You’re very quick to assign bad faith motives to people. It’s one of the things that makes debate with you quite tedious.
Nothing I said is contradicted by the cite, which provides a fuller context for why you’re wrong to think that short-term increases in some rates (with decreases in others)–focused principally in a single city-- is some kind of proof that a Ferguson effect is harming civilian safety.
I don’t see that I assigned bad faith motives to anyone.
But at this point it does look to me that you’ve decided to fall back on this type of response in the absence of any substantive response.
To this point, I’ve linked to articles in the NYT and WP pointing to increases in all types of violent crime on a national level in 2015, and you’ve helpfully (if unintentionally) linked to a study which showed the same continuing in 2016. You’ve responded with some ad hominem. I’m content to leave it at that.
I, personally, would gladly trade a 1.7% increase in violent crime for the police being accountable for their actions, and following the law.
That’s certainly a valid position, and is separate from the question of whether in fact the “Ferguson Effect” is real altogether.
Though it’s worth noting that the 1.7% is only one year, and the next year is projected at an additional 5.5% increase. And in general, the effects of an effect like this - if it in fact exists - are going to be cumulative over the years. It’s not like all sorts of previously law-abiding people rush out to commit crimes the minute word gets out that the police are being more tentative. But the changed risk-reward ratio that results has a longer term effect on societal choices.
If the effect is real, and is driven by police cleaning up their act and not just sitting in their cruisers ignoring problems, one would expect a great improvement in police-community relations nationwide. This by itself would serve to decrease crime rates, or at least increase clearance rates, as people were more willing to contact the police about crime in the neighborhoods, to testify as witnesses, and so forth.
One thing that struck me when reading the DoJ report on Ferguson was how the Ferguson PD alienated people in the community from going to them for help, such as by dinging people who reported crimes for petty offenses.
That may be a worthwhile tradeoff but it isn’t a small one. 1.7% over the population compared in gross terms compared to the gross count of bad behavior by police could be significantly lopsided.
It could be, but as I said above, it would make policing more effective, and surely the psychic benefit of a police force that abides by the law and serves its citizens is worth quite a lot, as opposed to being squeezed between civilian criminals on one side, and criminal police on the other.
I think the impact of police community relations would have to be incredibly large to achieve the gains necessary to outweigh an uptick of 1.7% violent crime. I’m not sure I would take that tradeoff or if I think on balance policing would be more effective. Without knowing the level of police criminal behavior it’s a tough sell.
Darren Wilson, the cop at the center of the Ferguson drama, appears to have followed the law and was accountable for his actions.
This seems to be you asserting that the Ferguson Effect can’t possibly exist because you personally believe it shouldn’t exist. Not much in that.
But FWIW, the Ferguson Effect posits that as a result of fear of repercussions from hostile interactions police are more likely and not less likely to sit in their cruisers and refrain from meaningful policing that might reduce crime.
The question is, how many crimes go unsolved, or occur in the first place, because of a lack of cooperation and trust between citizens and police? I’d wager it’s a substantial number, but it’s of course hard to quantify. I’ll look for studies on the subject when I have some time.
In the context of that one incident, sure. The Ferguson PD as a whole didn’t, and wasn’t, until their abuses came to widespread notice.
The problem with this viewpoint is that it allows any violent spoilers to ruin any movement for you. It makes no sense to blame the mostly peaceful BLM for the bad people who aren’t peaceful. It’s not as if they can control them.
Heck, if anything, they are in the worst position to do so, since they are protesting the police, and the police by and large seem to respond as if it’s their job to stop the movement itself. It would be great if they could have good police officers who went to all the rallies, and, even if they disagreed, would protect the peaceful protestors from the violent assholes.
Instead, as has often been the case, protesters themselves have to fear the police.
No, it’s not. It’s someone pointing out that, if said effect exists, it would not be predictable by an increase in crime rates, since it would be canceled out by better human relations.
I’m not sure I agree, but it is one way to reconcile the fact that some people keep claiming the effect yet we see no signs of increased crime–the very thing you cited in your OP.
Personally, I reconcile it as being an after-the-fact rationalization for behavior that would have occurred anyways. Now there’s just something to blame it on.
Heck, the original effect wasn’t supposed to be cops sitting in their cars. It’s supposed to be cops hesitating to shoot. That’s what the anecdote in the OP indicates. Since the that version seems untenable, the concept is being expanded.
It’s people looking for ways to prove that all these people who are protesting are actually making everyone less safe. That the target is changing shows they are fishing for proof, rather than objectively looking at the facts.
You don’t seem to be aware of this, but you basically repeated what I said. Writing “No, it’s not” at the outset doesn’t change that.
I claimed no such thing in the OP. And in the past several posts there have been several which have documented an increased violent crime rate in the past two years.
So you managed to both read something into the OP which wasn’t there, and to miss some pretty explicit cites in recent posts. Pretty good.
The basic concept is the same. Cops are afraid to interact with potential criminals for fear of being branded aggressors by the media and Justice system. That would have multiple ramifications.
Think about it a bit.
Or maybe educate yourself a bit. Like here, for example. Or here, for another. Or any number of similar sources.
New Study out from the Pew Research Center: Behind the Badge
This doesn’t surprise me at all. That shootings have increased tensions should surprise no one. Similarly, it’s no surprise that asking cops to consider more things in terms of use of force, and look at changing their policies and practices, would meet significant resistance. Most progress includes such tension and resistance to some degree – considering that Sheriff Bull Connor thought part of his job was oppressing and brutalizing black people who stepped out of what he believed was their role in society, I doubt anyone would be surprised if Connor and his ilk thought that Civil Rights increased tension and made their jobs more difficult (not that I believe that most cops today have the same beliefs as Connor).
Whether you’re surprised or not would seem irrelevant to the question of whether it exists. I’m not surprised either, frankly. But we’re discussing whether the Ferguson Effect has been happening, and this report - saying that cops are reluctant to stop suspicious people - is more support for the notion that it has been. Surprising or not.
Or rather saying that Cops say they are. Given that BLM criticizes police it is natural that they would be staunchly opposed to it, and so when asked whether it has caused bad things they would say it did. Its like a boss asking an employee if a 10% drop in their wage would hurt their productivity, most would say it would (and probably even believe it) even though it actually won’t make a difference.
It’s saying that cops are saying they’re upset. This is not surprising at all. And it’s not surprising to me if upset cops might behave a bit differently. If the Ferguson Effect is just “some cops are upset and might be doing less cop work because of how upset they are”, then I think it’s possible that it exists.
If this is the case, and if this is having a negative effect on some communities (which is not at all clear), then cops who are behaving this way should stop.