that people are envisioning for downtown and some the surrounding neighborhoods. A vibrant, mixed-use center is the safest place from crime because, as Jane Jacobs noted, there are always "eyes on the street." A diversity of uses means that people come to an area at different times of the day, ideally at all times of the day (let's get 24-hour resort status for all of downtown; crime prevention by bars).

Author

Justin

Date

2004-11-15T10:08:18-06:00

ID

173132

Comment

This is an ad hominem fallacy: the validity of a theory does not depend on the author of it. Good point, Justin. However, what I'm arguing (effectively or not) is NOT that the findings cannot be true because of who funded the study. Of course they can -- regardless of the motives. What I am saying is that it is important to know who fund these types of studies, so they that you understand what they set out to prove in the first place. Then you know to read between the lines better, or watch for what's left out in the press release. Or what their initial biases are. That always needs to be factored into the credibility of the findingsónot to invalidate them on their face, but to help folks know what to ask, trust, mistrust. In this case, it seems clear that even the authors' words have been twisted by many others to fit those original motives. This isn't the same argument as saying that, "well, there can't be anything to it because the Manhattan Institute is behind it." It's saying to be careful about what you believe and do more homework. That's the case whether something is being funded from the far left or the far right or by whomever. Granted, causation is always difficult if not impossible to demonstrate, but there is a strong correlation between physical neglect of properties and crime. I helped with a study in grad school that concluded this. I actually really agree with that, and think much of the Broken Windows theory makes sense, and have written such many times. For instance, it is vital, I believe, to get those absentee landlords to fix those crumbling properties and then to get folks in communities to come together to fix up their neighborhoods in order to lessen crime. But that's isn't the main thing that many folks (like Rudy, and folks on Jackson talk radio) try to take from the "Broken Windows theory. The problem is when someone like Orley comes along and doesn't do the reading (seemingly) and then just boils it down to "Well, Rudy, had no tolerance for petty crimes like jaywalking; therefore, crime fell." They then further argue that you cannot rebuild a city or a neighborhood without taking care of all the crime first -- missing the whole point in this theory (and common sense) that "urban revitalization IS an anti-crime tool" as you say in your second graf. So, all that said, I think that we're pretty much in total agreement. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2004-11-15T10:46:45-06:00