The Crime That Shouldn’t Bother “Us”
posted by Christine Hurt
Milwaukee made the NYT today, but not in a good way. While the nation’s largest cities are seeing a drop in crime, other mid-sized cities are experiencing an increase in homicides. Milwaukee is one such city; 2005 saw 122 homicides compared with 88 in 2004. The increase in homicides is not due to gang-related violence or drug-related violence, however; the increase is almost all due to homicides that occurred during arguments over much smaller things, such as dirty looks or acts of “disrespect.” These homicides are limited to certain neighborhoods and usually involve individuals with criminal records.
The article doesn’t have a lot of answers as to reasons why this increase is happening. Milwaukee is a very segregated city, with a very high teenage pregnancy rate, a low high school graduation rate for African-American males, and a large racial education gap. With manufacturing leaving Milwaukee, the article suggests that lack of work opportunities in some neighborhoods have eliminated hope and possibly added to this “rage.”
What bothered me about the article was the whitewashing of the problem by city officials. (Yes, I guess all puns intended.) For example, the police chief in Charlotte, NC is quoted as saying: “It’s hard for people to look at it in depth and understand that they’re not likely to be a victim if they get along with their family members and neighbors and don’t live a high-risk lifestyle.” I’m not sure what the “high-risk lifestyle” is here. Being poor? Living in a high-risk neighborhood? LIving next door to people with crimnial records? Not everyone gets to move into more expensive, crime-free neighborhoods just by wishing. I’m sure this quote is taken out of context, but it smacks of “they’re just killing each other, so why should we care?”
February 12, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Responses (5)
Brian Duffy - February 13, 2006 at 8:43 am
Larger cities have larger and more competent local government.
Contrast New York City after 9/11 with New Orleans and the hurricane.
In NOLA, the local authorities were more concerned about covering their rear than acutally doing anything. New Orleans is an example of what happens where natural disasters confront a government riddled to the core with corruption and incompetence.
In New York, the local government stepped up and handled the situation with professionalism.
Matt - February 13, 2006 at 11:41 am
I had a similar reaction, but to be fair, one statistic that I think they cited was that in most cases *both* parties (shooter and victim) had criminal records. The homicides were painted as predominantly disputes over disrespect or women between gang members, rather than gang members reacting to disrespect from others. That said, though, most of the anecdotes seemed to involve bystander victims.
Maryland Conservatarian - February 13, 2006 at 11:51 pm
“I’m not sure what the “high-risk lifestyle” is here.”
I dunno – maybe carrying a gun, hanging with others who carry guns and an involvement in certain money-making, albeit illegal, activities.
“I’m sure this quote is taken out of context, but it smacks of “they’re just killing each other, so why should we care?” ”
Well, if you’re so sure it’s taken out of context, why did you slam the guy anyway. I’m sure the law enforcement officer quoted is quite concerned about the increased violence – after all, beyond just talking about it, his job actually entails doing something about it.
But I’m sure the people who actually have to deal with this problem on a daily, non-theoretical basis appreciate the helpful comments and support of the intelligentsia.
Kate Litvak - February 14, 2006 at 12:16 am
The police chief’s comment sounds completely innocuous to me. “High-risk lifestyle” is not a nod to a person’s economic status, but a reference to individual behavior. Any involvement in drugs, prostitution, and illegal gambling; gang membership; participation in other criminal activities; excessive alcohol consumption (especially outside one’s home); hanging out in places where violent people hang out (gang nightclubs, bikers’ bars, etc.) are the kinds of lifestyle that increase one’s chances of becoming a crime victim.
Furthermore, the chief’s phrase doesn’t sound like “let them kill each other,” but instead simply points to a common misperception with regard to crime statistics. When people hear that there are 2 murders in a city of 1M people, they conclude that their chance of being murdered is 2 out of 1M. This is incorrect: it assumes that everyone in that city has equal chances of being murdered. If the stats also show that, say, drug dealers or prostitutes are 100 times more likely to become crime victims, then, the “2 out of 1M” estimate is vastly understated for prostitutes and vastly overstated for the rest of us. In most cases, the risk to people outside “high-risk lifestyle” is truly negligible, even if the overall stats look disconcerting. It’s important to remind people about this statistical glitch to avoid overreaction and panic – which is exactly what the chief appears to be doing here.
Maryland Conservatarian - February 14, 2006 at 2:20 am
ditto Ms. Litvak’s comment…she wrote what I meant to convey but in a considerably less smarmy manner.
Leave a Reply