Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The 98-percent Conundrum
I've been wondering about this John Street-ism for some time. A small bit of back story: Our fine Mayor went on the record last month saying that 98% of homicide victims in the city were intentional victims. Tom Waring of the Northeast Times wrote:
"And, more than half of the murders have taken place indoors — making it virtually impossible to prevent.In fact, Street said 98 percent of the murders in 2006 were “victim specific,” meaning the killer targeted the deceased."
I don't know what about that number gives me such pause, but it stuck in my head ever since I saw the snippet of the news conference, given in part to feature Street's pushback against Lynnie Abraham and a few mayoral candidates who were harping on the murder rate and hawking various 'for-our-own-good' pseudo-draconian solutions.
Maybe because its such a high figure. . . so close, not perfect, but just shy--reminding me of the elctoral victories in banana republic police states or any authoritarian regime featuring a cheap veneer of democracy. "Why of course there's dissent, comrade bourgeois journalista, just look at the results."
The figure also harkens back toVietnam press gaggles where the journalists began to realize after months of mind-numbing monotone reports, that US and ARVN forces never, in any day anyone could recall, killed the enemy in quantities ending in 0 or 5. "US troops killed 23 NVA regulars, wounded 16, and killed 31 suspected Vietcong in action outside of Phuc Yieu today." etc etc etc. Just so perfect and consistent as to be a bit suspicious.
BUT, this is indeed a highly important number for us, this 98%. So where does it come from and what does it include? At first glance it would seem to really empower premeditated murderers. But who is included in that? When Faheem Thomas Childs was gunned down, there was an actual 'intended' victim of a hit on the other side of that path of bullets that strayed into the path of yet another yound dead 'unintended' victim. Is he .98 or .2 in the tally? And of course we can't deny that such a pronouncement by the Mayor has intended implications for 'good people in good neighborhoods' with a fine coating of 'white people' glossed over that as well. It's "those" people who are killing one another in "their" neighborhoods.
Yet, hey, there are also serious policy considerations here. Where we best direct our efforts, for one. If Street's numbers are correct, then a flood of police placing curfews on certain high-crime areas will have only little impact at the expense of lots of dollars that we don't have. If Street's figures are right it would justify more direct intervention, profiling, looking at rescidivists with marked histories of violence and revenge, more parole officers and mentors rather than squad cars and checkpoints.
We need to approach this the right way to be successful. So are Street's numbers correct? That is the starting point.
I've been wondering about this John Street-ism for some time. A small bit of back story: Our fine Mayor went on the record last month saying that 98% of homicide victims in the city were intentional victims. Tom Waring of the Northeast Times wrote:
"And, more than half of the murders have taken place indoors — making it virtually impossible to prevent.In fact, Street said 98 percent of the murders in 2006 were “victim specific,” meaning the killer targeted the deceased."
I don't know what about that number gives me such pause, but it stuck in my head ever since I saw the snippet of the news conference, given in part to feature Street's pushback against Lynnie Abraham and a few mayoral candidates who were harping on the murder rate and hawking various 'for-our-own-good' pseudo-draconian solutions.
Maybe because its such a high figure. . . so close, not perfect, but just shy--reminding me of the elctoral victories in banana republic police states or any authoritarian regime featuring a cheap veneer of democracy. "Why of course there's dissent, comrade bourgeois journalista, just look at the results."
The figure also harkens back toVietnam press gaggles where the journalists began to realize after months of mind-numbing monotone reports, that US and ARVN forces never, in any day anyone could recall, killed the enemy in quantities ending in 0 or 5. "US troops killed 23 NVA regulars, wounded 16, and killed 31 suspected Vietcong in action outside of Phuc Yieu today." etc etc etc. Just so perfect and consistent as to be a bit suspicious.
BUT, this is indeed a highly important number for us, this 98%. So where does it come from and what does it include? At first glance it would seem to really empower premeditated murderers. But who is included in that? When Faheem Thomas Childs was gunned down, there was an actual 'intended' victim of a hit on the other side of that path of bullets that strayed into the path of yet another yound dead 'unintended' victim. Is he .98 or .2 in the tally? And of course we can't deny that such a pronouncement by the Mayor has intended implications for 'good people in good neighborhoods' with a fine coating of 'white people' glossed over that as well. It's "those" people who are killing one another in "their" neighborhoods.
Yet, hey, there are also serious policy considerations here. Where we best direct our efforts, for one. If Street's numbers are correct, then a flood of police placing curfews on certain high-crime areas will have only little impact at the expense of lots of dollars that we don't have. If Street's figures are right it would justify more direct intervention, profiling, looking at rescidivists with marked histories of violence and revenge, more parole officers and mentors rather than squad cars and checkpoints.
We need to approach this the right way to be successful. So are Street's numbers correct? That is the starting point.
Comments:
Post a Comment
