Police Do Not Lower Crime Rates?

Interesting study in criminology for anyone who has access to scholarly publications through your library or school:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...276.x/abstract

Quote:

---

Relationships reflecting the view that police presence is essential for crime prevention and social order are examined for variation duration of police strike, city size, and offense category. Overall, analysis yields very limited support for the police presence argument, suggesting that strikes have neither a significant nor a systematic impact on rates of reported crime. Implications of findings for the formulation of police policy are discussed.

---

I have read abstracts for similar studies done abroad where crime rates spiked during a police strike, but that might be due to pernicious self-defense laws along with a general lack of an armed populace and a culture willing to take on the responsibility of defending yourself.

Anyway, with all the police stuff floating around recently, I thought I'd share. I'm a history buff and I always found it interesting that police as we know them today were a post-civil-war invention, and that the US got by just fine (in fact, if reports are correct, it got by better than its European counterparts, which *did* have proto-police of a sort, and lots of them,) without them. So I'm always on the lookout for data points about the effect of no police on places people tend to think police are vital (ie cities.)

This isn't a police bashing thread, but something I thought the board at large (including our police members) might find interesting.

In Before Cop Bashing Thread Closed!

[ROFL1]

Another data point of interest:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N5x...strike&f=false

Field and Stream, May 1976. A quick note on how Albiquerque, NM police went on strike in 1975 for a couple weeks and crime dropped to 0.

(I am going to bet that this data point did not help the police union's bargaining leverage.)

Albiquerque was, of course, not a huge city. Presumably in a well-armed populace of a large enough size, you will find a doofus willing to try his luck. But still - interesting.

Again, I'm not anti-cop, but I think that the status quo of large police departments being necessary for public safety ought to be examined, especially in these days when budgets are being strained and the future looks like much less money might be available to pay for even vital services, let alone the silly stuff cities love to waste money on.

pancho you really should register at glocktalk, I think you'd like it there.

I think it has to do with community size. A small community is closer knit and more determined to take care of their own. There is obviously more to that, but I'm short on time.

Interesting thought.

I had more than a few muffled conversations in fire houses talking with guys about fire layoffs, and the consensus was, fire was in general, over staffed and over budgeted, and the city would not be significantly less safe with fewer personal and equipment if things were re-organized.

brush trucks instead of as many engines, centralized ladder trucks, more use of independent EMS for medical only calls, integration of inter-department mutual aid and volunteer support, etc. This is not to mention the use of private fire departments, which usually cost much less and don't show statistically significant inferior response times or results, just costs the person who's house burns down a lot if they don't pay for fire coverage...which was always less than the tax burden for the same service, but it was voluntary as opposed to taxes. Like West/South Metro Fire (I think these are private subscription based) here vs. Denver/Westminster Fire, same end results, one will just cost less.



I don't know enough about policing policy to be sure this applies as well, but its interesting to think about in an era when everything, and everyone will probably bear the brunt of budget cuts eventually, not just "liberal" professions and expenditures, like teachers and medicare.

Good guys are not good because of LE, and bad guys do not stop being bad because of LE. We studied this stuff in my criminal justice classes, lots of interesting reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eighty duece

Good guys are not good because of LE, and bad guys do not stop being bad because of LE. We studied this stuff in my criminal justice classes, lots of interesting reading.

---

^^^This. Nothing new here. Anyone getting a degree in CJ reads tons on this and how important community policing is to reduced crime rates. Its been twenty some years since my studies and it still sticks in my mindset.

Wait wait wait... We're supposed to be good because of police? Got my comment in!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperiorDG

^^^This. Nothing new here. Anyone getting a degree in CJ reads tons on this and how important ARMED community policing is to reduced crime rates. Its been twenty some years since my studies and it still sticks in my mindset.

---

fixed

Can someone explain to me what "community policing" is?

Community policing was an alternative policing strategy developed in the mid-70 off of studies such as the broken window theory and your articles' theory that less cops working with a community would improve crime rates. It's basic tenants were to help communicate with citizens about issues, instead of being a silent "foreign" enforcement group that were there just to arrest and suppress crime. Google it you'll find some good stuff, not in complete agreement but some decent ideas. You'll usually have it defined as a liberal theory.

Community policing has a couple different faces.

The ideal face, when administrators come up with a community policing plan, is that police officers work directly with the community they serve to meet their needs directly - maybe the police are focusing on one problem when another is more important.

This works through community meetings and liaisons with citizens. So let's say you work early week midnight shift, when there aren't as many drunks on the road or rowdy parties in your community. You meet with some local businesses, maybe even just walk in, and ask them what has been bothering them. A lot of people don't report things like transient issues, graffiti, minor thefts, etc. If the police make a good relationship, the odds are good that citizens will feel more comfortable participating in law enforcement, rather than thinking they can't get help.

In reality, it doesn't often work that way. There are a lot of reasons for that. The face that community policing usually takes is the following:

2/3rds of a department works, essentially, at night. That's a simple but effective obstacle to communication. Coming in on a day off is an option, but a poor one - even if your department will authorize the comp or overtime, it's not a whole lot of fun to flip your sleep schedule and come in on a day off so you can meet with some people at what is essentially 1:00 AM for you.

Another issue is that there isn't usually any accountability. Sure, the administration says, "All right, guys, get with the business owners, HOAs, and other groups in your beat. Do some meetings, get some good intel. I want results!" But afterwards, there isn't any follow up. It becomes a bullet point for the department website, safety brochures, and press releases, but nobody is actually doing it.

Let's throw another thing into the mix - most cops feel like the community they serve ignores them at best, and hates them at worst. I feel really strongly about this, but there aren't any easy solutions. I think that realistically, most people are pretty ambivalent about cops - there are some bad ones, and some great ones, and most of them are okay, just like anybody else. But all the training cops get (everybody is out to get you) coupled with the occasional media frenzy focusing on the truly terrible cops, coupled again with the strong sense of brotherhood leads to a vicious "us vs them" mentality in some departments. So if you really think that most of the people in your town think you're a dick, you're not real likely to schedule a bunch of meetings and ask them what scares them.

I think the last big obstacle is communication. A lot of departments leave the community policing to a "crime prevention officer" or two. This position gives a cop a chance to wear a "soft" uniform, have a day shift for a few years, and he doesn't have to ride around, responding to calls or dealing with drunken assholes for a while. This often shuts other cops ears, so when he comes back and says, "Hey guys, the businesses on north Main St have been telling me they've been cleaning a lot of gang graffiti on the back sides of their businesses - can we get over there and do some extra patrols?", they typically blow him off because they see him (even if it's just for the duration of this assignment) as the guy with the easy job who is just giving them info so the bosses can't say he isn't doing his job.

Now, this isn't everywhere - I think it works great some places, if they take care to overcome the obstacles listed above (and more). I also think that responding to the community's needs is the easiest way to actually lower crime. I subscribe to the Robert Peel's (paraphrased here) thought that everybody's duty is to help fight crime, cops just get paid to do it full time and give it all their energy. The only way to do that is to get truly involved with the city you serve and make sure that the citizens are equal partners, but when you start talking like that, cops eyes glaze over ;)

That's my view on it - it's how every department should work, in an ideal world.

back when I shared a house on the south end with some friends, the mexicans down the street would rip up and down the block in their mustang at about 80. (well, they still do.. I just don't live there anymore)

if community policing was in effect, my buddy could have waved them down, then directed their attention to me on the porch holding my rifle, then asked them politely to slow down.

it is not used because

A. self defense is criminalized and

B. [insert lazy cops comment here]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elhuero

back when I shared a house on the south end with some friends, the mexicans down the street would rip up and down the block in their mustang at about 80. (well, they still do.. I just don't live there anymore)

if community policing was in effect, my buddy could have waved them down, then directed their attention to me on the porch holding my rifle, then asked them politely to slow down.

it is not used because

A. self defense is criminalized and

B. [insert lazy cops comment here]

---

It is used however it depends on the size of the city, number of police officers, and call load for that department. Different departments will have different effects. My PD works fairly closely with a lot organizations and we also have community service officers that their sole duty is to make contact with community leaders, businesses, etc.

I would also suggest that research has shown that criminals watch patterns of police officers and once they get used to a certain pattern the criminal strikes (i.e. breaking into cars or houses). It is important for an officer for community safety as well as personal safety to not e complacent and not to be repeat their actions whenever possible during patrolling.

You make a point about lazy officers, I have worked with some that I have criticised to their face because they aren't pro-active enough in their areas. Some PD's just don't have the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevDen2005

It is used however it depends on the size of the city, number of police officers, and call load for that department. Different departments will have different effects. My PD works fairly closely with a lot organizations and we also have community service officers that their sole duty is to make contact with community leaders, businesses, etc.

I would also suggest that research has shown that criminals watch patterns of police officers and once they get used to a certain pattern the criminal strikes (i.e. breaking into cars or houses). It is important for an officer for community safety as well as personal safety to not e complacent and not to be repeat their actions whenever possible during patrolling.

You make a point about lazy officers, I have worked with some that I have criticised to their face because they aren't pro-active enough in their areas. Some PD's just don't have the time.

---

Kev great post and thanks again for what you do.

we mentioned the problem several times to CSPD and they just couldn't be bothered with it.

Community policing, like most general policies adopted and used by modern police departments start out very well in the conceptual phase...

Then "community policing" turns into something else.

It becomes a by-word, used like D.A.R.E. to reassure the public that a police department is "doing something".

Want a good example of HOW community policing works? Ask any regular patrol officer in denver if, at times, they are asked to "deemphasize" any particular classification of crime.

In Aurora public schools, and Cherry Creek Schools violent crimes are simply not written up as violent crimes. Get beat up at school, and you WONT find a crime report written about it. Drug buy? "de-emphasized" by school administration on school grounds.

so, as long as politicians can de-emphasize any particular police activity, any statistics associated with police work are inherently a lie.

When they study drugs in clinical trials, they use "double blind" so even the researchers dont know who is getting what.

how does the study affect the outcome? the politicians KNOW the study is taking place, or the time period when it will take place - and policies are changed to affect that study.

I was sort of wondering, in Albuquerque when crime rate went to 0 - was this from the UCR? Because the FBI gets it's stats directly from departments, it simply follows that if a department isn't writing up any crime, then the stats MUST be 0.

For folks that actually think that they have an 'effective' community policing effort - ask 10 residents who their PAR officer is - if 1 out of 10 knows the answer, I'd be surprised. Ask any PAR officer what the vacancy rate is in an apartment complex, and they wouldn't know that -

In short, "community policing" doesn't encourage an actual intimate relationship with the neighborhood you are assigned to. Even if it DID, between calls for service and the required paperwork, there is almost NO time that can be spent learning things about people in a neighborhood who ARENT criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elhuero

Kev great post and thanks again for what you do.

we mentioned the problem several times to CSPD and they just couldn't be bothered with it.

---

I appreciate it brother,

something I should add is funding. I have a friend that works for CSPD I'm not going to defend them, but they are literally about 300 cops understaffed given their city size, etc. That being said when we get into a financial crisis, police and fire are some of the first things to get funding reduced, then there goes the ability to have things like Community Service Officers and have time to reach out to the community. If one looks at Colorado they can see that Law Enforcement including all of the Jails and services takes up less than 3 percent of the state budget, so cutting doesn't really cut that much.

Anyway, I hope it gets better with CSPD for you. So I thought this budgeting light might be helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ldmaster

Community policing, like most general policies adopted and used by modern police departments start out very well in the conceptual phase...

Then "community policing" turns into something else.

It becomes a by-word, used like D.A.R.E. to reassure the public that a police department is "doing something".

Want a good example of HOW community policing works? Ask any regular patrol officer in denver if, at times, they are asked to "deemphasize" any particular classification of crime.

In Aurora public schools, and Cherry Creek Schools violent crimes are simply not written up as violent crimes. Get beat up at school, and you WONT find a crime report written about it. Drug buy? "de-emphasized" by school administration on school grounds.

so, as long as politicians can de-emphasize any particular police activity, any statistics associated with police work are inherently a lie.

When they study drugs in clinical trials, they use "double blind" so even the researchers dont know who is getting what.

how does the study affect the outcome? the politicians KNOW the study is taking place, or the time period when it will take place - and policies are changed to affect that study.

I was sort of wondering, in Albuquerque when crime rate went to 0 - was this from the UCR? Because the FBI gets it's stats directly from departments, it simply follows that if a department isn't writing up any crime, then the stats MUST be 0.

For folks that actually think that they have an 'effective' community policing effort - ask 10 residents who their PAR officer is - if 1 out of 10 knows the answer, I'd be surprised. Ask any PAR officer what the vacancy rate is in an apartment complex, and they wouldn't know that -

In short, "community policing" doesn't encourage an actual intimate relationship with the neighborhood you are assigned to. Even if it DID, between calls for service and the required paperwork, there is almost NO time that can be spent learning things about people in a neighborhood who ARENT criminals.

---

You make a very interesting point about stats, that I wasn't planning on talking about but wanted to mention. If officers aren't taking reports than nothing gets reported.

There was a study done several years ago (I wish I could remember where I saw it now, but I can't) it was either about child abuse or child sex assault or something very similar. It went up several hundred percent. At first it appeared that the statistic came out of nowhere but it was then realized through study that people were reporting the occurance more often rather than not, hence the huge increase of reports to the FBI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Statistics may not be without bias.

If census workers go on strike, does the "0" recorded means all the illegals are gone? Some crimes might not be statistically reported if nobody is there to do the paperwork....

---

^ this ^ a+

The rate didn't drop to 0 everywhere, which makes me think that there was still plenty of people to take reports for the crime.

The study itself states that there was no significant increase or reduction in crime across many cities where police went on strike.

The flip side is also hard to quantify. There is no way to show that if Officer A was sitting in this particular parking lot, it prohibited a vehicle from being broken into or stolen and the would be suspect went to another location and did what they were going to do.

Does marked units patrolling reduce crime? I don't know. It is a basic tenet of law enforcement that visible, marked patrol vehicles with uniformed officers deters crime, but there isn't any way to prove it.

This just in... Medical Doctors don't end illness or death. With the best medical care ever known throughout history, your odds of dying are still 100% [ROFL1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

The flip side is also hard to quantify. There is no way to show that if Officer A was sitting in this particular parking lot, it prohibited a vehicle from being broken into or stolen and the would be suspect went to another location and did what they were going to do.

Does marked units patrolling reduce crime? I don't know. It is a basic tenet of law enforcement that visible, marked patrol vehicles with uniformed officers deters crime, but there isn't any way to prove it.

---

It seems fairly easy to quantify. Find a situation where the police stopped doing their jobs (for example, went on strike,) and then analyze reported crime statistics to see if there was a significant rise. If crime jumps up, you can draw a pretty strong statistical correlation to police presence and preventing crime. If not, you have a strong argument that their presence doesn't (since their absence doesn't result in an increase in crime.)

This study seems to do that, though I'd like to take a closer look at their methodology.

A historical point: back before there were police, citizens voluntarily formed organizations (both for-profit and all-volunteer) to help people who were unable (through poverty, being too busy or being dead/injured by their assailant) to find, apprehend and remand to the custody of the courts the people who were responsible. There was a very sophisticated system of communication between these organizations in different areas, so that fleeing criminals couldn't simply move away and start over. By all accounts it was harder to get away with a crime in America by an order of magnitude than it was to get away with a crime in Europe (which had, by this time, police forces funded by the state.)

What was most interesting to me was, none of this (the volunteer organizations, methods of communication, etc.,) were not mandated by any government official or central authority. Best practices spread via word of mouth and effectiveness was through the roof.

I wonder if that system could be updated to increase law enforcement effectiveness - obviously technology has advanced and at least some rudimentary training in order to not spoil forensic evidence is necessary, but I think the question is a good one that should be asked.

Here's a link to a good overview of the whole situation regarding how law enforcement and prosecution was done at the time of the founding:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Quote:

---

The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

---

Again, this is not a cop bashing thread. Cops are not bad people, in fact, a cop is our host here. But I think it would be interesting to raise this question:

Is a government-sponsored police force the most effective means to ensure a peaceful, low-crime society? If so, in what way?

The idea has merit, but the jurisdiction of individual groups would need to be very small. If I live in Thornton, and volunteer for Denver, I'm not going to know anyone/everyone in the neighborhood, and as a result, will care less about roughing people up. However, if my jurisdiction, as a volunteer, is restricted to the mile radius around the home I have to return to every night, I'll have a much greater chance of treating people fairly and with respect.

The success of something like this, would depend directly on how closely knit the community is. Just like every other economic system under the sun, some things work on paper, and in very small groups, but will fail miserably on a large scale. Like Communism. Or sharing a work refrigerator. Easy when there are only 10 people and you know every single one of them. More difficult when there are 75, and some jerk from accounting that you've never even met keeps eating your Plantanito pancakes while you are in a meeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

It seems fairly easy to quantify. Find a situation where the police stopped doing their jobs (for example, went on strike,) and then analyze reported crime statistics to see if there was a significant rise. If crime jumps up, you can draw a pretty strong statistical correlation to police presence and preventing crime. If not, you have a strong argument that their presence doesn't (since their absence doesn't result in an increase in crime.)

---

Interesting thought, but false logic. The statistics you want to rely on come from reports generated by the police. Its called NIBRS. Its a bunch of codes that every report is broken down into for statistical purposes. Each agency reports them to the CBI, who compiles them for the state and then sends the results to the FBI.

So, if no reports are generated, there is no crime reported, although I'm sure crime is occuring. Also, those reports and statistics can be massaged to show an increase or decrease in a specific crime based on how they are reported. Do you have a sexual assault or an unlawful sexual contact? Depending upon how the case is initially written up, it could go either way. How about A DUI or a DUI associated with another crime, like vehicular assault. Only one gets reported, although there may be multiple crimes invovled. Do you put down as the primary crime the most serious or the causation, or the most minimalist?

The big ones obviously are the Class I felonies: Murder, Sexual Assault, etc. What if you have a number of Sunday morning alcohol related regretted-the-previous-nights-sexual-encounter and report a sexual assault? Sexual assault occurs when the one or more of the parties are unable to give informed consent. What is informed consent and where does that stop when alcohol is consumed? Does she need to be falling down drunk to not be able to give consent or is one beer sufficient to be unable to given informed consent? There isn't a standard or a set limit. And in that example, it seems to fall on the side of the female. Isn't the alcohol consumed by the male party also inhibiting his ability to give informed consent to sex?

So, you as the detective, what do you do? You got a female victim reporting an assault, although you have no evidence of an assault, other than sexual contact and the male party admits to sexual contact, but insists it was consensual? The question of informed consent is out the window as both were intoxicated and one or the other shows you receipts from the previous evening. Do you arrest the male and put him in jail on the word of the female, even though the chances are that the DA will not go forward with a prosecution, or do you not arrest and risk the female going to the media and crying that no one is willing to listen to her story of rape. AND...to bring it back to the discussion, what do you code this for NIBRS reporting?

Pancho, you sound like someone really wanting to hear and debate on an intellectual level. It is nice to have the debate and thought, not the bashing. If you ever wanted to meet and discuss these issues one on one, let me know. We can even invite others and have a really good discussion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

Interesting thought, but false logic. The statistics you want to rely on come from reports generated by the police. Its called NIBRS. Its a bunch of codes that every report is broken down into for statistical purposes. Each agency reports them to the CBI, who compiles them for the state and then sends the results to the FBI.

So, if no reports are generated, there is no crime reported, although I'm sure crime is occuring. Also, those reports and statistics can be massaged to show an increase or decrease in a specific crime based on how they are reported. Do you have a sexual assault or an unlawful sexual contact? Depending upon how the case is initially written up, it could go either way. How about A DUI or a DUI associated with another crime, like vehicular assault. Only one gets reported, although there may be multiple crimes invovled. Do you put down as the primary crime the most serious or the causation, or the most minimalist?

The big ones obviously are the Class I felonies: Murder, Sexual Assault, etc. What if you have a number of Sunday morning alcohol related regretted-the-previous-nights-sexual-encounter and report a sexual assault? Sexual assault occurs when the one or more of the parties are unable to give informed consent. What is informed consent and where does that stop when alcohol is consumed? Does she need to be falling down drunk to not be able to give consent or is one beer sufficient to be unable to given informed consent? There isn't a standard or a set limit. And in that example, it seems to fall on the side of the female. Isn't the alcohol consumed by the male party also inhibiting his ability to give informed consent to sex?

So, you as the detective, what do you do? You got a female victim reporting an assault, although you have no evidence of an assault, other than sexual contact and the male party admits to sexual contact, but insists it was consensual? The question of informed consent is out the window as both were intoxicated and one or the other shows you receipts from the previous evening. Do you arrest the male and put him in jail on the word of the female, even though the chances are that the DA will not go forward with a prosecution, or do you not arrest and risk the female going to the media and crying that no one is willing to listen to her story of rape. AND...to bring it back to the discussion, what do you code this for NIBRS reporting?

Pancho, you sound like someone really wanting to hear and debate on an intellectual level. It is nice to have the debate and thought, not the bashing. If you ever wanted to meet and discuss these issues one on one, let me know. We can even invite others and have a really good discussion!

---

Please refer back to the first post in this thread; the study cited clearly shows that there wasn't a significant change in reported crimes. If it was as you said (that crimes were simply not reported due to there being no police on duty) then there would have been a 100% drop in reported crime rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

The idea has merit, but the jurisdiction of individual groups would need to be very small. If I live in Thornton, and volunteer for Denver, I'm not going to know anyone/everyone in the neighborhood, and as a result, will care less about roughing people up. However, if my jurisdiction, as a volunteer, is restricted to the mile radius around the home I have to return to every night, I'll have a much greater chance of treating people fairly and with respect.

The success of something like this, would depend directly on how closely knit the community is. Just like every other economic system under the sun, some things work on paper, and in very small groups, but will fail miserably on a large scale. Like Communism. Or sharing a work refrigerator. Easy when there are only 10 people and you know every single one of them. More difficult when there are 75, and some jerk from accounting that you've never even met keeps eating your Plantanito pancakes while you are in a meeting.

---

I've worked with large, volunteer groups before.

The big advantage, in this case, is that police get quite a bit of personal immunity and protection from the state, along with an institutional bias towards their testimony and a large, professional machine that helps to make anything questionable go away (Police Unions...)

Again, this isn't to say all or most cops are bad. But it doesn't take many bad cops to do a lot of bad things, with that kind of institutionalized power. And there have been cases with departments that, if they weren't thoroughly corrupt, had a significant minority of their cops doing bad things (LAPD, arguably even now, NOPD, etc.)

The legal shift to individual citizens would also take away the institutional power, the arguable conflicts of interest with the prosecutor, and the (in cases excepting conduct that was grossly out of line) personal immunity from civil or criminal penalties.

Yes, you may be more likely to rough up someone far from you. You may also just be an asshole and are more likely to rough people up, period. But the rules change from being a cop to being an ordinary citizen, and your actions are looked at much more closely and with less 'benefit of the doubt' by the courts.

I just think getting away from that model might have some benefit. It certainly saves plenty of money, and it would seem to address some of the glaring issues centered around the courts that having a police force (as it stands now) entails.

Anyway, in my experience working with volunteer groups, the knuckleheads vote themselves out pretty fast. A volunteer organization is a social animal, and those who are rude, unprofessional or undedicated usually just find they don't fit in and leave.

Just some thoughts.

absolute power corrupts absolutely

That was a great response Pancho. Great observations.