Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The ragged, jagged, terrifying crime spree that peaked in the early 1990s was not unique to New York. It was a nationwide bloodletting, afflicting cities small, medium and large. And two other horsemen of the apocalypse, the epidemics of crack and AIDS, galloped hard in those years.
In Los Angeles, homicides peaked at 1,092 in 1992; the total stood at 292 last year. In Washington, D.C., homicides hit a high of 482 in 1991; the number stood at 88 on Monday. Dallas recorded 500 in 1991; it had 154 in 2012. In Chicago, homicides crested at 942 in 1991 and stood at 500 last year.
Policing had a hand in this decline, along with demographics and the brave willingness of neighbors to organize and fight back. This was particularly true in New York City, where crime has fallen far faster than the national average."
So basically, the people in the neighborhoods themselves were factors in the crime reduction. Not only in community organizing to fight back, it became a lot less popular to do crack and certain other drugs after people saw how many people either directly died from drugs or got Aids and died from drugs. Or killed each other. The self destruction played a big role in the decline in crime.
The Times article is saying that there are many different factors in the reduction of crime, and it happened nationally in all major cities. Its not a matter of Giuliani and Bloomberg being some sort of magical saviors.
The Times article is saying that there are many different factors in the reduction of crime, and it happened nationally in all major cities. Its not a matter of Giuliani and Bloomberg being some sort of magical saviors.
Surprised it's taken the NY Times so long.People have been saying this for years.
"The ragged, jagged, terrifying crime spree that peaked in the early 1990s was not unique to New York. It was a nationwide bloodletting, afflicting cities small, medium and large. And two other horsemen of the apocalypse, the epidemics of crack and AIDS, galloped hard in those years.
In Los Angeles, homicides peaked at 1,092 in 1992; the total stood at 292 last year. In Washington, D.C., homicides hit a high of 482 in 1991; the number stood at 88 on Monday. Dallas recorded 500 in 1991; it had 154 in 2012. In Chicago, homicides crested at 942 in 1991 and stood at 500 last year.
Policing had a hand in this decline, along with demographics and the brave willingness of neighbors to organize and fight back. This was particularly true in New York City, where crime has fallen far faster than the national average."
So basically, the people in the neighborhoods themselves were factors in the crime reduction. Not only in community organizing to fight back, it became a lot less popular to do crack and certain other drugs after people saw how many people either directly died from drugs or got Aids and died from drugs. Or killed each other. The self destruction played a big role in the decline in crime.
The Times article is saying that there are many different factors in the reduction of crime, and it happened nationally in all major cities. Its not a matter of Giuliani and Bloomberg being some sort of magical saviors.
I wouldn't disagree with that. Otherwise respectable people were using all kinds of drugs in the late 1980s and 1990s, and you hardly see that any more. It's mostly marijuana these days, and with random drug testing by many employers, even that is less popular (which probably accounts for the support for legalization).
I do think that community policing had an impact, though, and I think that was started/promoted by Guiliani.
It is a very controversial on what caused crime to drop in the early 1990s. I know crime dropped singfincantly after Dinkins ordered more cops on the to the street the following year. A someone who studied Criminal Justice, I had done a paper on this topic. Hell I even compared to periods of American history that are noted for high crime, like the Prohibition era and Crack Cocaine era which was worst. Why crime come down especially murders? One it was technology, after the Persian gulf war plenty of life savings techinques started to be used in urban hospitals, a gun shot wound was no longer a death sentence compared to prior during Vietnam era, got shot a good chance one will die. Another thing is that GPS started to be implemented in emergency vehicles, this allowed response times to improve saving countless lives. A big changer in NYC is compstat computer system, which shows a real time map of crimes in the area, this happened under Bratton. NYPD began to abandoned Broken windows for a much more settling police community approach where cops became one with the community, you saw more cops around, police hosting bbqs, police athletic leagues city wide to keep youths out of trouble. Another thing is that crack/cocaine started to become very unpopular form of narcotics, drug users started to switch over to weed, meth and ecstasy. But however these days people are becoming more smart with the usage of technology these days. No need to rob someone on the street while you can rob them through the internet, hack their credit cards, steal email passwords. Rob a hipster for his iphone which 30,000 iphones were stolen last year alone in NYC and then sold to blackmarket dealers in Dominican Republic, Jamaica and in Africa. More and more crime is going to be tech based while the years pass on. I hope the NYPD makes Cyber a priority in the coming years!
For all the jokes we make about Bloomberg and Giuliani about their egotistical and self-righteousness rule
during their tenure as the New York City mayor. I think it's really unfair and disingenuous for NY Times to
discredit both mayor's ( Especially Giuliani)success in reducing crimes in the city. Attack Lhota all you
want, I don't care about him. But my father and I will always be grateful to mayor Giuliani for his job on
bring NYC back from hell to at least livable for law abiding citizens.
All I know is before Giuliani you can't even walk the streets without fear of being mugged. Mayor Dinkins
may deserve some credit for increasing the police force, or it may have to do with the overall trend of the
whole nation, but the fact is you can't deny crime rates reduced dramatically during Giuliani time as the
mayor.
For all the jokes we make about Bloomberg and Giuliani about their egotistical and self-righteousness rule
during their tenure as the New York City mayor. I think it's really unfair and disingenuous for NY Times to
discredit both mayor's ( Especially Giuliani)success in reducing crimes in the city. Attack Lhota all you
want, I don't care about him. But my father and I will always be grateful to mayor Giuliani for his job on
bring NYC back from hell to at least livable for law abiding citizens.
All I know is before Giuliani you can't even walk the streets without fear of being mugged. Mayor Dinkins
may deserve some credit for increasing the police force, or it may have to do with the overall trend of the
whole nation, but the fact is you can't deny crime rates reduced dramatically during Giuliani time as the
mayor.
I think the Times's point is that virtually every major city in the country was in a similar hell hole shape as NY and had an astronomical crime rate like NY's.The gentrification of NYC and the drop in the crime rate would have happened no matter who was mayor,just as it happened everywhere else.
For all the jokes we make about Bloomberg and Giuliani about their egotistical and self-righteousness rule
during their tenure as the New York City mayor. I think it's really unfair and disingenuous for NY Times to
discredit both mayor's ( Especially Giuliani)success in reducing crimes in the city. Attack Lhota all you
want, I don't care about him. But my father and I will always be grateful to mayor Giuliani for his job on
bring NYC back from hell to at least livable for law abiding citizens.
All I know is before Giuliani you can't even walk the streets without fear of being mugged. Mayor Dinkins
may deserve some credit for increasing the police force, or it may have to do with the overall trend of the
whole nation, but the fact is you can't deny crime rates reduced dramatically during Giuliani time as the
mayor.
You need to actually read the article. Every major city in the US had a higher crime rate then. And obviously Giuliani and Bloomberg weren't mayors in all of them.
So it was a national trend for crime to go down. Quite clearly there were other factors besides who the mayor was.
Pre Giuliani I walked the streets of NYC without getting mugged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
