Crime

I read some interesting articles on crime in the paper today.

The headline in today’s paper was an article by Dan Klepal: Crime's Outreach Spreads Out.

Klepal's article focused on crime, and how it is on the rise just about everywhere. Some city leaders may claim otherwise, but denial isn't a river in Egypt. Crime is a big problem for the City of Cincinnati.

What is the cost of crime? Here is one price we pay:

Families are leaving. Census data released this summer showed the city lost 6.8 percent of its population from 2000 to 2005, taking Detroit's place as the biggest percentage loser among cities with a population of 100,000 or more.

Ultimately people vote with their feet. It is sad to see that we have eclipsed Detroit, the national model on how to run a bad city. For those of you not up on the utopia that is Detroit, check out Shrinking Detroit has 12,000 abandoned homes. My favorite part of the article is when Stephen Vogel, a Dean at the University of Detroit talks about the exodus of dead people already in their graves.

"Suburbanites are taking the bodies of their relatives out of cemeteries because they're afraid to come to the city," Vogel said.

Vogel states that 400-500 dead people are removed from Detroit cemeteries every year. Thousands of dead people have been relocated. Imagine the cost of that, it is no little affair. You pay to exhume the grave, transport your beloved, and you pay for a new plot and a new burial. It is thousands of dollars. When you take your dead with you, it isn't just leaving a city. It is making a bold and clear statement.

I love this city. The fact that we have eclipsed Detroit as the biggest percentage loser in population scares me. We need to save Cincinnati, and we are at the tipping point right now. Wait any longer and you will never have another chance.

This part of Klepal's article confused me:

But crime isn't the only reason, says Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a non-profit think tank in Washington, D.C.

Every major city is dealing with a surge in violent crime, Wexler said. Nationwide, violent offenses increased more between 2004 and 2005 than at any time in the past 14 years.

"Cincinnati is not alone," Wexler said. "You're one of a number of cities dealing with the same thing across the country - from Boston to San Francisco, from Orlando to Sacramento."

Wexler and other law enforcement experts cite a number of reasons: a rise in gang activity, more juveniles becoming involved in crime and reduction in police on the streets while cities have to spend more on homeland security.

"We're seeing this impact in many medium to large cities," Wexler says

The article states that crime is not the only reason, but if fails to cite any other reason other than crime. Chuck Wexler didn't give us another reason. Rising gang activity, more juvenile crime, and a reduction in money for policing are all crime/safety related issues. That isn't to say that crime is the only issue that people cite for leaving, just that Klepal and Wexler don't offer any others. People often leave the city because of our failed public schools. Of the people that leave the city, issues of security/safety and education almost always top the list.

Another article in today's paper by Sharon Coolidge tackled issues of crime from the perspective of black judges: Black judges discuss issues

I found most of article agreeable, but one part questionable.

The president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Attorney Theodore M. Shaw focused on the War on drugs...

The criminal justice system continues to incarcerate millions of African-Americans for non-violent drug offenses, Shaw said.

"We have to find a better way," Shaw said. "The war on drugs has become the war on black people."

I agree completely with barrister Shaw. We do have to find a better way. The drug war has become a war on black people if you look at the statistics. The birth of organized crime in this country was when alcohol was made illegal. It created underground economies and gave violent criminals an avenue to make loads of cash and increase their power and influence. The exact same thing has happened with the war on drugs, and the battleground and the victim is the black community.

We aren’t going to “win” the “War on Drugs”. If anyone thinks that is possible, they need to look at history. Drugs are bad for you, just as Alcohol and Cigarettes are bad for you. Nobody is mistaking these habits for virtues in today’s world. There has to be a better way than incarceration for non-violent/victimless crimes. The industry could be taxed, regulated, and better treated as the health/addiction issue that it is. What we have done is to criminalize abuse and addiction. Dispite wide spread drug abuse across racial and economic lines, the end result has targeted a statistically disproportionate amount of the black population.

The comment I didn’t agree with was made by Saul Green. Saul Green is “the collaborative agreement monitor who tracks reform efforts by the Cincinnati Police Department”

Green said in many cities, including Cincinnati, people must find a better way to respond to violent crime.

"It is often knee-jerk - more police, more arrests, more enforcement," Green said. "All that does is result in more incarceration."

First off, incarceration is not a “knee-jerk” response to violent crime. The history of this nation is pretty consistent with regards to violent crime, regardless of race or economic status. It is distressing to me that the monitor of the Collaborative Agreement thinks that incarceration is not a proper response to violent crime.

If incarceration is not going to solve the problem, does Mr. Green think that not incarcerating people is a better alternative? If Howard Beatty was free to walk the streets today, does anyone think that would be a good idea? Incarcerating Howard Beatty won’t solve all of society’s problems, but it will solve the problem of Howard Beatty. People will continue to die on our streets, but for the next 13 years Howard Beatty isn’t going to gun down anyone in front of City Hall.

If you let violent criminals go free without incarceration, imagine how intimidating life would be for law abiding citizens. The Howard Beattys would get their way, and everyone but the Beattys and the people who couldn’t afford to move would be leaving the neighborhood.

And this situation isn’t unique to America. Every nation locks up violent criminals. If you rape, stab, shoot or murder someone you get incarcerated. You get taken out of society and locked up. Part of the reason is to punish you, but the main part is to keep you from raping, stabbing, shooting or murdering the rest of your neighbors.

Mr. Shaw was addressing non-violent crimes relating to the drug war. On that subject other nations have indeed relaxed laws and treated the problems of drug abuse and addiction as health problems with considerable success. It is something worth looking at. Mr. Green however is giving us a prescription for anarchy. I am all for attacking the root causes of violent crime, like failed government schools or lack of economic opportunity. I am not for treating rapists and killers like victims.