urbanSTL

The cops sell "The Club" at discount prices at neighborhood meetings.

What about getting a bulk discount of after market GPS devices that folks could stick somewhere on their cars? Equip all cars with them.

That way when a car is reported stolen, the cops could track the GPS and pull over the car.

That sounds like a great deterrent to help prevent car theft...

Often times, nothing ends up being stolen at all. They often break into cars looking for guns. I had my car broken into a couple years ago and nothing was taken. The only thing of value in the car was my iPod (which I had in the glove box), and I found it sitting in the passenger seat, scattered along with other worthless items from my console. I asked the cop who responded why they would just scatter my things and not even take the iPod, and he said usually when items are scattered they're looking for guns.

More cops is not the answer although it makes some people feel good. Address the root cause or the increased police presence will just disperse crime to other areas.

Well, then, it appears that if we were to simply have a 330% increase in the size of the police force, we'd eliminate 99% of our property crimes!

innov8ion wrote:More cops is not the answer although it makes some people feel good. Address the root cause or the increased police presence will just disperse crime to other areas.

Disagree. One if the components in the dramatic reduction in crime in NYC was increasing the size of the police force. More police were added, crime went down, all while the incarceration rate also fell. Why? Because more police prevented crimes.

downtown2007 wrote:

innov8ion wrote:More cops is not the answer although it makes some people feel good. Address the root cause or the increased police presence will just disperse crime to other areas.

Disagree. One if the components in the dramatic reduction in crime in NYC was increasing the size of the police force. More police were added, crime went down, all while the incarceration rate also fell. Why? Because more police prevented crimes.

If you can agree that crime is a multi-variable function that constantly changes, you might agree with me. In fact, it would be misguided to suggest it isn't. Just know that what you suggest isn't fact -- just an opinion. Expert sociologists and criminologists debate this and it's not an accepted fact to them either. Here's a solid article from Berkeley Law that discusses this: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/12135.htm

With that said, many suggest crime-fighting in NYC has been successful and there are many theories behind it. One is CompStat, which seems to show a lot of promise. Another is the broken-window theory. They've done a lot with gun control. Stop and frisk has been taking place for a while and is simply unconstitutional. On the other hand, they've also been guilty of fudging crime statistics to make themselves and politicians look good.

Look, there are effective strategies that can be utilized but it's obvious that there are diminishing returns after reaching a certain level of police presence. You do realize that St. Louis has one of the highest levels of police per capita, right? Obviously something is wrong and I'm not necessarily blaming the police, but it seems that there is a stronger propensity toward crime in St. Louis than many other locales. Why is this?

Try to think of crime as a stream of water. If you choke it off at one point, it will just divert elsewhere. These efforts of choking off are what the police do. I mean, you need just the right amount of police to bring criminals to justice. But imagining that increasing the number of police will cause the stream of water (propensity toward crime) to evaporate seems a bit silly.

If we wish the stream to evaporate, you must first identify and address the root causes. Why do you think crime is so bad in St. Louis, downtown2007? If you care, ponder why and work to address the root causes.
-

Inno, I agree it's a multi faceted issue. Many variables contributed to the reduction in crime which include broken windows, Roe v Wade, decreased racial tension, improved economic conditions, better social services, technology, etc.

However in order for compustat and broken windows to work you need the manpower which comes first. Now just increasing a police force itself won't work. You also need a strategy that works, resident participation, and a good relationship between police and residents.

downtown2007 wrote:Inno, I agree it's a multi faceted issue. Many variables contributed to the reduction in crime which include broken windows, Roe v Wade, decreased racial tension, improved economic conditions, better social services, technology, etc.

However in order for compustat and broken windows to work you need the manpower which comes first. Now just increasing a police force itself won't work. You also need a strategy that works, resident participation, and a good relationship between police and residents.

I agree with you for the most part and am just stating that at a certain level of police presence, there are diminishing returns in adding more. The thing is, we already have enough staff to run programs like CompuStat. In fact, we have had a professional criminologist from UMSL working hand in hand with the chief on similar programs. The point is, at one of the highest levels of police per capita we should be at or near the saturation point and adding more police is highly inefficient and costly.

If reducing crime is a priority in St. Louis, it's my firm belief that adding more police is not the answer. Improvement is most needed where job availability, general conditions, and hope for its residents are lowest. More should be done to decrease the socio-economic disparity in depressed areas which naturally result in gangs and higher levels of crime. Not to mention, this would greatly improve performance in the schools.

Issues with crime and schools are two of the biggest issues we have, right?

Yes but I think crime should be more of a focus than schools. Safer communities will draw more investment and attract more residents thus eventually improving schools.

StL2003 wrote:Often times, nothing ends up being stolen at all. They often break into cars looking for guns. I had my car broken into a couple years ago and nothing was taken. The only thing of value in the car was my iPod (which I had in the glove box), and I found it sitting in the passenger seat, scattered along with other worthless items from my console. I asked the cop who responded why they would just scatter my things and not even take the iPod, and he said usually when items are scattered they're looking for guns.

That's the thing bothers me when some folks (including some on this board) dismiss those who've had their cars clouted by saying "well, you shouldn't leave valuables in plain sight." My car has been broken into three times (once parked on the street in front of my house, twice in public, seemingly well-lit & populated parking lots.) Twice, nothing was taken; once, a pair of cheap sunglasses was stolen (or - I may have just lost those and thought they were in the car!) It's crazy expensive to fix my car after it's been broken into, and infuriating when people assume it's "my own fault" because I left valuable stuff on the seat.

How foot patrols keep tough neighbourhoods safer. Interesting old fashioned approach.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... ots-street

This story caught my eye because it said this bank robber lived at 1300 Locust. Guy was living at the NLEC and walked down to rob a bank sounds like:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... 363e6.html

Rough weekend:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... micide.php

Hopefully things will calm down a bit when cooler weather comes in. It also looks like there is the potential for the year-end homicide number to fall below 100.... the current number is 72.

Probably not youth but it may work for the Johns.

What a concept!

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... dad28.html