Peter Moskos has written a lot on this. As part of his PhD, he spent two years as an actual cop in Baltimore. Now he is a professor of criminology in New York. IMO, he does a good job writing in a balanced and truthful perspective about crime.
"I don't know what's going on everywhere (or even most-where), but I can tell you a bit about Baltimore. And I suspect it holds true in many cities. I looked calls for service, arrest numbers, and crimes. Most dramatic is the drop of arrests in Western District....Now there are good and not so good reasons for this drop in arrests. But leaving that why: it happened. Police were less involved, by choice and necessity, and violence skyrocketed. Just because correlation does prove causing, correlation certainly doesn't mean causation is impossible or even unlikely. I mean, what else changed in the Western except police and crime?...Cops stopped making discretionary arrests and being proactive in clearing corners and frisking subjects. Look, it's no surprise where shootings happens and who gets shot."
http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/01/the-baltimore-6-effect.h...
I also think that when you have open-air drug dealing, and gangs openly controlling the streets, then that turns senior gang members into role models, and it incentivizes young teenagers to join gangs for protection. Then as part of joining, they get involved in beefs and violence. That is my take from reading various ethnographies.
The reason nothing is being done is because prevailing opinion does not agree with me. The emphasis over the past fifty years has been less discipline in schools. ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-school-disciplin... ). There was a police crackdown in the 1990s, but it was more targeted at keeping violent people out of the nice neighborhoods, rather than completely eliminating gang violence in the ghetto neighborhoods. I think that is because the liberals see the police as suspect and problematic, and don't want to empower them, and because the conservatives don't really care about the ghetto as long as it doesn't effect them.
This is a very good comment, and it seems pretty reasonable. I don't think police are the right agents to enforce societal change though. It seems like a lot of criminals, start off rather young charged with crimes like shoplifting etc, and that record haunts them forever, by shutting off a lot of opportunities forever.
I don't know what the solution is, how to prevent so many American youth who would perhaps have been contributing members of society and culture. I found it rather surprising that such kinds of conditions exist in a developed country like the US; its usually something you find in less developed countries.
I don't think police are the right agents to enforce societal change though.
I mostly agree, but I do think the police could do more to crack down on the most brazen instances of gangs being the de facto government of various neighborhoods.
It seems like a lot of criminals, start off rather young charged with crimes like shoplifting etc, and that record haunts them forever, by shutting off a lot of opportunities forever.
That's not my sense from the various ethnographies I have read. Where are you getting that from?
I found it rather surprising that such kinds of conditions exist in a developed country like the US; its usually something you find in less developed countries
There is a racial element to this. When I was traveling in Brazil, the black favellas of Brazil had a lot of similarity to the black ghettos of the U.S., and the white areas of Brazil had a lot of similarity to the white areas of the United States or of Europe.
>There is a racial element to this. When I was traveling in Brazil, the black favellas of Brazil had a lot of similarity to the black ghettos of the U.S., and the white areas of Brazil had a lot of similarity to the white areas of the United States or of Europe.
That sounds extremely implausible and requires a whole hell of a lot of citations.
>"I don't think police are the right agents to enforce societal change though."
Of course, agreed. However, they're most certainly there to prevent crime and stop/catch criminals. There is a whole lot of overlap between those two goals.
>"I found it rather surprising that such kinds of conditions exist in a developed country like the US; its usually something you find in less developed countries."
People aren't allowed to talk about it, frankly. Sweeping generalizations and policies that affect and stop these kinds of conditions from existing are not politically correct, and completely politically unpalatable.
E.g. If you asked me for my politically incorrect answer: It would be to increase policing ten-fold in those areas, maybe even impose martial law and curfews until the criminals have to pretty-much stop their business because it's not viable anymore. High-definition cameras on all street-corners, license-plate scanners to keep decent track of ALL vehicles going through the city and crime hot-spots. Additionally, you have to stop gang-culture from propagating through those neighborhoods. Not just that, but keep it from spreading through the whole society in general via media, especially music that glorifies it.
The unfortunate thing is that it'll probably work, we can probably pay/implement it right now, and we would very quickly start saving lives and helping people out of a crime/poverty cycle. Yet we aren't.
Conservatives don't care about the ghetto? No they just run the stores and own the properties there. C'mon get real. You're also wrong about policing in ghettos in the 90s. Policing ghettos is different than suburbs. Because in ghettos people, potential criminals operate under different levels of deterrence. You have to dish out a lot more intimidation. Certain people need to be reminded that they don't run the show. It's a sort of street politics / dominance thing you develop a 'gut' about. I've seen it numerous times, it can be shocking and occasionally TV and movies get it right too.
I read a wide variety of sources. I linked to Moskos because he is one of the best, he himself has numerous citations, and thus there is no reason for me to duplicate the work he has already put in.
thus there is no reason for me to duplicate the work he has already put in.
You're vouching for him, but so far there's no reason to take your word for it. I'm sorry, but I don't know you from a social media marketer, so "feed the guy some clicks and figure it out for yourself" is not a compelling argument.
I read have read an enormous amount about this subject, from all angles and viewpoints. And I actually give a sh*t about getting the answer right, not just confirming any biases. And from reading and personal experience, I changed my mind on this subject, I used to be much more liberal in my beliefs about crime.
Peter Moskos has written a lot on this. As part of his PhD, he spent two years as an actual cop in Baltimore. Now he is a professor of criminology in New York. IMO, he does a good job writing in a balanced and truthful perspective about crime.
"I don't know what's going on everywhere (or even most-where), but I can tell you a bit about Baltimore. And I suspect it holds true in many cities. I looked calls for service, arrest numbers, and crimes. Most dramatic is the drop of arrests in Western District....Now there are good and not so good reasons for this drop in arrests. But leaving that why: it happened. Police were less involved, by choice and necessity, and violence skyrocketed. Just because correlation does prove causing, correlation certainly doesn't mean causation is impossible or even unlikely. I mean, what else changed in the Western except police and crime?...Cops stopped making discretionary arrests and being proactive in clearing corners and frisking subjects. Look, it's no surprise where shootings happens and who gets shot." http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/01/the-baltimore-6-effect.h...
And then read this one about Chicago: http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/11/the-best-of-times-worst-...
And a few other posts http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/02/defining-ferguson-effect... and http://www.copinthehood.com/2016/03/chicago-violence.html
And the question I would ask is, "what should have been done to prevent this spiraling into a life of crime, and why wasn't it?"
My reading is that there is a total breakdown in discipline in many of these families and communities. The kids that end up being problems are not getting discipline at home, and they're not getting it from the school (see http://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-monster-factory/ or http://www.anurbanteacherseducation.com/2011/02/tfa-alumnus-... )
I also think that when you have open-air drug dealing, and gangs openly controlling the streets, then that turns senior gang members into role models, and it incentivizes young teenagers to join gangs for protection. Then as part of joining, they get involved in beefs and violence. That is my take from reading various ethnographies.
The reason nothing is being done is because prevailing opinion does not agree with me. The emphasis over the past fifty years has been less discipline in schools. ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/who-killed-school-disciplin... ). There was a police crackdown in the 1990s, but it was more targeted at keeping violent people out of the nice neighborhoods, rather than completely eliminating gang violence in the ghetto neighborhoods. I think that is because the liberals see the police as suspect and problematic, and don't want to empower them, and because the conservatives don't really care about the ghetto as long as it doesn't effect them.