Share this comment
Good article. I would like to point out that much of what he describes as disorder are actually crimes. They may not be as serious as murder or grand larceny, but they are indeed crimes. If the police are no longer focused on them due to staffing or prioritizing on preventing major crimes first (which is right) then the 'credible deterre…
Good article. I would like to point out that much of what he describes as disorder are actually crimes. They may not be as serious as murder or grand larceny, but they are indeed crimes. If the police are no longer focused on them due to staffing or prioritizing on preventing major crimes first (which is right) then the 'credible deterrent' effect of the police is no longer there. I'm not saying we arrest every jaywalker in sight and agree that there are approaches that can use institutional and social methods to prevent these minor crimes in the first place. But without a willingness to back that work up with the police the effectiveness will be greatly diminished. To circle back to my first point, if disorder is up then crime is up -- even if it is not reported to the police and renamed as something else. It is a bit disingenuous to claim crime is down when it is not. But I guess it is not effective for a politician to admit major crime is down but in general crime is up and our cities and towns are experiencing degraded quality of life due to that.
Yes! Most of these are crimes that nare not enforced - or enforceable because of the reduced police numbers or because they're trivial.
Regardless, I agree, crime is up, whether or not it's recorded officially.
I find the writer's convoluted arguments around crime and disorder unsatisfactory. Large urban areas are filthy and unsafe because of a small number of residents. I know the other residents would agree and point at failed governments.