I started this post originally as a comment on this thread over at Cruiser's blog. He's made several posts lately about the crime problem, so without trying to disagree or rebut what he's saying, I thought I'd take my too-long comment and make it into a post of my own. As usual, I'll preface this by saying I fully agree that Davenport has a crime problem, but disagree about some of the things being said about it.
There was some discussion about Sheriff Joe down in Arizona's Maricopa county. Basically, I said that his tough love brand of Sheriff-ing must not be working too great, because crime is terrible down there. The bad parts of the Phoenix metro make the worst parts of the QC look like luxury housing. I've spent at least a week down there every year for the last 5 or 6 years, and some areas are pretty rough. Someone asked for stats, and Cruiser posted them, showing that per capita, Davenport is worse than Phoenix on some crimes. Murder was one of the few that Phoenix was worse in, even taking population into account.
The fact that even per-capita they have more murders than us is the scariest part. Murders tend to look the worst for smaller towns, because it only takes a few, divided among a smaller number of people, to look quite bad. For example, if McCausland, Iowa (population 300) had 1 murder last year, it would be 5000 murders in Phoenix terms. According to Cruiser's stats, Phoenix only had 220 murders. Obviously Davenport is no McCausland, but the same kind of distortion can happen.
The fact is, stats can only show so much. Crimes that go unreported don't count at all in the UCR index, small towns' per capita crimes can provide distorted pictures, etc. It doesn't take statistics to know we have a crime problem, because its obvious just from living in Davenport. Stats tell us what we already know, and they give no help on solving the problem.
For example, stats don't tell us how nearly all of Davenport's murder victims in the last several years knew their killer. I honestly can't think of a murder in the last 3 years where they weren't associates or enemies. If you don't hang out with drug dealers, gang members, or insane teenagers, you have almost no chance of being murdered in Davenport. However, bullets don't care who they hit, so the rest of us can't sit back and say "let them kill each other off," because our kids could be killed by a stray round. Its just a complicated problem. If juries decide to turn loose people as bad as Pachino Hill, something's wrong with us (or our peers) too.
And for the record, I feel much safer here, and would MUCH rather work as a cop in the QC area than the Phoenix area. The fact that even lower-to-middle class families have burglar alarms should tell you something about people's feelings of safety in the PHX area.
As far as the Guardian Angels, Cruiser asked why Bill Davis would possibly be against them coming to Davenport's aid. I would guess that he's wary because its essentially a group of people who are at best amateurs, and at worst, cop wannabes or vigilantes, trying to "help" with the crime problem. If these people simply stand watch and call the police when they see a crime, there would be few problems besides how well a red-bereted "Angel" would play with a jury as a witness.
However, if this is all they're going to be, we already have the VIPS program. Why not just expand that program, which provides volunteers to patrol the skybridge, downtown, or other fairly safe areas, therefore freeing up cops to spend more time in the places that need them. If the Guardian Angels do anything beyond whipping out a cell phone and calling the police, such as apprehending people and making citizens' arrests, you've got a whole slew of possible legal trouble and liabilities. Expanding the VIPS program beyond the senior citizen activity that it currently is seems like a great idea, but when it comes to guys wearing berets marching down the street, we have to think twice.
15 comments:
Good post QCI and you are right that statistics can be misleading. The reason I used them are because they get people's attention. I feel safe here also, but my wife doesn't, and that bothers me. As long as people are talking about crime and trying to find solutions we are on the same page.
"you've got a whole slew of possible legal trouble and liabilities."
Who does? Not the city. The guardian angels might run into problems, but so what? A two bit crook has a cause of action for some minor assault against someone in a beret. But the crook is caught. I'll take that.
Has there been an honest study showing that the GAs make crimes worse? I'll grant that I know of no study showing the GAs make any differnce, but again, so what? The only ones out anything are the GAs. Public law enforcement doesn't like them because their presence is an indication of departmental failure, the GAs are a form of competition. It's embarassing to have a handful of amateurs make a difference in crime stats that an entire department can't seem to effect.
I would say that if the city or county law enforcement people gave any word of endorsement of this group, they'd be sued if something terrible happened. It doesn't have to be a good case to sue, and sometimes juries do strange things. I just don't see the need for it when we've already got our Volunteers In Police Service (VIPS). Just expand that group if there's need for more volunteers.
I say bring in the Guardian Angels. I dude in a beret with a cell phone is more intimidating to a punk than granny with a cell phone.
QCI, I still don't see how a group of people with 27 years experience, martial arts, legal, and first aid training can be a liability. If they have to study law to become a member and know CPR its a win-win to me. Even their leader Curtis Sliwa was shot in 1993 and continues the work. The only negative may be if they charged a huge fee for their services. But with the city council flying in experts to tell them how to play well together, it's still better than nothing.
From what I read, they'd be training local folks to do the actual Guardian-ing... so the people on the street wouldn't have all the experience of the group leaders. Like I said in the main post, if all these guys do is observe and report, it would probably be fine. Their site isn't exactly overflowing with info on exactly what their "Safety Patrols" do during a shift, and I guess that makes me uneasy.
Years and years ago I watched a piece on them on "60 Minutes". They basically do what a "beat cop" would do. They get to know the neighborhood and act as a deterent to thugs. I don't know why they would make you uneasy. I have to walk home in the dark in the central city and get heckled and harassed by certain types hanging out on porches and in the middle of the street. I'd feel much more AT ease knowing someone who knows martial arts is watching my back. The police can't be everywhere.
QCI - can you provide an easy link the Cruisers blog on your site too?
Amazing the contrast in how the QC area looks. The Dateline story on Saturday portrayed this area as small and off the beaten path. Some city leaders see us inner city New York.
Maybe if the Angels keep the street crime in check, cameras handle the traffic enforcement, the police can spend time on the murders and domestic disputes.
Once you have the Guardian angels here there will be a dependence on them. Here to stay.
I think Ald. Lynn would look cute in a red beret !
The other thing that makes Cruiser's statistics unreliable is the use of just Davenport's population as the denominator. The criminals come from both sides of the river and from every town. Try the numbers using 360,000 as the denominator rather than 100,000 and the outcomes are very different. Do we need to keep doing better? Of course, but this is a very safe place to live, work and play.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. - Disraeli
Great to say expand VIPS, but that program has costs the city wont or cant maintain now. We were getting a coordinator very cheaply with Americorps money now that's gone. Forget expand when we can't even keep what we started. Whats the cost to have GA here?
One way to get the neighbors to want to keep and eye on things is to listen to them and help them when they call for help. Meaning, when a neighbor reports a crime or a thug like circus causing crime, then the city should take them seriously and help them. As it stands, we cannot get a single person in the city to take action. The records are not available and not one department is connected to the other. So, when a person has a problem, not one department offers the solution and then it gets lost. For example, a peoperty can be nuisance abated for say debris, but if there is thigs causing problems (loitering drugs, music,etc.) then the records are just not made. People get refered to DPD who handles things one at a time instead of helping create the ever important record needed to gte a long term fix to a problem.
This one idea may single handedly save Davenport! The GAs started mostly in New York City, and helped pull the crime rate down with cooperation of City Government. Today, New York City has the LOWEST crime rate of any major City in America. We need the GAs in this town. Alderman Lynn should be commended, because if the crime rate goes down, the value of housing will go up, there will be less drug dealing and less slum lords and more tax revenue etc. It is about time we take care of the terrible crime in Davenport. Welcome Guardian Angels!!!!
Conservative Demo here:
Despite how cynical this will sound to the do-gooder element on here, I will say that I will never again report ongoing problems which I may observe. I'm referring in general to the destructive things adolescents are daily doing to our park buildings, structures, and equipment.
When I call DPD on their non-9-1-1 line I am treated like a leper and a cop never does show up anyway.
So from my point of view the arrogant little shits are going to break down all the doors they want, bust up all the picnic tables their filthy hearts desire, and whatever else their mothers and fathers taught them is OK because societal rules and mores are only for the meek and weak. I will turn my back and just see-notting like Sgt Schulz.
Post a Comment