
Life in New York City, Where Arrests Are Down and Tickets Are Rarities - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/nyregion/life-in-new-york-city-where-arrests-are-down-and-tickets-are-rarities.html
======
gharial
I work in Manhattan and visit fairly shitty areas of Brooklyn and Queens
regularly. These past few weeks have been the first time since I moved here
that I've felt safe in the presence of cops. I'd read about enforcement being
down just after the funeral for the officers shot in the Bronx but it really
didn't click until a pair of them walked down the street by me in Chelsea.
They didn't look at my SO like they were ready to beat the shit out of him for
once. They were actually laughing and looked approachable.

I think all this little passive aggressive "protest" will prove is that the
world isn't going to end when the police stop hassling the young, non-white
and homeless. I'm surprised they don't realize they're pulling the curtain
back on their own charade.

~~~
ams6110
I'm suspecting that it will eventually prove that those that don't remember
history are doomed to repeat it.

NYC in the '70s and '80s was not that safe. Street crime, muggings, etc. were
common. In the 1990s Giuliani stepped up patrols and sarted enforcing what
most people thought were petty crimes, such as loitering, graffiti, parking
violations, subway-gate-jumping, etc. with the effect that more serious crimes
also decreased, and within several years NYC became one of the safest big
cities.

~~~
lkrubner
The "broken windows" theory of police enforcement doesn't stand up when
compared to other Western cities. A big part of the "broken windows" theory is
that small crimes, such as graffiti, created an atmosphere that allowed worse
crimes to happen. And yet, if you visit Berlin, you will see a city with a
shocking amount of graffiti, but very little crime. If you visit parts of
London you'll see run down industrial districts, but very little crime.

Even if you confine your analysis to the USA, the "broken windows" theory of
crime does not explain the relative shift in crime towards the suburbs, nor
does it explain the increasing epidemic of drugs in rural areas. There is a
lot that it does not explain, so it should be treated with suspicion. A theory
that only explains one data point is not a theory at all.

Most Western nations have seen decreases in crime during since the late 1980s.
The USA had the most crime, and the USA has seen the biggest decrease. No one
knows why. New York City has seen the biggest decrease of all the big cities,
but figuring out why, given the extremely multi-variate nature of the problem,
will be extremely difficult to do. Even those theories that attempt to explain
the decline of crime in the USA (aging of the population, Roe vs Wade,
unleaded gasoline, change in police tactics) fail to explain why New York City
should see the largest decrease in crime, since one can find other cities, for
any of those variables, that saw larger changes than New York City.

~~~
saraid216
> A bit part of the "broken windows" theory is that small crimes, such as
> graffiti, created an atmosphere that allowed worse crimes to happen.

I've always been confused as to why the broken windows theory presumes that
the window is broken because of malicious action. It seems obvious to me that
the window was broken accidentally, and as such, the correct response (in
police action and otherwise) is to repair the window. Full stop.

~~~
geoelectric
You're taking it a little too literally. The theory is that once a situation
seems less maintained, people will normalize that state and allow it to
decline further.

It's essentially a slippery slope argument, though I do think there's a
_little_ bit of psychological truth to the argument. But I also think there's
a really high cost for trying to keep things perfect.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The cost is in cultural adaptation, not police work. Singapore has a high
standard of public appearance and behavior. It comes at a cost. But they did
succeed in creating the social norm. Without that the police effort is
endless.

~~~
geoelectric
That's what I meant, though maybe with a different spin. The cultural
adaptation to a grossly over-aggressive police force is the major cost: fear,
oppression, distrust, etc.

As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a ton of experience there to comment.
If their standards end up leading the police to proactively treat people like
criminals, then I suppose I wouldn't like that very much.

Worth noting that Asian culture in general seems to have much more of a
"compromise the individual for the good of the whole" component, though.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's a poor fit with our cultural expectations.

------
smtddr
Let me add this article:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-
bene...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-benefits-of-
fewer-nypd-arrests/384126/)

 _> >But the police union's phrasing—officers shouldn't make arrests "unless
absolutely necessary"—begs the question: How many unnecessary arrests was the
NYPD making before now?_

~~~
Terr_
> begs the question

Gah. "Begging the question" means assuming something is already proved. Alas,
people misuse "beg" as a synonym for "suggests" or "raises"...

~~~
nyolfen
phrases can take on new meanings and no one looks good whinging about
prescriptivist language use dude

~~~
scdlbx
That literally kills me.

~~~
undersuit
Irregardless.

------
pyrophane
From the Times editorial board:

> If the Police Department’s current commanders cannot get the cops to do
> their jobs, Mr. de Blasio should consider replacing them.

> He should invite the Justice Department to determine if the police are
> guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority
> communities.

> He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to
> uphold city and state laws.

I could not agree more.

~~~
angersock
_He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to
uphold city and state laws._

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

~~~
uiberto
I have no legal training, but doesn't the ruling say police officers still
have a duty to the public, just not to the individual?

~~~
peterwwillis
Basically, yes. Ignore the public part; it just means they have a duty in
general. A cop can watch you getting murdered in your house and they do not
have to help you. The only exceptions for duty to an individual are the
"danger creation exception" and the "special-relationship exception".

For 'danger creation exception', if the government doing or not doing
something puts you in danger, they are liable. If you're already in danger
it's not their fault.

For 'special relationship exception', basically, unless 'the government
singles out a particular party [..] and affords that person special
treatment', they have no liability to help that person or provide them proper
services. The only exception to this is when the state has restricted the
freedom of the individual, such as with prisoners.

This may be news to some of you, but that whole "I pay may taxes" line is
ridiculous because of these conclusions. Yes you pay your taxes - to people
who have no obligation to help you. You're welcome.

What's really odd about all this is the recent cases where someone who was
handcuffed by police subsequently died. Technically this would fall under both
these exceptions, because their freedom was restricted by the government _and_
the police's action or inaction caused them danger. In the recent cases,
though, the police were let off the hook. Weird.

~~~
uiberto
Very interesting.

By your guidance I've found several articles describing the circumstances that
establish "special relationships", yet I can't find anything that describes an
officer's duties besides duty to individuals (like those you mention). Are
these listed anywhere?

For now, if I suppose the exceptions you mentioned are the only duties of an
officer, is there some legal mechanism that requires officers to enter special
relationships? Or is it simply that a police officer who failed to perform his
or her job would be fired, but could not be sued?

I'm suddenly having a hard time identifying exactly what are an individual
police officer's duties. Should "protect and serve" always appear with quotes?

For others, some links on duty to rescue, public duty, etc:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue)
[http://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-
careers/articles/49...](http://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-
careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-
doctrine/)
[http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...](http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007)

------
j_m_b
I think this most recent trend in the police department has a huge potential
to backfire. Perhaps this will highlight the fact that in the US, our lives
have become over-criminalized and over-monitored by an increasingly growing
police force and that we simply don't need so many officers and laws. This
would be a good thing in America.

However, I hate the fact that this change was brought about by the deaths of
people.

~~~
nervousvarun
It's all relative I guess. Here in the Nola we desperately, DESPERATELY need
more cops.

~~~
nickbauman
New Orleans has had quite a history of corruption in its police force. Are you
sure?

~~~
veidr
I am pretty sure that nobody who says "we desperately need more cops" means
"we desperately need more corrupt cops".

~~~
dragonwriter
If you don't deal with the problems that lead to the existing cops being
corrupt before trying to add new cops, that's what you get. So if you say "we
desperately need more cops" without including "we first desperately need to
deal with police corruption", when your present police department is noted for
corruption, you are _implicitly_ saying you need more corrupt cops.

Or, at least, that you need more cops _even if_ they are as corrupt as the
existing ones.

~~~
nervousvarun
Yeah sadly, it's the latter.

Arbitrary numbers but if your cops are 50% corrupt and you suddenly have twice
as many total cops you still then double the number of non-corrupt cops.
Obviously that's wasteful but... Fixing deep-routed cultural corruption is
obviously extremely difficult.

So yeah, at this point I (and a lot of others who live here) would say we just
need more cops because violent crime is increasing and the number of street
cops out there is decreasing and that's just a bad combination.

So many lesser of two evils at play here :(

~~~
dllthomas
I don't think that's just wasteful. Depending on the nature of the corruption,
one corrupt cop might do more harm than one honest cop can prevent.

------
Spooky23
New York public employees cannot strike, so this is the labor action available
to them.

The union should think carefully though. If life just goes on without the
nanny-state tickets and other revenue generators, the thought process may
change. Maybe more fare jumping and double-parking would be ok, and we can
live with that -- but with 10,000 fewer policemen.

10,000 * $100,000 = less need for ticket revenue.

~~~
Zigurd
The effectiveness of cost-cutting in the NYPD would be multiplied if they
started with the shiny toys first. Cut the number of SWAT teams, sell off the
armored division's tanks, to Ukraine perhaps, and cut the spies and
surveillance gear first, and you'll be able to keep a lot more of the useful
police who might then be able to focus on boosting their solution rates for
crimes people care about.

~~~
Alupis
> sell off the armored division's tanks, to Ukraine perhaps

People like to throw this line around... but I've yet to see an actual tank in
the hands of a police department anywhere in the US. What I have seen are a
lot of Armored Personnel Carriers (APC), which have no weaponry and are
basically just heavily armored trucks designed specifically to protect the
personnel inside (from riot, projectiles, bullets, explosions, etc).

With that said, I have no issue with a police department using an APC in a
situation where bodily harm may come to them (SWAT situation, riot situation,
terrorist situation, bomb situation, etc).

And "riot" is not to be confused with "peaceful protest". Riots are bad;
people and property get damaged.

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
Part of what was said was that the police (in Ferguson) seemed ill trained to
use this fancy gear. With little oversight on how and when it is used.
Allegedly.

[http://mashable.com/2014/08/14/war-veterans-ferguson-
police/](http://mashable.com/2014/08/14/war-veterans-ferguson-police/)

Personally, I think the problem is when there us no cost benefit analysis.
What's the cost in terms of maintenence as well as public perception and
trust.

~~~
Alupis
> that the police (in Ferguson) seemed ill trained to use this fancy gear

I do realize you put the disclaimer "seemed", but I don't see any evidence
that the police in Ferguson (or anywhere) were ill trained to drive an APC or
use riot gear (gas masks included). APC's have been used by police departments
for a long long time, just only they were purchasing them back then and now
the military is giving them their old ones (as apposed to just scrapping them
since they were bought and paid for with tax payer's money).

Ferguson was special, there were "riots" going on for a while (stores being
raided, projectiles rockets and fireworks fired at police, even guns being
shot). There were both peaceful protests happening simultaneously with full on
riots.

~~~
jbooth
In terms of 'trained', it seems like their attitude towards crowd control was
to out-macho the crowd, which can only really escalate the situation. Look at
that picture of the dude on top of the APC brandishing the mounted gun. He's
completely exposed, he's not in a combat position, he's in an intimidation
position.

------
byerley
As someone who fancies libertarianism but who's wary of its effectiveness in
practice, I'm hoping we get to see this impromptu social experiment play out
long enough to gather some useful statistics.

~~~
raldi
What's the connection to libertarianism?

~~~
byerley
I mostly meant anti-regulation.

I'm not sure we need strict laws regarding parking, public drinking, loosies,
ect. Let alone aggressive enforcement.

I think parts of NYC are a good example of how enforcement can cause a more
negative environment than the original activity.

~~~
specialp
If you have ever been to NYC you would know that if the parking regulations
were not enforced so zealously the city would be a mess. The only reason why
$40 parking garages are full is that you know if you park illegally on the
streets of Manhattan, your car is getting ticketed, and likely towed. Surely
it makes NYC a ton of revenue but it is the only way to make things work. I
agree with you on the other points.

~~~
gambiting
Every time I get annoyed by how religiously parking regulations are followed
in the UK(and they are anal about it to the extreme), I remember how it works
in the country I come from. Try parking in Krakow or Warsaw - very little
regulation, and people park everywhere, on sidewalks, on the grass, on
pedestrian crossings...they would park on top of each other if they could.
Parking regulations are a good thing.

------
Shivetya
If these minor offenses are not affecting crime then are they offenses whose
only purpose is to generate revenue? If the city has not imploded then is that
not sufficient evidence to get a discussion about the existence of these
offenses?

~~~
morley
I would guess that there hasn't been enough time for people to realize their
minor infractions will no longer get punished.

~~~
msandford
Is the fear of punishment the only thing that keeps people from doing criminal
acts?

1\. People speed and park wrongly despite both of these being illegal

2\. A huge majority of people aren't assholes all the time, despite this not
being illegal

3\. Murders do get committed though it's illegal

4\. Most stuff isn't stolen even though it is very difficult to catch someone
breaking into houses

There's a book called Three Felonies A Day which posits that the average
American commits three serious crimes every day despite the overwhelming
majority of those folks not meaning to.
[https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=three+felonies+a+day](https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=three+felonies+a+day)
The reason for this is that the laws are written broadly enough that entirely
innocent acts could be construed to be strict-liability crimes that require
absolute adherence; intent does not enter into the equation.

If society is not falling apart even if the average American is in fact
committing three felonies a day, then it stands to reason that perhaps the law
as a whole is over-written and could stand to be reduced. This new informal
policing policy in New York might end up being further evidence of such
problems.

Further people have found that in many cases persuasion is much more effective
than compulsion. In the UK they've found that they can replace speed cameras
(which issue tickets) with radar controlled signs that display smiley or
frowny faces and that's much more effective at getting people to slow down.
The theory goes that compulsion is a very ephemeral threat and that the police
can't be everywhere at once ticketing everyone who's speeding all the time and
people know it. But just asking them to slow down with no threat is more
effective since it's polite.

[https://www.google.com/webhp?q=speed+cameras+persuasion+comp...](https://www.google.com/webhp?q=speed+cameras+persuasion+compulsion#q=speed+cameras+persuasion+compulsion)

A similar theory was used to great effect by King Frederick of Prussia to get
people to eat potatoes. Decrees did nothing to make people plant them, but
declaring the potato to be a royal food and nobody but the king could eat it
caused people to plant it either out of spite or a desire to flout the rules.
[http://www.historynet.com/ask-mhq-king-frederick-ii-of-
pruss...](http://www.historynet.com/ask-mhq-king-frederick-ii-of-prussia.htm)

~~~
maxerickson
I have not read that book, but the answer here sort of blows it up:

[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-
the-a...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-average-
american-unwittingly-commit-three-felonies-a-day/22536#22536)

(That too many things are crimes is probably something I agree with; that
accounting companies must only destroy documents according to retention
policies and not after they find out one of their clients is a giant fraud is
not something that worries me)

~~~
msandford
This is literally a real problem that Ohio has just taken steps to reform.

[http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/23/ohio-remembers-mens-
rea](http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/23/ohio-remembers-mens-rea)

~~~
maxerickson
My point was that the book you cite is apparently a terrible resource on the
issue. Which is material when you frame your statements so directly from it:
_even if the average American is in fact committing three felonies a day_.

------
whiddershins
I wish they would stick with it. This is the New York I grew up in, and loved
so much. I don't believe the broken windows theory, and i think Freakonomics
made a good statistical argument it is the number of police, rather than the
style, that reduces violent crime.

I think funding your government through tickets and summonses is hostile to
quality of life. And detainment or imprisonment for minor offenses is imho a
human rights violation.

So great.

------
nickbauman
NYPD, one of the largest municipal armies in history, has become a latter-day
Praetorian Guard. They have yet to stage a coup and appoint their own
Caracalla as emperor, however.

------
utefan001
Stopping the aggressive pursuit of people selling individual cigarettes would
be a good place to start. If cigarette taxes are too damn high, people will
find a cheaper way to smoke. Quit picking on poor people that smoke. Note: I
don't smoke or drink.

~~~
bequanna
If the cigarettes were purchased as a pack at a retail store, then resold
individually, the tax has already been paid.

>Quit picking on poor people that smoke.

Are you referring to cigarette taxes or the law banning the selling individual
cigarettes?

If the former, as a non-smoker, I do not wish to continue covering the cost of
health care for those that choose to smoke.

~~~
dllthomas
_" If the cigarettes were purchased as a pack at a retail store, then resold
individually, the tax has already been paid."_

Unless they were purchased in a jurisdiction without that tax.

------
hoggle
So is this a return to pre 9/11 or pre 1990s standards ("Broken Windows
Theory")?

~~~
wheelzr
It's a direct response to De Blasio's asking police to implement Broken
Windows policies. They are sending him the message they aren't taking his
orders anymore.

~~~
rev_bird
Which, to me, is the scary part of this whole thing. Before, it was only
implied that the police weren't accountable to anybody -- now they're
literally turning their back on the head of the municipal government.

~~~
korzun
Police is still accountable and are doing their job. If anything the extra
'cash' they generated was a 'favor' to the said municipal government.

They are actually doing you a huge favor. No more bullshit tickets at the end
of the month.

------
noer
and what are these police officers doing on duty while not arresting or
ticketing poeple: getting injured while riding on the hood of their cars:
[http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/nypd-rides-
hood...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/nypd-rides-hood-patrol-
car-brooklyn-article-1.2066644)

------
krschultz
I think it is a bit too soon to tell what will happen. Keep in mind it has
also been bitterly cold, crime is generally down when the weather is like this
no matter what.

~~~
pdabbadabba
It is bitterly cold this week, but it hasn't been the two weeks prior. And the
article itself includes the relevant reported crime statistics. They're down a
little from this week last year, but nothing like the decrease in summonses.

Check out the infographics.

------
fromtheoutside
You actually don't need police to collect parking tickets. Other countries
have specialized kinds of law enforcement forces to handle traffic.

~~~
krschultz
The NYPD actually has an entirely separate arm that handles parking tickets &
traffic enforcement. They don't have guns and can't arrest you. They also
drive around in silly 3 wheel cars.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_New_York_Ci...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_New_York_City_Police_Department#Traffic_Enforcement_District)

------
discardorama
All this back-turning, slowdown, etc. have more to do with the NYPD contract
renewal coming up. I hate to say this, but it looks to me that the unions are
politicizing the death of the two officers to gain leverage in the contract
negotiations.

~~~
korzun
The slain officer lived in my neighborhood. Every single officer I know was
impacted by this. They have 24/hour shifts guarding their house on their own
time and thousands of officers showed up to his funeral.

You sound extremely ignorant.

~~~
shit_parade
Funny how officers deem their lives worth more than the lives they take or
families they destroy with no accountability.

~~~
korzun
It's funny that you assume that. Given the amount of crime and interactions
they have, they are actually doing a pretty good job.

This is coming from a guy who got harassed by cops and filled formal complaint
that went no where.

Shit happens, you are out of your mind if you think any police in the world
that deals with so many people outside and inside multiple 'hoods' will have
better accountability.

Bubble.

------
donatj
Sounds like a better place to be right now.

------
peter303
I hope terrorists dont get any bold ideas. NY police are first line protection
at major events like New Years Eve.

