| Author | Message | ||
     Ken Scout Citizen Username: Lightningken Post Number: 161 Registered: 11-2005 |
I tend to think that the long term viability of Newark directly impacts real estate values in Maplewood. Since a large component of our Tax $$ goes to fund these efforts (Essex county), why do we seem to care so little about it? Is Cory the answer? What do you think? MURDER MOST COMMON Aug 17th 2006 The Economist The murder rate, falling in America's biggest cities, is rising in middle-sized ones THE streets of north Minneapolis do not display the normal signs of lawlessness. Windows are mostly free of iron bars, lawns are clipped and there is little graffiti. Sweeping the pavement outside his house in the morning, though, George Roberts occasionally finds a bullet. And some properties are pockmarked with scattered holes. What the local gunmen lack in accuracy they make up for in enthusiasm. Last year Minneapolis had 49 homicides. So far this year 41 people have been killed, most of them shot in the street by men in search of money or drugs, or with a score to settle. The level of violence in this city of 370,000 is "off the chain", according to Lee Edwards, who investigates murders. Minneapolis's homicide rate is now almost twice that of New York. And it is moving in the wrong direction. It is a similar, or worse, story in Newark, a poor New Jersey city of 280,000 that had 97 murders last year. Like Minneapolis and nearly everywhere else in America, Newark's violent-crime rate dropped steeply in the mid-1990s (see chart). Then it began to rise again. As the murder rate in bigger, more notoriously violent cities such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles has steadied or continued to fall in the past few years, Newark, along with other cities of similar size, has become deadlier. According to the FBI, murders in cities of more than a million people rose just 0.5% between 2004 and 2005. In cities of a quarter to half a million, they rose by 9.4%. Fear of crime is already transforming local politics. In May Cory Booker was easily elected as mayor of Newark. He had run as a crime-buster; since his inauguration he has even tried to tackle a mugger. The mayor of Minneapolis has been barracked over the rising crime rate and the appearance of gangs of toughs in the otherwise tidy city centre. This week he promised to pay for more police officers. Public anger is justified, particularly in Newark. An investigation this year by the STAR-LEDGER, a local paper, found that fewer than half the murders carried out between 1998 and 2003 in Essex County, which includes Newark, led to a conviction. That is not because the killers are especially cunning. Allen Reese was shot 18 months ago by a man who took his mobile phone and used it to direct relatives to Reese's body. The killer made several other phone calls, revealing where he was each time. Last month, police at last arrested Noah Cuebas and charged him. While on the run, they believe, he had also hijacked a car and raped two women, one of whom he killed. Part of the problem is lack of means. Since 2000 both state and federal spending on the police has become stingier. And much of the money, when it comes, is wasted. Newark and Minneapolis are policed by an odd mix of forces, from city and state cops to armed university guards. In Newark murders are investigated by county prosecutors, but shootings are not, even though the only difference may be luck and good medicine. Confusion, overlap and inefficiency are the result. The real problem, though, is to do with the peculiar difficulties of policing cities the size of Newark and Minneapolis. In the past decade, two ways of tackling violent crime have dominated police thinking. Both were first tested in big cities, where they were highly successful. Neither works nearly as well in smaller ones. The most famous is the "broken windows" or, more crudely, "zero tolerance" approach. As pioneered in New York in the early 1990s, this involved a crackdown on petty crimes such as fare-dodging and public drunkenness. Such incivilities were thought to create an environment in which serious crime could flourish. The approach worked splendidly in New York, partly because the city had reached such a pitch of criminality that many of the fare-dodgers were either armed or wanted for more serious crimes. Zero tolerance was an excuse to hoover them up. New York's success inspired many cities, including Newark and Minneapolis, to try to emulate it. They are still trying. Last year the Minneapolis Police Department proudly unveiled a programme called Strategic Tactical Operations, which borrowed from the New York model. The police presence would be so heavy, promised their chief, that hoodlums would decide to leave their guns at home. The result: slightly more murders and a steep rise in robberies. In Newark Mr Booker is also promising a zero-tolerance approach to crime. He is likely to fare no better. George Kelling, a local academic who helped devise the broken-windows theory, says sheer police presence was key to persuading New York's criminals to change their ways. But New York's police department has 116 officers for every square mile (45 per sq km). Newark's has 50. And it is harder to know where to put them. "Newark doesn't really have crime hotspots," says Mr Kelling. "It has a couple of cool spots." The second method of tackling violent crime is more direct. Lawless areas are flooded with police, social workers and probation officers. People who are thought most likely to kill or be killed (such as those recently released from prison) are watched closely. Most important, gang members are told that violence by one of them will lead to a crackdown on the whole gang. This method worked well in Boston and Chicago, but in both Minneapolis and Newark it has failed to reduce the murder rate. That is almost certainly because these cities have the wrong kind of gang. THE ADVANTAGE OF ORGANISED CRIME Gang members are responsible for much of the violence in both cities, but not in a disciplined way. In Newark, a third of the killings that took place between 1997 and 2005 involved gang members, either as victims or as perpetrators. Just one in 20 murders, however, seems to have been carried out in order to advance the interests of the gang--to dislodge a rival outfit from drug-dealing turf, for example. Neither city really has defined turf, or even defined gangs. The gangsters of Minneapolis tend to be affiliated with large national collectives such as the Bloods, Crips and Vice Lords. But only loosely. Local "sets", such as the Emerson Murder Boys, often have nothing to do with other sets that claim allegiance to the same gang. Indeed, they may be rivals, killing one another over drugs and women. Gangs also change names and affiliations, "like an ugly caterpillar turning into an ugly butterfly", as Mr Edwards puts it. These fluid groups are just organised enough to get their hands on drugs and handguns, but not organised enough to prevent squabbles within the ranks. As a result, they are particularly murderous. They are also hard to tackle: as officers complain, they cannot be decapitated by taking out one or two prominent figures. It is best for a city to have no gangs at all. But if it must have gangs, it is probably better to have large, organised ones. In Newark, the forces of law and order have now resorted to sending in the clergy. After a shooting, outreach workers hand out leaflets, chant anti-violence slogans and put signs on people's lawns. In effect, they are behaving like a gang marking its territory. The approach is working so far, though it may not last. What is certain is that the solution to Newark's--and Minneapolis's--crime problem is unlikely to come from a distant metropolis. | ||
| Michael K. McKell Citizen Username: Mckellconst Post Number: 108 Registered: 5-2006  |
No hope for Newark ever. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1984 Registered: 10-2004  |
The article says it all. There needs to be a tremendous increase in the number of cops on the street. There has to be a dramatic change in the education system in Newark to give the youth a chance at a better life. There has to be real job opportunities for the people of Newark so they do not live in poverty. The gangs have to be broken up. It can be done but there is a lot of neglect there that has to be addressed. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3770 Registered: 5-2001  |
A good friend of mine has a cousin who recently moved to Newark to live with his girlfriend. A couple of guys broke in and tossed their apartment a few weeks after he moved in. Apparently, the criminals had to leave before they were ready, because they came back two weeks ago. (My understanding is that it was the same guys, although I don't know how this was determined.) They shot my friend's cousin in the gut, through the apartment door. They then broke down the door, threw him over so that he was face-down on the ground, and shot him again. This bullet went through a shoulder and grazed a lung. What saved him is that he is a very big guy, very solidly built. He's convalescing at his mother's home now. I wish I knew more precisely how our tax dollars were being spent, and given NYC's apparent success, I wish our taxes could be steered toward putting more cops on the streets of Essex County's high-crime areas. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 5325 Registered: 5-2005  |
How about protecting witnesses who come forward to testify against these gang members. They need 24 hour protection before after and during a trial. It's the only way to clean up the streets and set an example. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12520 Registered: 5-2001 |
While how much this costs us in tax dollars is debateable, the courts are paid for by the state and the Newark PD is supported by local tax revenue, it is really scary that the murder rate is rising, primarily because of gang activity. Are the State Police still helping to patrol in Irvington? I know that there was some concern that the increased police prescence in Irvington would cause criminal activity to spread into Maplewood. | ||
| bklyntonj Citizen Username: Bklyntonj Post Number: 754 Registered: 7-2003 |
notehead, sorry to hear about your friend's cousin. The streets of any crime-ridden city have love for no one. Hoops brings up very good points. If there's no alternative or option to substitute criminal behavior, ie. jobs, quality education, community activities, these problems will continue. | ||
| Ken Scout Citizen Username: Lightningken Post Number: 162 Registered: 11-2005 |
I'll point out that those are absolute numbers (not per capita) so Newarks Absolute murder rate is 4X that of New York City's, yet with an absolute population far less. If this was done per capita, it'd look even gloomier. | ||
| Flameretardant Citizen Username: Flameretardant Post Number: 42 Registered: 9-2004 |
Ken, while I agree that the Newark picture is gloomy, you're incorrect about the comparison of "absolute" numbers. The article cites 97 murders in Newark last year -- New York had more than 500. So the real difference in numbers isn't what's significant. What's critical, as you point out, is the per capita comparison; NYC had only 5X the number of murders as Newark, but has 30X the population! By the way, before anyone else jumps on the NYC-miracle bandwagon, I suggest reading the bestseller, "Freakanomics," by Steven Levitt, a brilliant and award-winning economics professor from UChicago, who explains that Guiliani's zero tolerance approach, increasing the number of cops on the street, etc. had actually very little to do with the crime decrease in New York. Startling. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10655 Registered: 4-1997  |
Regarding the zero tolerance approach: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060904ta_talk_gladwell | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 1061 Registered: 7-2003 |
What Flameretardant said. 'Freakonomics' is brilliant and makes the case that legalized abortion caused the crime rate to drop. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1978 Registered: 12-2003  |
"I tend to think that the long term viability of Newark directly impacts real estate values in Maplewood." Not sure this follows. Hasn't the biggest increase in real estate values in history happened while Newark is at rock bottom? | ||
| Paddy Citizen Username: Paddy Post Number: 215 Registered: 5-2001 |
Newark sucks. I hope Booker can make some progress to a neighbor that continually does our crimes. I dount it, but would love to be proven wrong> | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 989 Registered: 1-2006 |
Maybe Booker, and triple the number of cops, together, and juries willing to convict will do it. Maybe not. jd | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1968 Registered: 10-2005  |
Paddy- My future new neighbor....doesn't that drive you batty (that a majority of the crime done in SOMA is from outsiders (newar/Irvington))????? Sometimes a wall at the border does sound appealing after reading the SOMA police blotter... -SLK | ||
| Brett Weir Citizen Username: Brett_weir Post Number: 1749 Registered: 4-2004  |
There is no hope for Newark. It is consuming itself from within. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 384 Registered: 1-2006 |
The obvious solution is for all residents of Newark to convert to Islam, because Islam is a religion of peace. President Bush has told us this, so it must be true: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html Presidents never lie, right? Cheers | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5797 Registered: 10-1999  |
Oh, gosh, my hate speech detector just went off. 3Ring, are you carrying on again? Give it a rest, man, or at least stop trying to insert your "hobby" into unrelated discussions. Thanks. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 385 Registered: 1-2006 |
Sorry Nohero, but I just couldn't resist that one. I'll try to stay within acceptable parameters of debate in the future. Cheers PS I still don't trust President Bush. |
