NJ.com- In Wake of police Layoffs Crime Soars

[henrym 19]

Who knew that less cops on the street in high crime areas wouldn't be a good idea? Its going to be interesting what the warmer weather brings around.

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/newark_homicides_up_64_percent.html#incart_hbx

[Krdshrk 3,877]

[Vlad G 345]

Correlation is not causation. There are also social and economic factors contributing to higher crime and those factors tend to be exaggerated in places like Newark. If the Newark Police decided that if they are gonna have budget cuts it was going to be from the patrol not from the many layers of useless and graft that big city police departments have? It seems to be usually how it goes.

[henrym 19]

While I understand that correlation and causation are not the same, i have to respectfully disagree in this case. When gangbangers are wearing shirts advertising police layoff dates it makes me question your idea of a simple correlation. As someone who has studied criminal justice, it has been proven time and time again that police presence in high risk communities prevents small property crime. These occurrence of these small crimes leads to individuals drifting away from conventional moral values, and allows more crime to ensue. While this is a greatly simplified example of the the "broken windows" effect it still proves the point.

[Old School 611]

Correlation is not causation. There are also social and economic factors contributing to higher crime and those factors tend to be exaggerated in places like Newark. If the Newark Police decided that if they are gonna have budget cuts it was going to be from the patrol not from the many layers of useless and graft that big city police departments have? It seems to be usually how it goes.

 

 

Please try and convince me of this. I have never accepted that poverty leads to crime especialy in The USA the country of handouts.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

I agree - this was so publicized and there was so much knowledge about it by the gangs, that it HAS to be the cause.

 

I'm gonna stay away from Newark as much as possible

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

I agree - this was so publicized and there was so much knowledge about it by the gangs, that it HAS to be the cause.

 

I'm gonna stay away from Newark as much as possible

And just wait 'till the checks stop comin' in !!

 

Murder and mayhem follow

[vladtepes 1,060]

There are also social and economic factors contributing to higher crime and those

 

you are right.. inner city crime generally starts for one of two reasons..

 

social - scumbag 1 views scumbag 2 as a tough "thug" and sees all the money, drugs, etc.. he has.. so scumbag 1 strives to obtain the class level of scumbag 2 by shooting, stealing, selling drugs, etc.. hoping one day to attain enough "street cred" so that he can be on as high of a level as scumbag 2... this is the "social factor"

 

economic - far simpler... scumbag one sees that you have something nice.. he considers the effort and time that it would take to earn said item in an honest manner.. being faced with the thought of putting in hard work... he instead decides to just take what he wants... not being able to pay for it? no problem.. that is the "economic factor"

[bbk 188]

I'll agree that poverty does not equal crime-- heck, the majority of criminals in the US are white, males. The growing number of criminals are white, male, youths from decent backgrounds! Still, there are a lot of factors in the mix that have to do with the crime rate, and its far more then just a lack of police. With that said, I do believe that the fewer number of police do not help; but in terms of causation I would disagree.

I'm thinking that in regards to "lack of cops = more crime" only makes sense in that the criminals are emboldened by convincing themselves that by having fewer police they have a lesser chance of getting caught. The fact that they are deviant though, and would do deviant things regardless is the counter to the correlation. (My point being that parts of NJ could have seen a rise in crime, regardless of the situation with the police forces currently).

 

Its hard to discuss though. There is the theory behind it all, and then there is the reality of it. The problem is not a group of people, or where they live, or what their background may be regarding family or SES. Its a mindset it seems and a lack of options in the perspective of the deviant (even if there are plenty of options).

 

I have to agree with the fact that the number of cops have nothing to do with the crime rate at the end of the day.

[vladtepes 1,060]

the majority of criminals in the US are white, males. The growing number of criminals are white, male,

 

 

Link?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Correlation is not causation.

I here this saying all the time in my field of science, and it's probably one of my favorite around. It basically means just because something is related doesn't mean it is necessarily the cause. It's a way of looking at the broader picture of an issue and truly understanding the cause and effect.

 

In this particular instance and what Vlad is saying is basically that just because there are less cops doesn't mean there will be more crime. Many factors contribute to crime.. less cops being only one of those factors.

 

The economy is probably one of the biggest factors, many programs have been cut in these inner cities to keep people and kids out of lives of crime, many after school programs have been cut, and as a result these kids find themselves on the streets with nothing good to do.

 

The fact still remains, when there is less opposition to crime, it will win. Gangs know that when there are less cops on the street, it is more likely they will get away with a crime. It's simple statistics. Does this mean crime will increase...no, it just means it is more likely they will get away with a crime.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Link?

I'm not sure if he is referring to white collar crimes, but this is about violent criminals.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I here this saying all the time in my field of science, and it's probably one of my favorite around. It basically means just because something is related doesn't mean it is necessarily the cause. It's a way of looking at the broader picture of an issue and truly understanding the cause and effect.

 

In this particular instance and what Vlad is saying is basically that just because there are less cops doesn't mean there will be more crime. Many factors contribute to crime.. less cops being only one of those factors.

 

there are two sides..

cops respond to crimes far more than they prevent them...

since that is the situation it is logical to believe that cops do not prevent crime as much as we think..

with that considered it is then logical to assume that less cops will not increase crime, but may decrease expedited reporting of crime...

 

the flip side takes into account human nature..

stupid criminals.. who perceive police presence as a deterrent due to potentially being caught..

might be more likely to commit a crime with a smaller LEO presence...

in that mindset less cops MAY cause an increase in crime...

 

 

Katrina for example..

MOST of the time.. people are normal.. law abiding..

go to a state of emergency and every scumbag crawls out of the woodwork to see what they can get away with..

 

while logically less cops should not equal more crime.. the illogical mindset of most criminals would likely cause an increase in crime..

[fredex 2]

I was gonna write something longer but if you look at the number of fatherless homes in a community you can predict the crime rate. just my opinion

[JackDaWack 2,895]

there are two sides..

cops respond to crimes far more than they prevent them...

since that is the situation it is logical to believe that cops do not prevent crime as much as we think..

with that considered it is then logical to assume that less cops will not increase crime, but may decrease expedited reporting of crime...

 

the flip side takes into account human nature..

stupid criminals.. who perceive police presence as a deterrent due to potentially being caught..

might be more likely to commit a crime with a smaller LEO presence...

in that mindset less cops MAY cause an increase in crime...

 

 

Katrina for example..

MOST of the time.. people are normal.. law abiding..

go to a state of emergency and every scumbag crawls out of the woodwork to see what they can get away with..

 

while logically less cops should not equal more crime.. the illogical mindset of most criminals would likely cause an increase in crime..

 

And to take it a step further, during the Kartina disaster, police and military presence was very high. Criminals will never think logically, and that is a very good point.

[bbk 188]

Link?

 

Using UCR data, which I'll agree with is pretty shoddy, we got cold hard numbers. If anything, the numbers are skewed as crimes are under reported. And yea, I'm not a numbers person, I'm an examiner of the people's person, but here you go:

Using the 2009 data, specifically tables 38, 39, and 43, it speaks for itself. This data should not come as a surprise though, considering whites (as defined by whatever terms by DOJ in their data collection) are still the majority in the US. Tables 38 and 39 both have to do with age, and its a no-brainer that the younger age groups are the ones being arrested the most. Table 43 breaks it down by race, and, again, for the aforementioned reasons, its a no-brainer that whites account for almost 70%. The data compiled includes both violent and property crimes. The only category where 'whites' are not significantly ahead is "murder" according to the chart-- otherwise its a landslide. But again, it should come as no surprise as whites are still the majority in the US.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Link?

 

hahahaahahahah, Ever visit a prison? The majority is black and hispanic.

 

Edit, comment wasn't meant for you. Just saying.

 

Also there hasn't been of shred of proof that "gang bangers" have been wearing shirts advertising the lay off dates. There has been no concrete evidence. Just heresay and likely being used as scare tactics by the police to get you on their side. It's always "I know a guy who saw the shirts" or some other BS like that. No concrete evidence thus far.

[Old School 611]

I'll agree that poverty does not equal crime-- heck, the majority of criminals in the US are white, males. The growing number of criminals are white, male, youths from decent backgrounds! Still, there are a lot of factors in the mix that have to do with the crime rate, and its far more then just a lack of police. With that said, I do believe that the fewer number of police do not help; but in terms of causation I would disagree.

I'm thinking that in regards to "lack of cops = more crime" only makes sense in that the criminals are emboldened by convincing themselves that by having fewer police they have a lesser chance of getting caught. The fact that they are deviant though, and would do deviant things regardless is the counter to the correlation. (My point being that parts of NJ could have seen a rise in crime, regardless of the situation with the police forces currently).

 

Its hard to discuss though. There is the theory behind it all, and then there is the reality of it. The problem is not a group of people, or where they live, or what their background may be regarding family or SES. Its a mindset it seems and a lack of options in the perspective of the deviant (even if there are plenty of options).

 

I have to agree with the fact that the number of cops have nothing to do with the crime rate at the end of the day.

 

Based on jail populations this is not correct.

[Old School 611]

you are right.. inner city crime generally starts for one of two reasons..

 

social - scumbag 1 views scumbag 2 as a tough "thug" and sees all the money, drugs, etc.. he has.. so scumbag 1 strives to obtain the class level of scumbag 2 by shooting, stealing, selling drugs, etc.. hoping one day to attain enough "street cred" so that he can be on as high of a level as scumbag 2... this is the "social factor"

 

economic - far simpler... scumbag one sees that you have something nice.. he considers the effort and time that it would take to earn said item in an honest manner.. being faced with the thought of putting in hard work... he instead decides to just take what he wants... not being able to pay for it? no problem.. that is the "economic factor"

 

 

These are not the accepted definitions of socio-economic.

[bbk 188]

Its true, the incarceration numbers, somehow, are vividly different from the arrest numbers. Essentially flip-flopped. To me this shows some kind of disparity somewhere in the process from arrests to incarceration, but that's another debate that I doubt any of us are actually qualified to speak on.

 

As for why crime happens, Vlad touched on it, kind of. Sounded like you were mixing Merton's Strain Theory with a bit of Concentric Zone model (part of social disorganization theory). I'm not a huge theory guy [regarding criminology], but Merton's makes the most sense to me. Beyond the theory, and when applying the numbers, and then examining it a bit more-- turns out the problem seems to be a lot more then how a person looks, what color they are, what their beliefs are, or what their background is. But that's just me. And all of that, for me, adds up to why the number of police really have no direct correlation on the crime rates. I'll agree its just scare politics trying to blow some hot steam to get some political machine going [that will just end up bad for everybody, probably the law-abiding getting the blunt end of it all :thsmiley_deadhorse:]

[JackDaWack 2,895]

These are not the accepted definitions of socio-economic.

He's not referring to socioeconomics. He is talking about social and economics as two different aspects.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Using UCR data, which I'll agree with is pretty shoddy, we got cold hard numbers. If anything, the numbers are skewed as crimes are under reported. And yea, I'm not a numbers person, I'm an examiner of the people's person, but here you go:

Using the 2009 data, specifically tables 38, 39, and 43, it speaks for itself. This data should not come as a surprise though, considering whites (as defined by whatever terms by DOJ in their data collection) are still the majority in the US. Tables 38 and 39 both have to do with age, and its a no-brainer that the younger age groups are the ones being arrested the most. Table 43 breaks it down by race, and, again, for the aforementioned reasons, its a no-brainer that whites account for almost 70%. The data compiled includes both violent and property crimes. The only category where 'whites' are not significantly ahead is "murder" according to the chart-- otherwise its a landslide. But again, it should come as no surprise as whites are still the majority in the US.

 

thanks for posting that info.. it is appreciated..

 

I was more curious about the part where you were saying that growing numbers are "whites".. and still not that I doubt you.. but I was curious as to the "growing" part of it.. again.. not doubting you.. just saying.. I am sure I could look at year over year and draw a picture..

 

in regards to the grossly disproportionate number of "minorities" incarcerated VS "whites" you really do have to wonder what causes that.. if I had to guess I would assume it is not one single thing but probably a combination of several things.. maybe many minorities do not obtain adequate representation... actually as I wrote that I reexamined the statement.. it is not that minorities lack proper representation (I am SURE they do in some cases) but maybe it is more the opposite.. maybe it is non-minorities who are in a slightly better position to buy themselves out of it... OR maybe a large portion of repeat offenders are minorities? thus end up in the system longer? at any rate.. if more of one group is being arrested.. but less of that group is serving hard time.. it is probably something that should be vigorously examined.. regardless of the answer, to at least know what is netting that result might help us with things in the future..

 

someone else hit it on the head though.. black.. white.. orange.. blue.. criminals have one thing in common.. they habitually exhibit unpredictable behavior..

 

on the note of the shirts with the layoff dates on it.. someone really needs to email snopes! lol

[vladtepes 1,060]

He's not referring to socioeconomics. He is talking about social and economics as two different aspects.

 

 

I was actually just being sarcastic/kidding around....

[KpdPipes 388]

And to take it a step further, during the Kartina disaster, police and military presence was very high. Criminals will never think logically, and that is a very good point.

Actually it wasnt...other than during the day. At night time, there were VERY few boots on the ground in most of the City..which is when the looting was going on after the initial disaster.

[KpdPipes 388]

hahahaahahahah, Ever visit a prison? The majority is black and hispanic.

 

Edit, comment wasn't meant for you. Just saying.

 

Also there hasn't been of shred of proof that "gang bangers" have been wearing shirts advertising the lay off dates. There has been no concrete evidence. Just heresay and likely being used as scare tactics by the police to get you on their side. It's always "I know a guy who saw the shirts" or some other BS like that. No concrete evidence thus far.

IVE seen them Baba...or isnt that good enough?

[Babaganoosh 192]

IVE seen them Baba...or isnt that good enough?

 

Hmmm, this is a tough one because I am a skeptic by nature, but I don't think you would make stuff up. However there are ZERO pictures of these shirts on the internet (That I could find, and yeah I looked). I really feel that if they were real, we would have seen them on the net and on the news. A shirt like that is something the media would pickup and run run run with

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I was actually just being sarcastic/kidding around....

lol, i know u were being sarcastic, but there was a lot of truth behind it.

young kids looking up to gangsters, and people's greed/envy for things they cannot afford.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Actually it wasnt...other than during the day. At night time, there were VERY few boots on the ground in most of the City..which is when the looting was going on after the initial disaster.

I dont know a whole great deal of details but i had read this.

 

Patrols at night were conducted in areas of complete darkness, and under conditions far too hazardous to conduct residential searches. Night missions were confined to general police patrol to pre­vent looting and other criminal activity. On occasion, night patrols were support­ed by members of the Oklahoma Air Na­tional Guard who flew helicopters mis­sions with searchlights and forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) in support of the patrols.

 

source: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=808&issue_id=22006

 

It was evident to me that the whole city was going crazy with or with out the police/LE presence. Whether this is true or not i do not know.

[SoCalTrojanSoldier 10]

Just to add my own silly two cents. Specifically related to a particular area in crime I've noticed something interesting over the years. This is not scientific, but observation. After having worked in a trauma center in Camden, there does seem to be a direct correlation with temperature and shootings. As the temperature climbs toward ninety degrees, shootings occur far more often. That's what we called "critical shooting temperature".

[Zell959 40]

Hmmm, this is a tough one because I am a skeptic by nature, but I don't think you would make stuff up. However there are ZERO pictures of these shirts on the internet (That I could find, and yeah I looked). I really feel that if they were real, we would have seen them on the net and on the news. A shirt like that is something the media would pickup and run run run with

 

 

I'm incline to second you on that.

 

Also, even if the existence of the shirts were to be confirmed, would that automatically substantiate the portion of the rumors that claim the shirts are made & distributed by criminal organizations? I'm thinking not. I mean, really, I don't see what a shirt-based PR campaign stands to offer street gangs. It's not going to open up any additional opportunities to rob & kill honest people that didn't already exist without them even bothering to make the shirts. By contrast, [reports of] such t-shirts and fear over what they might foreshadow could certainly have an effect on public support for those in opposition of budget cuts that will necessitate a reduction in the public workforce.

 

Also, gangs are extremely territorial and are generally willing to do whatever it takes to make sure all the other degenerates understand which portion of a ghetto is officially their "turf". If a gang is really behind the t-shirt campaign, why don't any accounts include WHICH gang? Or are they supposedly working together? Or are multiple gangs each launching their own individual t-shirt lines?