[feroiodpiop]

Hi folks,

Great forum. I have come over from a similar set up in the UK called digital spy. There is a bit of an argument in our forums about crime rates in UK that developed into a particular poster claiming that the fall in crime in New York city is the result of the "zero tolerance" policing introduced by Mayor Giuliani in 1995.

I have disagreed (as have others) citing the facts that crime started falling 3 years earlier and that other factors were at play such as the end of the crack epedemic and changing demographics, and that "zero tolerance" policing, whilst it contributed, was not the only reason crime has fallen in New York.

The poster suggested that I stand in the middle of a busy bit of New York and shout that "zero tolerence doesn't work and then see what NYC residents have to say about it". Aside from the fact that I never said it didn't work - I thought it would be a little more practical to find another way to ask New Yorkers their opinion on "zero tolerance".

I would be grateful for your views on whether or not "zero tolerance" policing is the sole reason that crime has fallen in New York City since the early 1990's

Many thanks.

[investmentonlinev2006x]

I do not have much to say on that, but ironically speaking if you were to stand out in the middle of the street and shout "ZTDW" you would probably see how much tolerance you got from the NYC drivers.

As for the pedestrians? Well, you would have to shout REALLY loud since most of us are used to ignore people shouting religious or political things on street corners.

And that would be the irony, if you can count being ignored as a sign of tolerance that is!!!

[lorrieholdridge]

I do not have much to say on that, but ironically speaking if you were to stand out in the middle of the street and shout "ZTDW" you would probably see how much tolerance you got from the NYC drivers.

As for the pedestrians? Well, you would have to shout REALLY loud since most of us are used to ignore people shouting religious or political things on street corners.

And that would be the irony, if you can count being ignored as a sign of tolerance that is!!!

Yep it is like that in the UK too.

[LOVEBoy]

First of all, I doubt many New Yorkers would know what you're talking about if you shouted, "Zero tolerance doesn't work."

There was no magic bullet in 1995 that caused crime to decline. Crime began to decline years earlier, and was the result of many factors, including more aggressive (and enlightened) policing.

NYPD commissioner Lee Brown (1990-1992) introduced the concept of community policing, and crime in NYC began to decline. His successor, Raymond Kelly (1992-1994) continued the policy, and introduced zero tolerance, although it wasn't called that - it dealt with nuisance and quality-of-life crimes, such as pissing anywhere you wanted, subway turnstile jumping, squeegee men (the poster child), etc. The policy was an attempt to reverse the increasing perception during the 1970s and 80s that the city was out of control and ungovernable. It worked with community policing in getting communities more involved in crime prevention.

Giuliani defeated Dinkins in the 1994 mayoral election, a nasty campaign. He replaced Kelly with Bill Bratton (1994-1996). Because of the political polarization that resulted from the election, Giuliani (a former prosecutor) began to downplay the decline in crime during the early 90s.

Bratton introduced CompStat. He decentralized police decision making to the precinct level. The police force was increased by several thousand, and the Transit and Housing Police, until then separate entities, were merged into the NYPD. From a policing standpoint, I think these factors had more impact than a vague term such as zero-tolerance.

[whimpykid]

Sprenger's posting prompted me to take a look at London's crime stats:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ice/article.do

The other issue to do with "crime stats" is that certain crimes have been downgraded by the Police and they don't even bother to turn up so "the crime" never gets recorded. For example a drug addict may go into a shop and steal say £200 worth of goods to fund his next fix but if he's caught and says "sorry" the Police don't get involved! This is British justice today!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...70&expand=true

A burglar can break into your home but should he accidentally fall, the homeowner can be arrested and find himself in court!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ntruder109.xml

I wouldn't believe any crime stats in the UK produced by the government or the Police, even if John the Baptist was proclaiming them as truthful!
As someone once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics!

[antilt]

Sprenger's posting prompted me to take a look at London's crime stats:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ice/article.do

The other issue to do with "crime stats" is that certain crimes have been downgraded by the Police and they don't even bother to turn up so "the crime" never gets recorded. For example a drug addict may go into a shop and steal say £200 worth of goods to fund his next fix but if he's caught and says "sorry" the Police don't get involved! This is British justice today!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...70&expand=true

A burglar can break into your home but should he accidentally fall, the homeowner can be arrested and find himself in court!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ntruder109.xml

I wouldn't believe any crime stats in the UK produced by the government or the Police, even if John the Baptist was proclaiming them as truthful!
As someone once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics!

We do have crime issues here, but whilst there is lies, damn lies and statistics - we also have a bit of a sensationalist media that aren't always 100% accurate either, and in pursuit of their own agenda. That was the heated topics being discussed and which prompted 1 poster to state as fact that, every person in New York would agree with, which is that NYC falling crime is totally down to the policing tactics introduced by Giuliani in 1994/95

I am interested to know if this is an accepted fact amongst New Yorkers or if it is felt to be only a contributing factor.


Do you believe crime stats published by your own government?

[Quigoxito]

Just FYI, Capn' tinfoil hat; there are also independent stats on crime.
Most sociologists seem to think that direct surveys produce the "least bad" crime statistics.

SOm types of UK crime figures have been rightly criticized. One very good way to monitor stats away from politics is to look at the murder rate, at one end of the spectrum (in all but the msot lawless hellhole, even a fairly crappy police force will keep tabs on murder figures) and car insurance claims, at the low end fo teh sepctrum. They're not infallible but since isnurers have nan interest in them monetarily the data is pretty good.

Havign now lived in London for 14 yrs, it seems to me that general lawlesness is probably getting worse as are "headline" crimes. The Met is in pretty poor shape and its eladers and politicians are still rrepeating dumbass Soc 101 crap that in the US has long been cast aside.

[spamkillerf]

First of all, I doubt many New Yorkers would know what you're talking about if you shouted, "Zero tolerance doesn't work."

There was no magic bullet in 1995 that caused crime to decline. Crime began to decline years earlier, and was the result of many factors, including more aggressive (and enlightened) policing.

NYPD commissioner Lee Brown (1990-1992) introduced the concept of community policing, and crime in NYC began to decline. His successor, Raymond Kelly (1992-1994) continued the policy, and introduced zero tolerance, although it wasn't called that - it dealt with nuisance and quality-of-life crimes, such as pissing anywhere you wanted, subway turnstile jumping, squeegee men (the poster child), etc. The policy was an attempt to reverse the increasing perception during the 1970s and 80s that the city was out of control and ungovernable. It worked with community policing in getting communities more involved in crime prevention.

Giuliani defeated Dinkins in the 1994 mayoral election, a nasty campaign. He replaced Kelly with Bill Bratton (1994-1996). Because of the political polarization that resulted from the election, Giuliani (a former prosecutor) began to downplay the decline in crime during the early 90s.

Bratton introduced CompStat. He decentralized police decision making to the precinct level. The police force was increased by several thousand, and the Transit and Housing Police, until then separate entities, were merged into the NYPD. From a policing standpoint, I think these factors had more impact than a vague term such as zero-tolerance.

Thanks for your input. I apologise for using the wrong terminology. I think it was used by the UK media (wrongly as I see now) years ago to describe policing in LA.
I am dissapointed that the resident NYC expert in digital spy didn't correct us on the forum there, in fact it was that poster who started using the term on the forum. So I guess he is not quite as knowledgeable as he would lead us to believe.

If I can be so bold - here is the link to the discussion - it is rather long now (a few hundred posts.