All posts in the topic Response to Jim Graham on Public Safety (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Wizard Marks at Jul 04 18:31 UTC
Oh Jim, while I do respect your opinions I find you abysmally uninformed on
these
matters. So, let me help you out. As I know many of the leading researchers on
this stuff, personally (Uggen, Pager, Harcourt, Mauer, Love, etcetera) I can
assure
you that if I showed them what you have written here they would simply roll
their
eyes and say "who the Hell is this guy?"
First of all, Jim, stealing thousands of dollars worth of metal is not a
low-level
crime (read, Part II, other, in particular), it is a felony. When I talk about
Low-level
offenses I am focusing on the categorization within UCR data, largely, as
aforementioned, "Part II, other" crime. When I did the Decrim research here
in Minneapolis in 2003-2004 I came up with a total of 12,717 arrests involving
the homeless. I would venture that being homeless pretty much fits the
bill
of impoverished, does it not? When I talk about this stuff it is such
Ordinances
as Lurking, Loitering, Aggressive Solicitation, Public Urination, No Camping,
Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Public Consumption...the bulk of the 12,717
arrests of the homeless and no small part of "regular" arrests for the
non-homeless.
In 2004, Jim, of the 48,000 and change misdemeanor cases filed (with a 50%
dismissal rate) a majority of the charges represent precisely this sort of
thing.
Now, as for the link between poverty and crime being non-existent...well,
the only authority you cite is Jim Graham...and I can assure you such an
assertion, amongst professionals,. would be dismissed outright.It is a silly
assertion that no link exists and I won't waste any time on what I take to be
common sense and well-attested in the research from multiple disciplines.
As for "crime being lower
during the Depression". Well, first of all, UCR data
was not used widely until after 1934 (the year it was first fielded) so we have
no accurate, tabulated criminal justice for the bulk of the Great Depression.
Secondly, we have added tons to the respective State and Local Criminal
Codes since the Depression that did not exist at that point in time. For
example,. find me some DWI cites for the Depression. Find me some citations
or arrests for Domestic Assault or some 5th Degree Possession cites for
paraphernalia. Not to mention that if they arrested loiterers, lurkers,
Vagrants
and beggars during the Depression half the damned country would've been in
jail. Jim, your comparison is patently silly and holds no water at all.
You need to think about something here, Jim. The number of inmates in the
USA increased by over 400% since 1980, 600% for drug offenses. This is more
a reflection of the
criminalization of behaviors that were, at earlier points in
time, not classified as criminal.
All of the above, by the way Jim, may be buttressed by any cursory glance
at the Bureau of Justice Statistics research, freely available on their
web-site.
The big question here is why do we go after social problems vis-a-vis a
criminal
justice response when, in many, many cases the basis for arrest might be deemed
to be inappropriate--thinking of the homeless, the mentally ill, chronic
alcoholics,
etcetera.
My biggest concern here is that we base public policy and expend 33 billion
dollars per annum in State Corrections costs alone (Pew Center, 2008). We have
gotten to this untenable fiscal (and social) point in time precisely via the
mode of
thinking displayed here. It is not based on research or realities, but on
perception
and personal bias. If you have a guy stealing thousands of dollars worth of
metal,
by all means, arrest that sucker. Rapists, murderers, those who commit assault
or gross property damage...lock them up, too...but the vast majority of crime
in
Minneapolis does not involve these things, Jim. In a fiscal crunch we need to
deploy
our police resources wisely...not chasing around after folks with nowhere else
to
go. It is not a solution, it fosters a wider and continuing set of problems.
The last
28 years of American History should demonstrate that clearly.
Guy Gambill
(Northeast)
Actually Guy might be correct in some of his statements about my naivety, if
that was the opinion of Jim Graham alone. In this case it is not. Read more
Guy, and do try to sometimes do so with authors who might not agree with you.
Do attempt to consider opinions that might not agree with your own in every
detail.
As research director of Metropolitan Sociometrics Research Institute I directed
many such research efforts in the Twin Cities and other areas. When I began
graduate school well over thirty years ago I had already been involved in more
research efforts in the area than anyone teaching in the department. So those
folks Guy mentions can roll their eyes all they wish. In addition to that
"research" I actually come from a background of poverty that few Minneapolitans
can imagine, unless they are my age and immigrated from that old South or from
one of the Indian "Reservations". Minnesota simply has not allowedsuch
povertyin your lifetime Guy. So I have many years of experience first hand, as
well as Guys "research background".
As for experience in the criminal justice system and crime,I have participated
at pretty much every level. Fortunately, most of the criminal activity took
place as a minor and the military experience pretty much erased that. (A
benefit that is NOT afforded young people today) An experience that convinces
me that Guy is correct about the removal of that stigma from non-violent crimes
being very beneficial for both the individual and our society. After that
"personal experience I worked as a "Correctional Officer" for the Minnesota
Department of Corrections as well as teachingas part ofthe "University Within
Walls" program and doing basic research on the "Educational Needs of Minnesota
Prison Inmates".
But enough of the credential chest thumping. I said I pretty much agreed with
Guys opinions, it is just that I and other professionals might disagree with
SOME of those opinions. Might disagreewith some of both types of Guys "data".
Or, having looked at that same data from different perspectives might come to a
few different conclusions.
By the way, stealing one downspout at a time, or one gutter, is not a felony;
not even a gross misdemeanor. Even the wrought iron mailboxes off my front
porch did not meet that criterion. Cumulatively they cost me thousands and made
maybe $50.00 for him. Also BTW, that particular person is infamous, even in the
homeless community, for boldly stealing such, and even breaking into empty
houses to junk the copper.
The end of Guys post about removing laws that are aimed at poor people more
than criminals I pretty much agree with. I have posted the same on this List.
Minneapolis, as a supposedly Progressive City should certainly do away with
most such laws.
Minnesota should also certainly take care of and stabilize the lives of those
with mental problems. The change in law to throw these people out on the street
without first creating adequate alternatives was a mortal sin by supposed
Progressive lawmakers. They should be rightfully ashamed. THEIR criminal
negligence has killed hundreds and caused preventable suffering to thousands.
It also has cost our society many times the cost of adequately providing stable
housing for them.
The poverty and crime correlation thing in the post is the problem. I (and a
great number of other people, including most poor people) find it simply
spurious and wrong. Criminal activity levels are more correlated with
breakdowns in society, not absolute poverty. More attributable to social
isolation and powerlessness, than to actual poverty. Does poverty create that
social isolation and powerlessness? Of course it does! But NOT in and of
itself. Otherwise most very poor people would be criminals, and if Guy believes
so I would want him to show me where he came up with that Data. Though some
sometimes believes itto be true, most ALL of the very poor people do NOT commit
crime. That is a fact, not opinion! Almost ALL of poor people live as crime
free (other than being victims) as the most affluent of the population. To say
something different would be foolish.
During the depression crime, especially violent stranger crime was lower than
today, in my opinion. If you have other data please pull it out. Yet the level
of poverty then made todays Minneapolis poor look like the middle-class. The
poor of the 1950s Appalachia and Mid-South plantation areas make the poor of
Minneapolis today look like middle class also. Yet in all those areas the level
of violent stranger crime was almost unheard of. So it is not poverty that
causes crime in of itself, it is the social isolation, powerlessness, and just
as importantly the relative poverty and relative expectations that cause crime.
Crime is a cultural thing, not a poverty thing.
Jim Graham,
Ventura Village
"We measure the quality of our community by the way we provide for our
children, our elders and our handicapped. It should beour intent to build
community by laying a foundation on such principles and to organize its
structure to guarantee the safety and happiness of our most vulnerable."
Ignore obvious flame-bait.
My family were what was termed "lace curtain Irish," which was a shallow step
up from "shanty Irish." That shallow step was built on the fact that my
grandfather, uncle, and father were bookies. My father also did some fencing
and sold marijuana and uppers (to college students at exam time). He told me to
"never mess with heroine or cocaine because they were mob controlled and those
guys are 'murdering sons 'a bitches from the first water'." (I was about 10, I
had never heard of street drugs of any sort.)
While I knew my Dad was a bookie. He taught me my first math using Racing Form
newspaper, by teaching me and my brother to figure the odds on various horses
winning particular races. We could do a three horse parlay by the time we
reached kindergarten. I had seen much evidence of the fencing (we had the first
TV in the projects). I didn't learn about the marijuana until his funeral, or
the uppers until I went to college in Illinois and had a teacher who had lived
next door to us while that teacher was in grad school.
I'm sure rural poverty was different, but at the same time, rural was very much
closer to the heart of the city than it is today. My uncle Frank was a farm
hand on the orphan farm he, my mother, and two other siblings were raised on.
We would, by dint of the Dixie Lines bus company and a lot of walking, visit
him twice a year across the river in Kentucky.
This nostalgic palaver is in demonstration of the fact that, within a very few
generations, everyone on this list, with the exception of Laura Waterman
Wittstock and some few others, can have a like story, because it's an immigrant
story.
When I was 18, I worked at the Hamilton County Welfare Dept. in Cincinnati as a
file clerk. This would be 1961. It was the days of draconian laws governing the
poor, which laws have lessened slightly today. I lived some three blocks away
at the YMCA where room and board was $13/week. My net pay was $39.90. The
minimum wage was $0.75/hr.
Coming to work one morning, I spied the skinniest elderly black man sleeping on
the loading dock of the Welfare Dept. building. An hour later, the buzz among
the clerks and social workers was that the elderly man was not sleeping, but
had died on the loading dock. Later that week, the coroner pronounced that he
had died of starvation.
The rule during that time was that assistance would be given to women and
children, but that men could fend for themselves. The "man in the house rule"
allowed social workers to do house raids on welfare recipients in the middle of
the night. They could invade a woman's house and search it for the presence of
men's clothing, toiletries, and other "evidence" that the woman's husband or a
boyfriend was living in the house. The working myth was that he was
contributing to the budget and, if evidence of a male presence was found, the
woman's subsidy would be cut or would disappear. It was typical of women
clients to have eight or ten children to feed.
Jump forward to 1975 and I'm in Mpls. having coffee with a Henn. Co. social
worker who is telling me that every single client of the welfare system in
Hennepin County could do jail or workhouse time because it was impossible to
>honestly< keep body and soul together on the stipend allotted by the county.
She opined that it was done deliberately to keep the poor in line. She made a
good argument.
I dont have much use for statistics, I cant read them effectively, so I rely on
observation. But I am leery of the notion that there are that many of the
totally honest poor. What Ive observed is that the poor (or any other class)
will most times quit doing illegal things when their economic picture allows
them to drop those activities in favor of better wages, a.k.a. union wages or a
job with the city, county, or state. Then there are class of people, the Big
Dogs, who dont drop their illegal activities, but find more lucrative illegal
activities. This can take a generation or two.
I know one man in my neighborhood who, as a member--and leader, of the Rolling
Thirties Bloods, amassed a quarter of a million dollars through gang activity.
He did time and went legit after prison, having enough to set himself up in
business. Throughout the time he amassed the money, most of his clan--parents,
grandparents, siblings, children, cousins were on the public assistance roles
for their basic needs so that he could tuck away such a tidy sum.
Poverty keeps the criminal justice system in business. Because, the criminal
justice system is designed to support the haves against the have nots. While
Tony Bouza was a great talker, and a lot of his talk was filler, he did
acknowledge, when he was Chief of Police of Minneapolis, that that was his job.
The tightly woven interplay between poverty and the criminal justice system is
deeper and less amenable to correction (if it is even amenable at all) than any
of us are willing or able to understand.