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.
..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.
Dinkins put the cops on the street, Guiliani put more and showed them how to run like mini army. He also put those laws in place that put pressure on the entire gamut, from the loiterer and squeegi man to the rapist.
Dinkins put the cops on the street, Guiliani put more and showed them how to run like mini army. He also put those laws in place that put pressure on the entire gamut, from the loiterer and squeegi man to the rapist.
So why did crime drop NATIONALLY?
This was a national trend? Of course, if Giuliani fans acknowledged that, it would mean Giuliani was a lot less important than he claimed to be. Ditto Bloomberg.
"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 timing of this article is very suspicious considering elections are 2 weeks away. My question is...which Mayoral candidate does the NY Times endorse? Did someone say De Blasio?
The timing of this article is very suspicious considering elections are 2 weeks away. My question is...which Mayoral candidate does the NY Times endorse? Did someone say De Blasio?
It will be interesting to see who they endorse and why.They did a lot of De Blasio bashing during the primaries and endorsed Lhota, so it will be a little weird if they now turn around and endorse De Blasio.They loved Bloomberg and pushed Quinn as his continuation.Now they are going to do an about face and endorse the anti Bloomberg ? If they do,they are going to have to eat a lot of crow.
It will be interesting to see who they endorse and why.They did a lot of De Blasio bashing during the primaries and endorsed Lhota, so it will be a little weird if the now turn around and endorse De Blasio.
This article favors De Blasio as it pretty much tries to discredit Guilliani's tenure in reducing crime which Lhota was a part of.
I think Giuliani had an effect on crime in NYC, but technology and the fading popularity of crack was a factor as well. I think people want to give him 100% of the credit and that's a little farfetched.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
This was a national trend? Of course, if Giuliani fans acknowledged that, it would mean Giuliani was a lot less important than he claimed to be. Ditto Bloomberg.
So you're giving dumbass Dinkins more credit for reducing crime then?
So you're giving dumbass Dinkins more credit for reducing crime then?
I don't think any of them deserve any credit.It probably would have happened anyway,just like it did in other places at the same time.It will be funny if DeBlasio gets rid of Kelly and the crime rate keeps going down,which is what I think is going to happen.Will DeBlasio deserve credit then for bringing in a new Commissioner and reducing crime ? NO.
This was a national trend? Of course, if Giuliani fans acknowledged that, it would mean Giuliani was a lot less important than he claimed to be. Ditto Bloomberg.
That article doesn't suggest that every city's crime declined at the same time. It's simply showing you the the 20 year difference. New York was the first major city to push back on it... and those other cities started to decline afterward and at a slower rate. That probably was due in part to policing and in part to criminals venturing out to other cities/towns not mentioned in the article. Our decline under Rudy was due to straight up Police Flood (complete with new guns, cars and training), and enforced Quality of Life laws. I guess that would also force a lot of determined 'enterprising' NYC'rs to flee to new places to set up (see VA, ATL).
And I'm no 'Rudy fan', but you can't deny that he changed the city for the better.
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.
