McCain and Crime
The heavy use of Rudy Giuliani as a national security surrogate for conservatives has been baffling me for years. He could have been the greatest mayor of any city throughout American history and that still wouldn’t have anything to do with foreign policy or the military. Using him as a crime control policy surrogate, by contrast, makes sense. Crime went down by a lot under his watch, and his policies had something to do with that. Unfortunately, the basis for his attack on Barack Obama has something to do with mandatory minimum sentencing which had nothing to do with the New York City crime drop. Meanwhile, Robert Gordon observes that John McCain opposes many policies that really did contribute to reducing crime in New York City. Maybe if McCain becomes president, Rudy can talk McCain into changing his mind about some of that stuff.
62 Responses to “McCain and Crime”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Unfortunately, the basis for his attack on Barack Obama has something to do with mandatory minimum sentencing which had nothing to do with the New York City crime drop.
And you know this, how?
According to this paper by Steven Levitt, the biggest cause of the dramatic decline in crime rates in the 1990s was the increase in the prison population. The effect applies to both violent crime and property crime.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Proposition: what Giuliani did in NYC led to crime drop.
Crime dropped in many cities during the same period but similar (if slightly lower) amounts.
Many cities followed different policies and practices than NYC under Giuliani and got similar results.
Alternatively: the whole nation experienced dramatic drop in crime during the 90’s, but Giuliani was only mayor of one city. Why do no other mayors get similar credit? Why should Giuliani get as little credit as every other mayor?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I don’t see how that relates to mandatory minimum sentencing as much as to the thousands of additional cops put on the beat under Clinton.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Does anyone even like Rudy? I’d be repulsed if I heard him spitting into my phone.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
There really isn’t any evidence that Giuliani’s policies caused the drop in crime in NYC. As the paper Mixner links to explains, the biggest factors in the 1990s crime reduction were:
(1) Increased prison population
(2) Increase in number of police
(3) Legalization of abortion
(4) End of the crack epidemic
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
A lot of the credit can be given to William Bratton, too, now the police chief of L.A.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Of course Freakanomics will argue that the drop in violent crime rate in the 90s was a result of Roe v Wade and not R. Giuliani. Of course there is also the point of view that it was rising equity in NYC and other big cities that really caused the decline in violent crime. Please everyone insert said unproven social theory here.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Crime was dropping for three years before Giuliani ever took office.
The truth is, the 90s on doesn’t represent some dramatic reduction in crime but a return to the pre- mid-60’s norm. And the reason is the reduction in lead in drinking water and the air. Look it up.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
… the biggest cause of the dramatic decline in crime rates in the 1990s was the increase in the prison population.
And this was achieved how?
Let’s see, maybe the increase in police force(s), which might have had something to do with increasing the size of the prison population. And maybe Bill Bratton had something to do with the drop, too.
But mandatory minimum sentencing, which had been around since Rocky (~1973)? Yeah, and the CRA caused the subprime meltdown, right?
Or not.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I don’t see how that relates to mandatory minimum sentencing as much as to the thousands of additional cops put on the beat under Clinton.
Do please show us your data on the share of the increased prison population that is attributable to “thousands of additional cops put on the beat under Clinton.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Adam Villani -
Damn you! You took advantage of my inability to backcheck and type swiftly. Commie!
Anyway: Bratton did a pretty good job in Boston, too.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Let’s see, maybe the increase in police force(s), which might have had something to do with increasing the size of the prison population.
Levitt estimates the contribution of “increases in the number of police” and “increases in the population population” as independent factors. He presents the findings in Table 5. To summarize: increases in the prison population contributed more than twice as much to the drop in crime as increases in the number of police. The confidence estimate is also higher for the prison finding.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Joe the Logician and Freddie are correct. That doesn’t mean that Rudy and his policies had nothing to do with the drop of crime in NYC. Much as I detest him, I suspect Rudy did have some positive impact on crime rates. But Rudy got built up into a legendary crime fighter, which he was not.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I’m still waiting for you to tell us if you think secretary of defense Gates has contempt for America.
I don’t have any numbers; my thinking is that mandatory minimum sentencing doesn’t do nearly as much to put *more* people behind bars as does increasing the number of police, who arrest people and put them on track to be put behind bars.
Sure, increasing sentences will keep convicts in prison longer, thus increasing the prison population (eventually) but it seems to me that arresting more criminals is a better way to do so.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Your idea intrigues me. Do go on.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Yes, crime went down everywhere in the early and mid-90s, but it went down much, much more dramatically in NYC. New York is now the safest major city in the U.S. (wikipedia was the only source I have time to find now, so I apologize for the lack of documentation). So even relative to other cities, NYC did a great job. How much of that is because of Rudy is obviously open to debate. The 40th anniversary issue of New York Magazine has some great articles on the early Rudy era, and their conclusion seems to be, Rudy deserves a lot of the credit. He didn’t come up with the policies, but he was the guy in charge and he let Bratton and the other smart people do what they needed to do.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
As much as I hate mandatory minimums, it stands to reason that they would decrease crime. I think it’s inexcusable to send anyone to jail for any period of time for possession, sale or manufacture of any drug. However, if you do send drug users to jail, you’re taking those people out of the general population. People arrested for drug crimes are generally low-SES, which means they’re more likely to commit violent crimes. The longer you put them in prison, the more time they’re locked away and can’t commit other crimes. As I said, it’s a terrible method of crime control, but it’s probably somewhat effective.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
If I recall, legislation under Mayor Dinkins allowed for there to be a substantial increase in the number of police hired and on the streets . . . combine that with Bill Bratton and the first use of compu-stat (which tracks hot crime areas and puts rookies there on patrol in greater numbers) in a major city are what brought crime down.
Bratton deserves credit for it, as that he began this before Rudy arrived, and afterward Bratton was gotten rid of, Rudy often made situations much worse (civilian shootings were way up, Diallo was at this time, among others) with his often racist politics.
the next police commissioner was Howard Safir, who was a disaster, and after that Bernie Kerik, and we know his background.
Rudy does not deserve credit for cleaning the city up . . . he was in the right place at the right time.
Just my opinion, of course.
On a side note – At a rally before the election, Rudy’s supporters referred to Dinkins as a “bathroom attendant” – due to the color of Dinkins’s skin.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I think it’s inexcusable to send anyone to jail for any period of time for possession, sale or manufacture of any drug.
I think your view is insane.
The longer you put them in prison, the more time they’re locked away and can’t commit other crimes.
Right. That’s incapacitation. Another way in which longer prison sentences may reduce crime is through enhancing deterrence.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I realize I didn’t leave an example of what I consider to be Rudy’s ham-handed racist police politics – and for that I’d simply point people to the sad case of Patrick Dorismond (sp?) – a security guard who was approached by an undercover cop. The undercover cop tried to sell PD some drugs. PD, who wanted to become a cop someday, resisted and got aggressive with who he thought was a drug dealer.
The undercover signaled for help, and his backup showed up and shot PD to death.
A tragic, wrongful death. PD’s family maintained he did nothign wrong, and Rudy got on the television telling us PD was a criminal and as proof, holding up PD’s juvie record (which is legally supposed to be sealed when one turns 18) and telling us PD was a scum and deserved what he got.
PD was African American.
It was a terrible example of Rudy’s racial myopia when it comes to policing.
Again, just my opinion.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Suggesting that the decline in crime is the work of any one person –especially Giuliani–is ridiculous. We had an economic boom, and a succession of 3 Mayors & 4 Commissioners who did a lot of good stuff. And, to their credit, they largely built upon the successes of their predecessors rather than throwing stuff out because it was someone else’s idea.
Crime in NYC started to fall under Lee Brown’s community policing, when Dinkins was mayor. It continued to go down under Ray Kelly, who was also appointed by Dinkins, and who is also the Commissioner today (Bloomberg appointed him in ‘02). Went down also under Bratton and Safir, and stayed low under the one year of the crooked Bernie Kerik. Since Kelly came back, it’s stayed low in spite of the fact that it’s climbing in many other places.
And sorry, saying crime fell because “[Guiliani] was the guy in charge and he let Bratton and the other smart people do what they needed to do” is ridiculous. Giuliani famously FIRED Bratton because he was jealous Bratton got so much credit for the crime drop. What kind of leadership is that?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I think your view is insane.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Mixner, I know it’s “incapacitation.” That doesn’t make it defensible. Anytime you jail people who are more likely to commit crimes than the general public, you’ll reduce the crime rate. You could just decide to give anyone who doesn’t have a high-school diploma a 10-year prison sentence, and that would reduce the crime rate, too. It doesn’t make it a good idea.
Was Dorismond the one of whom Rudy said, “he was no choir boy,” and then it turned out that he was, literally, a choir boy? That would have been hilarious, except for the fact that Dorismond was killed for no good reason.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Well, it’s you against the world. As far as I’m aware, every nation on the planet incarcerates people for possessing, selling and/or manufacturing drugs.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Yes, you heard it here first: there’s no such thing as a stupid or unjust law. If every nation incarcerates drug users, it must be a good idea.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Are you done burning that strawman yet, steves?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
The Rockafeller drug laws have been around since 1973. If mandatory sentencing is so awesome, why the long delay before the crime rate dropped?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
So that wasn’t your implication when you pointed out that every nation imprisons drug users/sellers? I assumed you were citing that fact as a point in favor of prohibition. If not, it’s kind of a non sequiter (sp?).
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
So that wasn’t your implication when you pointed out that every nation imprisons drug users/sellers?
Nothing I wrote implied that I think that if every country does X, X “must” be a good idea. And you’ve changed X, too. In your original statement, you referred to the “possession, sale or manufacture” of drugs. That’s the statement I responded to. Yet in your response to me, you referred only to “drug users,” conveniently omitting what are generally considered the more serious crimes of selling and manufacturing drugs that you had originally referred to. So not only did you attribute to me a position I did not express, you moved the goalposts at the same time.
Care you offer an argument in support of your view that incarcerating people for “possession, sale or manufacture of any drug” is “inexcusable?” Not merely misguided or unwarranted, but “inexcusable.” Not merely certain drugs, but “any” drug. Not merely lengthy periods of incarceration, but any jail time at all, no matter how short.
The extreme and dogmatic nature of your position does not inspire confidence that it is the product of rational and informed analysis of drug policy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Blah,
Levitt’s contention that Roe v. Wade decreased violent crime is dubious at best. Levitt assumed, without proof, that Roe v. Wade led to a decreased in unwanted births. That seems logical, and may in fact have been true in the short term, but as Akerlof points out it was probably false in the long run. Legalized abortion probably lead to an increase in illegitimate births.
Too Many Steves,
I hate to take Mixner’s side, but drug dealers are scum of the earth, at least the ones who deal in anything harder than marijuana. I wouldn’t really object if large-scale drug dealers were sent to the firing squad, the same as child rapists should be. To argue that drug dealers should legally be left alone to ply their trade is simply evil.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
As someone who grew up in Brooklyn during Koch, Dinkins, and Rudy, I certainly can’t prove that he caused a reduction in crime, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Other East Coast cities, Baltimore, DC, Philly, did not see the immediate and drastic drop in crime that New York did. Maybe Rudy got more credit than he deserved, I buy that, but give him credit: how many mayors and local pols have campaigned on reducing crime and miserably failed to deliver?
Of course, as Matt points out, it is ridiculous to hold him up as some sort of National security expert. But, and as much as I disagree with him on political issues, New York became a better place to live while he was in charge. When you live in a marginal neighborhood in a dysfunctionally run city, you realize what a big deal it is to have a mayor who is dedicated to actually letting the cops do their jobs. He and Bratton deserve credit for a job well done.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
the 90s on doesn’t represent some dramatic reduction in crime but a return to the pre- mid-60’s norm. And the reason is the reduction in lead in drinking water and the air. Look it up.
What else happened from the pre-to-mid-60s? The baby-boomers had not yet reached their prime crime-committing age.
To compare the relative effectiveness of NYC’s anti-crime policies, while it is true that many cities saw a fall in crime, in the early 00s, the crime rate started to tick upwards around the country (perhaps one can attribute it to a Gen Y/Millenial baby boom hitting their crime-committing years). NYC was one of the few cities that did not see a substantial uptick in the violent crime rate. So even though there were systemic reasons for NYC’s fall in crime, NYC did have some unique features and/or anti-crime measures which prevented it from suffering the same rise in crime that other cities had when those systemic effects changed.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 am
I don’t have time right now to get into the full anti-prohibition argument, but Hector’s attitude is both common and baffling. I know many people who use drugs themselves, who buy their drugs from drug dealers, and who think selling drugs is horrible and should be punishable by severe jail time. This makes no sense to me. If it’s ok to buy drugs, how is not at least as ok to sell them? Yes, it would be better to buy drugs from a legal and licensed source, but since we don’t have those, you buy your drugs from a drug dealer. There are good ones and bad ones, honest ones and assholes. The fact that they sell drugs is morally neutral — or at least as neutral as the act of buying drugs.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 am
I know many people who use drugs themselves, who buy their drugs from drug dealers, and who think selling drugs is horrible and should be punishable by severe jail time. This makes no sense to me. If it’s ok to buy drugs, how is not at least as ok to sell them?
It’s not “ok” to buy drugs, but it is worse to sell them because drug sellers cause more harm than drug buyers.
I’d still like you to give us a clear explanation of why you think it is “inexcusable” to put people in jail for dealing or manufacturing drugs (”any drug”). Do you deny that drugs are harmful at all? Or do you think the harm is small? Or do you think the harm is just irrelevant no matter how severe? Or what?
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 am
Mixner, it is a fact that, when presented with the freedom to do so, people have chosen to consume recreational drugs. Over time, young people have migrated from a non-drug-taking-lifestyle towards a drug-taking one. I don’t see why you’re advocating that the government spend tax dollars to subsidize the non-recreational-drug-taking lifestyle.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:07 am
Rudy Giuliani: Taking a bite out of crime — and then anally raping it with a nightstick.
Yes, Sen. McCain, grab some of that magic dust and sprinkle it on your campaign.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 am
And Rudy’s homeland security bona-fides really boil down to a single decision: To look at the only place in the US attacked by foreign terrorists — the World Trade Center — and decide, “yeah, that’s where I want to put NYC’s emergency response headquarters, in the place where the terrorists boasted while in custody that their comrades would destroy.
Good plan, Rudy.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
You know there was a time before he was Mayor. While he never points this out, and his record was kind of
, he was the Associate Attorney General under Reagan. Some of his most famous instances are the Haitian refuges and the crack down on Americans that were breaking the Iranian embargo. Both of these required a massive understanding of the foreign policy issues.
He certainly acts like he’s pants-on-head stupid, but that’s because Republican foreign policy is stupid, not because he’s unaware of the issues. Outside of someone who served in the Bush administration he probably has the most real ‘technocratic’ foreign policy experience of any Republican politician. I suspect the fact that this narrative doesn’t get out more is because he’s a good enough politician to avoid building into the Republican elitism narrative. He already has enough problems, adding “an elite lawyer who snuggled with dictators to enforce Reagan’s foreign policy” wouldn’t help.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 am
Re: If it’s ok to buy drugs, how is not at least as ok to sell them?
It isn’t OK to buy them, genius. It’s morally wrong, although less wrong than to sell them. The law should reflect that fact, at the very least through some kind of mandatory rehabilitation if we decide that actual jail time would be unwarranted. And I don’t buy drugs, by the way, and don’t really know anyone who does.
Re: I don’t see why you’re advocating that the government spend tax dollars to subsidize the non-recreational-drug-taking lifestyle.
Because I’m not a classical liberal, nor a libertarian. I think that some ways of leading one’s life are intrinsically better than others, and that the law should try to promote those ways of life that are higher, and suppress those that are lower.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
The argument that prosperity is responsible for at least some, and possibly much of the reduction in crime would explain the particularly large decline in crime in NY. NY city experienced an incredibly large influx of wealth during the stock market boom. The amount of money traders were making and spending in NY was not negligible compared to state GDP. A bit of it was spent in a way that boosts employment levels and wages in low paying service sector jobs. NY city should have experienced a greater reduction in crime than other cities.
An interesting test of this will be what happens in the next few years. If the market stays low, we could see crime in NY increase more than in other big cities. Even if the market climbs at a slow rate, rather than having a bounce back, we could see this.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Matt andcommenters make the elementary error that when Giuliani is talking about crime on a robocall, he’s actually talking about crime. Every Republican candidate from Nixon forward when talking about crime, has used it as code for “blacks.” I’m surprised it took McCain this long.
Oh, and what’s calling Obama’s tax credits “welfare” about?
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Tyro,
Mixner, it is a fact that, when presented with the freedom to do so, people have chosen to consume recreational drugs.
“People” obviously choose to do lots of things that harm themselves and others. So what? Why does that mean criminalizing drug possession/sale/manufacture is wrong?
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
And I don’t buy drugs, by the way, and don’t really know anyone who does.
This reminds me of people who say, “I’ve never met a homosexual.” Unless you don’t leave the house much, you probably know people who use illegal drugs.
Anyway, Mixner, I don’t really know if “drugs,” in the general sense, are harmful. Drugs have always been with us in some form or another, and they probably always will be. They’re harmful sometimes, they’re beneficial sometimes, they’re neutral sometimes. It depends on how they’re used, and it depends on which drug you’re talking about. Certainly, most people who use drugs, legal and illegal, don’t suffer serious harm. And, I think the people who do suffer great harm from drug use would suffer less harm if the drugs they use were legal. The regulatory regimes we have for alcohol and tobacco, while not perfect, are far better than the ones we have for other drugs. Certainly, the burden of proof should be on the prohibitionists, because their approach is the one that leads to the cops shooting 90-year-old grandmothers in their own homes and then planting drugs in the house. I think that’s something we should be trying a little harder to avoid.
Here is a good column in the LA Times, by Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine, that gives the outline of the case against prohibition. Sullum has a book on the topic, too.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Anyway, Mixner, I don’t really know if “drugs,” in the general sense, are harmful.
Obviously, not all drugs are harmful if used in certain ways. Pharmaceutical drugs obviously produce great benefits. We’re obviously talking about what are generally called “recreational drugs” here. And in particular, “hard” drugs such as heroin, crack, meth, cocaine, etc. consumed for non-therapeutic purposes. You’re seriously claiming these drugs are not harmful, are you?
Drugs have always been with us in some form or another, and they probably always will be.
So what? So have things like murder and rape and theft. Does that mean we should decriminalize them?
Certainly, most people who use drugs, legal and illegal, don’t suffer serious harm.
Please produce your evidence for this claim. And even if it’s true, again, so what? “Most” people who drive drunk probably don’t cause serious accidents. “Most” building code violations probably don’t cause serious harm. Do you think that means we should repeal laws against drunk driving and get rid of building codes?
And, I think the people who do suffer great harm from drug use would suffer less harm if the drugs they use were legal.
Again, where is your evidence to support this hypothesis? Even if it’s true, the total amount of harm is obviously not just a matter of harm-per-user but the number of users too. If repealing drugs laws greatly increased the number of drug users it could obviously cause enormous harm even if it were beneficial to current drug users.
regulatory regimes we have for alcohol and tobacco, while not perfect, are far better than the ones we have for other drugs.
Well, make up your mind. We do in fact have laws regulating the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco, and we put people in jail for violating those laws. This is what you called “inexcusable.”
You seriously believe, do you, that heroin, crack, meth etc. should be freely available for sale, in unlimited quantities, to any ordinary adult who wants them? A “hard drugs” aisle in every supermarket? Heroin and crack ads on billboards and TV, generating legions of new addicts every year?
Here is a good column in the LA Times, by Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine, that gives the outline of the case against prohibition.
So you’re a libertarian, now, are you? Sullum provides not one iota of evidence to support his empirical claims about the effects of repealing drug laws.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Yes, Mixner, I am a libertarian. Sullum’s column there is short and doesn’t have a lot of backing info, but his book is well-researched and well-footnoted. That’s where I got the fact that most users aren’t abusers, though I don’t have the book handy and I can’t cite the source right now.
Well, make up your mind. We do in fact have laws regulating the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco, and we put people in jail for violating those laws. This is what you called “inexcusable.”
Can you really not tell the difference between a substance that’s legal and regulated, like booze, and one that’s illegal, like pot or heroin? Yes, people do occasionally get busted for breaking our liquor laws, but I’m not aware of anybody doing life for repeated booze-dealing convictions. And you certainly don’t see the violent black market that you see with substances that are completely illegal.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Can you really not tell the difference between a substance that’s legal and regulated, like booze, and one that’s illegal, like pot or heroin?
The question doesn’t make much sense. The nature of the substance does not depend on the laws regulating it. There’s no difference between the substances of alcohol and heroin attributable to laws.
Yes, people do occasionally get busted for breaking our liquor laws, but I’m not aware of anybody doing life for repeated booze-dealing convictions.
You’re moving the goalposts again. You said “I think it’s inexcusable to send anyone to jail for any period of time for possession, sale or manufacture of any drug.” Not just for “life.” For “any period of time.”
And you certainly don’t see the violent black market that you see with substances that are completely illegal.
And you don’t see as much addiction to illegal drugs as you do alcoholism and nicotine addiction. That probably has something to do with the fact that illegal drugs are much harder to obtain than alcohol and tobacco by virtue of being illegal.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Too Many Steves,
I know a teenage kid whose intellectual and psychological development have been permanently impaired, for life, because his mom used crack when she was pregnant with him. Go tell him, and his friends and family, that hard drugs are A-OK.
Your de facto presumption appears to be that people should be allowed to destroy their own lives if they so choose, and to have other people sell them the means to do so. But since I don’t share your premises about self-ownership and liberty, I don’t see why I should accept your conclusions. It’s hard for me to see how “Love your neighbor as yourself” implies that you should allow your neighbor to become a crack addict if he chooses.
We were talking about hard drugs, I believe. I do know plenty of people who make recreational use of marijuana or, occasionally, abuse prescription drugs, but those aren’t the point at issue.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 5:43 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
March 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Haha ^^ nice, is there a section to follow the RSS feed
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:03 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra