Crime doesn't pay

I just found out a friend of mine got shot three times in the stomach last night in my neighborhood during a mugging. He's in the hospital, possibly facing major surgery.

This seems like a terrible time to launch into a diatribe on gun control, so I'd appreciate it if no one in the comments did, no matter what side you're one--indeed, I'll delete the comment promptly if you do. But it seems like a very good time to launch into a diatribe on the low quality of DC policing. DC has a lot of cops, a lot of wealth, and no excuse for its extraordinarily high crime rate. I was born on 94th Street and Broadway at a time when the Upper West Side above 86th street was considered a no-go zone by the town's wealthier inhabitants. My father worked for the mayor during the blackout and associate crime wave, yet my mother has never felt as unsafe as she has since moving here.

Hell, I've lived in West Philadelphia during its 90s nadir. I've never felt as unsafe in a place as I do in DC. Almost everyone I know here has had some sort of personal contact with a criminal intent on robbing them, whether successfully or not. I'm lucky that I live near a well-lighted street--but frankly, the sheer menacing stupidity of a criminal who trails two people several blocks isn't reassuring, it's frightening. The fact that he thinks this tactic might work speaks to a certain lawless aura in the city. And I live in the safe part.

When DC does try to "do something", it's something stupid and quasi-fascist like locking down neighborhoods instead of putting more cops on the beat and using the advanced police tactics that are now the norm in every other city. From what I know, Fenty seems like a better mayor than DC's previous disasters, but the city government remains corrupt and incompetent. No one should have to spend their lives feeling this afraid.

Comments

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. I hope that he is able to recover quickly.

Aaron

Posted by Aaron | July 2, 2008 10:58 AM

Corrupt? I think Fenty is fair game for criticism, but I haven't heard anyone charge that his administration is corrupt. Please explain.

Posted by Brendan | July 2, 2008 11:01 AM

The hell with dc, I would never live there and I can't even drive into town to have a drink for fear of getting thrown in JAIL under their zero-tolerance policy.

Washington really embodies practically everything that is wrong with our tax-eating big cities and their feudal governments. It is so wrong and so nearly hopeless; the only way it could possibly turn around is if the whole city gentrifies the way Manhattan has, but the sheer physical peril of living in The District drives away many of the well-off, and the punitive taxes and pathetic services don't help much either.

I would love to live in a city but until we can get past the whole problem of getting followed around by bigass scary thugs and not being ALLOWED to carry my own gun -- that is to say, never -- I will continue to pursue my environment-destroying big-box big car nine millimeter red meat exurban way of life.

Sorry about your friend, Megan. You mentioned considering buying a house a while ago. Do think about buying a car and moving to Virginia, the Mother of our Country. You won't get jacked.

Posted by grrgle | July 2, 2008 11:09 AM

One thing I liked about Chicago: the criminals lived in fear of the cops. (The downside was everyone else was just a little nervous around said cops.)

I lived there 6 years and never once felt the city was under-policed. It may have been corrupt and slow, but not under-policed.

Those Daleys know something about law enforcement, it seems, even if they are not so big on the rule of law.

Posted by Spartee | July 2, 2008 11:10 AM

I second the prior comment. It's time to move.

Posted by Peter | July 2, 2008 11:13 AM

Very sorry to hear that, Megan.

Sounds like you need a Mayor Daley out there, where at least the corruption is competent and able to lower crime, but I'm not sure what the answer is. It's a disgrace that our Nation's capital is so unsafe.

Posted by Ferrell | July 2, 2008 11:15 AM

All my prayers for your friend, Megan.

Posted by Jason Van Steenwyk | July 2, 2008 11:15 AM

Sorry to hear about your friend.

However, until crime becomes a major campaign issue ,(as in the pols fear losing their jobs unless it is addressed), it will remain a problem. As you've pointed out crime can be addressed aas it has been in many places, (see NYC). So, my guess is that either the powers that be find an advantage in high crime and the fear it generates or they just don't care.

Posted by Mike G. | July 2, 2008 11:17 AM

Sorry to hear about your friend, and I agree with everything grrgle wrote.

Posted by Esher Fern Gamble | July 2, 2008 11:21 AM

The problem with DC was the problem with NYC, Chicago etc. Too many criminals near the victims. I am a lifelong Chicagoan. The crime rate for the city is higher than many places yet it does not reach the middle and upper classes, mostly due to segregation. I don't go to bad neighborhoods and criminals are arrested/roughed up if they go to good neighborhoods. The downside: life REALLY sucks to be poor. Crimes are mostly done by minority young men 15-35. (and if you think that is racist, go to Cook County jail and look around. I have.) By virtue of being a racist town the white population gets to feel good about living relatively crime free - but the minority communities suffer greatly. Also, white people don't get busted for drug crimes at anything near the rate as minorities, mostly due to racism but also a wealth gap - richer white folks can do drugs in their own apartments, poor black folks do it on the street because they live with Mom.

Posted by Emo Cobb | July 2, 2008 11:37 AM

Megan, I’m horrified to hear about what happened to your friend. He’ll be in my family’s thoughts and prayers hoping for as swift and as complete a recovery as possible.

Posted by Thorley Winston | July 2, 2008 11:38 AM

Our neighborhood wasn't as safe as all that Meg. I mean, we were kids and our parents were young and didn't go out much. I am sure that if you were only to go out once in a while and mostly stayed at home you would feel a heck of a lot safer.

But you are also right, DC has too many different policy forces, not enough foot traffic and there seems to be no effort to gentrify the areas which are scary.

Please give my best to your friend.

Posted by Kate | July 2, 2008 11:46 AM

I was born on 94th Street and Broadway at a time when the Upper West Side above 86th street was considered a no-go zone by the town's wealthier inhabitants.

Did you write this while being fanned and fed pealed grapes?

Posted by Learned Hand | July 2, 2008 11:48 AM

At the risk of being a heretic, I suggest that D.C. doesn't need more cops.

D.C. needs fewer criminals.

The cops put the goblins in jail every chance they get - it's the judges the citizens elect and the juries citizens sit on that send 'em back on the street.

So, if anyone wants something done about crime, the next time one sits on a jury or votes for a judge... well, you know what to do.

Posted by Ymal Brucker | July 2, 2008 11:49 AM

Not much to say on this one - just best wishes for your friend.

Maybe you can perk him up a little by letting him guestblog his experience when he recovers, if he doesn't have a blog of his own!

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 2, 2008 11:54 AM

Someone has to ask: was DC this unsafe prior to Homerule?

Note that corruption is not, necessarily, a cause of lack of safety on the streets. It has other downsides. But it is entirely possible (as others have noted) to have a massively corrupt city government which still knows enough to realize that, in most places, maintaining public safety is necessary to keeping their noses in the public trough. The sad part about DC is that it is not, obviously, a requirement there.

Posted by anon | July 2, 2008 12:02 PM

Ugh. I suppose gentrification has only gone so far. At the end of the day, you still need to be west of Rock Creek Park in DC to be safe.

Posted by Chris | July 2, 2008 12:02 PM

That's awful about your friend.

What percentage of DC residents would be willing to trade an increase in police brutality toward suspected criminals for a decrease in crime? The answer will probably tell you a lot about why DC policing is historically bad.

My impression is that in Chicago, there has long been a large group of voters (mostly white) who are happy to permit police brutality against suspected criminals (mostly black and brown) in exchange for relatively low crime. In my home town (Pittsburgh), we have a very high threshold for police brutality and a very very low crime rate.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 2, 2008 12:03 PM

I've lived in NE DC (ward 5) for 8 years and never been a victim of a crime. None of my friends in the district have ever been a victim of a crime. Now when I lived in Baltimore during the same mid-90s nadir, one of my friends would get mugged on an almost weekly basis, so perhaps that colors my judgement, but I think of DC as a relatively safe place.

Posted by C L | July 2, 2008 12:03 PM

That's terrible. My thoughts are with your friend and his family.

I live in one of those gentrifying neighborhoods in D.C. Sometimes people think gentrification is rich people buying up poor people's homes and turning them into million dollar condos. Not so. My neighborhood is filled with middle class (people making between $40,000 and $100,000) professionals. We live here because it's more affordable than other parts of D.C., close to public transportation, and has restaurants, coffee shops and grocery stores. People invest in the community. A lot of people are first time home owners, and even the renters take greater pride in the appearance of the street and the safety of the community.

Despite that, the neighborhood has an alarmingly high crime rate. Business are regularly harassed, homes are broken into, and in the summer in particular, there are shootings on a weekly basis. This is largely due to the presence of a handful of clubs and bars, and most of the crime occurs between midnight and 5am, spiking around the time that bars close. Meaning, the crime is entirely predictable, is caused by people who don't live in the neighborhood, and is a function of having a lot of intoxicated people who suddenly have to leave their present location.

A strong, regular, and familiar police presence in the neighborhood, particularly near bars and clubs, particularly on weekend nights, would go a long way. So where is it? I pay taxes. I rarely see cops in my neighborhood. Why is that? Where are they? And why do I have to play Russian Roulette when I walk down my street on a Saturday night?

Posted by Emily | July 2, 2008 12:04 PM

I don't think that locking people up for being colored is the solution, and that is basically all that any so-called tough on crime policy ever amounts to. It works, as described above in Chicago but it just temporarily concentrates and corrals the hopelessness. It does create safe enclaves with concentrated amenities like Manhattan but it is ultimately a false economy because it does so at a great and often unjust cost to those displaced.

We don't need the government to get tough on poor people or minorities we need it to stop fucking with them. Fat chance. Oh well.

Posted by grrgle | July 2, 2008 12:05 PM

I hope your friend pulls through. Sounds like there must have been a struggle. I hope they caught the perp.

Instances like this make better policing and a widespread use of CCTV like in London sound like a no-brainer.

In European cities you can pretty well figure on circumnavigating certain parts of town at late hours -- or take a cab. And for some reason, American urban universities seem to be located in the biggest urban hell-holes outside the third world. Is your friend a grad student?

Bush needs to declare the District a failed state and intervene...

Posted by MarkG | July 2, 2008 12:06 PM

It always impresses me when NBC is able to catch one predator an hour on their TV show and the cops never seem to do more than just file a report. It seems that it should be easy enough to have a bunch of under-cover police catch many of these crimes.

Posted by JoshK | July 2, 2008 12:10 PM

But you are also right, DC has too many different policy forces, not enough foot traffic and there seems to be no effort to gentrify the areas which are scary.

I can remember visiting DC as a child in the 80's, and I lived there for two summers ('05 and '06), and I can say that there has been major gentrification, especially in the areas just north of the Mall.

On the other hand, a friend of my once called the police because some crazy guy was hassling us (for Eating While White, although she's technically Hispanic) in the outdoor seating of a Cosi Judiciary Square. Police HQ was quite literally less than a block away, and visible from where we were sitting. 30 minutes later the cops called back to ask if the guy had gone away. Helpful bunch.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 2, 2008 12:14 PM

Best wishes to your friend for a quick recovery, that is horrible.

For anyone touting the Daley system of law-and-order corruption, call me naive if you want but the citizens of DC (and Chicago, and NYC, and N.O., &c.) should have cities that are both safe and uncorrupt. Sadly DC seems to have neither.

Posted by Kathryn | July 2, 2008 12:16 PM

Learned Hand -

94th and Broadway didn't gentrify until the early-80s, and even then, there were some "rougher" elements, which are still there a couple of blocks away. Until the mid nineties/early 2000, there was a rent-by-the-hour hotel across the street, a halfway house-transitional home for individuals with AIDs a block away, the projects three blocks away are still there. There was also until the mid-nineties, a group of young men who used to hang out at the corner starting around six o'clock who would be there drinking, and occasionally urinating in the street.

The upper west side was the original answer to those who had been shut out by upper east side coops. If you take the borders of the upper west side to be 72nd street to approximately 110th - after which you're in Columbia's turf- for a long time, the 86th street subway was the border between gentrified and non-gentrified. In the early to mid eighties the border moved to 96th street, but with the rougher elements I mentioned before, especially once you moved off Broadway, and it has only been since the mid nighties that gentrification really moved between 97th to 110th. This doesn't mean there weren't respectable buildings between 97th and 110th before the mid-nineties, there were, just that the neighborhood was what it was.

Posted by Nora | July 2, 2008 12:18 PM

I'm sorry for your friend.

I lived in DC from 1992-1999 in U St and on Capitol Hill when they were much less safe then the are now.

There are 3 problems that I see now in the city:

1. Gentrification is happening but it's a small city so unless you live West of the Park you are very close to some very bad neighborhoods.
2. Weak enforcement of laws by the judges and the jury system.
3. No political will to change things. The city is still mostly poor people who see more stingent policing as harrasement even though they would benefit the most as they live in the worst neighborhoods.

and to grrgle: Virginia sucks. Clueless social climbers, racists and rednecks do not make a good place to live.

Posted by zengolf | July 2, 2008 12:22 PM

Instances like this make better policing and a widespread use of CCTV like in London sound like a no-brainer.

Once you pay the Dane-Geld...

CCTV seems like a good idea while there are problems. Unfortunately, even if the problems are mitigated, the CCTV never goes away -- it's there, it's easy to use, and it has to justify its continued existence somehow. So people get harrassed by the cops over perpetually smaller and smaller things.

Forget about invasive monitoring. Keep a good police presence on the street, give them both teeth and professionalism, and then give citizens the right to defend themselves when the police aren't present. Anyone who develops criminal intent needs to have a good reason to fear both the cops and the citizens, while the citizens in general should not have to fear the cops. It's a balancing act of imperfect outcomes, but it can be done well enough that citizens need not live in fear. Unfortunately, DC does not seem to have a toothy or professional police force, and they have denied their citizens the right to defense. Criminaltopia.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 2, 2008 12:33 PM

How much of this police incompetence is due to the fact that, unlike New York, LA, Houston, Boston, etc., the administration of D.C. is dominated by African-Americans?

In cities that are not so dominated, police have the authority to crack down on street crime at the price of "racism" complaints from the local "civil rights" extortionists.

But in organizations that are so dominated, race-based patronage takes precedence over even the most minimal life-or death competence:

cf. King-Drew
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-kingdrewpulitzer-sg,0,1507651.storygallery

cf. the DC schools
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/dcschools/

Posted by Hammy | July 2, 2008 12:35 PM

"And for some reason, American urban universities seem to be located in the biggest urban hell-holes outside the third world. Is your friend a grad student?"

I blame that on four things: unscrupulous off-campus landlords; overlapping authority between campus police and actual police; privacy requirements for universities; and the cottage industry in fake IDs and underage drinking. As it is, slumlords are (in many cases) free to let student housing rot, bringing down property values all around it and bringing in all the bad elements that go with it. University security details are often employees of the university, rather than actual police officers. Universities aren't always required to report the crimes the university cops do catch, to the actual police. And the high demand for fake ID can attract a lot of unsavory elements to the area.

A combination of the last three things led to a huge snafu at Georgetown University while I was there. One of the students, David Schick, died in a brawl in the library parking lot. He'd apparently been drinking. The parking lot is next to a notoriously poorly-lit, never-patrolled, unsafe road. The incident was investigated by university cops. But due to some truly weird privacy requirements, the university claimed it was unable to release any of the information it obtained. The people involved were never charged, since the Metro cops didn't have jurisdiction and couldn't investigate, and the only witnesses were the people involved in the fight.

So yeah, if you have a neighborhood filled with low-quality housing, ambiguity over jurisdiction, the genuine possibility that there will be no long-term legal consequence to your actions, and the general disregard for the law that comes along with getting a fake ID and drinking underage, you can kind of see why crime might be high around universities.

Posted by Tel | July 2, 2008 12:37 PM

What Mouse said. I live two blocks from a very high-crime area of Pittsburgh that features lots of drug deals, prostitution, nuisance bars, and gunfights. But my family and I feel perfectly safe, as do our middle-class neighbors. Why?

1. The cops are out in force all the time. The local convenience store is like a second police headquarters - there are always cops there at night, waiting for a call.

2. The vast majority of my neighbors are Italian-Americans with guns.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 2, 2008 12:44 PM

CCTV seems like a good idea while there are problems. Unfortunately, even if the problems are mitigated, the CCTV never goes away -- it's there, it's easy to use, and it has to justify its continued existence somehow. So people get harrassed by the cops over perpetually smaller and smaller things.

Guess I don't see the real danger on the slippery slope so long as the police are also perpetually monitored. That would seem to make legal defense easier in cases of abuse or police testicular exuberance.

The case for monitoring of public spaces is in part one of costs (decreasing price of the gear vs. man-hours walking an only limited beat) and partly one of inevitability. It is becoming increasingly common to assume someone with a camera or microphone might be watching or listening in, whether legitimately or not. As consumers, we've already surrendered to different forms of monitoring by private companies and organizations that are theoretically even less accountable to us than are mismanaged public institutions.

(Also, we're leaving out any firearms discussions in this context at Megan's request.)

Posted by MarkG | July 2, 2008 12:48 PM

A very enlightened critique of Virginians, zengolf. I bet none of them read Vanity Fair.

We should only like the clueless social climbers who say in the District. A district that is, of course, a model of racial harmony and tolerance. And, also, I shouldn't consider the redneck term racist or elitist in any sense, right? Just checking.

Posted by Ferrell | July 2, 2008 12:49 PM

I am very sorry to hear about your friend.

I am not very familiar with DC, but New York was pretty pathetic on crime until Guliani became mayor. There is a lot to be said for his policies.

They would have irritated the heck out of me had I lived in NYC, but I don't. I suspect there isn't going to be a painless answer for DC either. It seems New Orleans is going back to the way it used to be as well. As long as the citizens tolerate the status quo, they will have it.

Posted by MarkD | July 2, 2008 12:55 PM

Shot 3x in the stomach, sorry to hear that.

DC needs more than Police. You guys need a genuine across the board desire to improve the criminal system. I stayed in Silver Spring MD a few times and its a rough place in its own way. But I've been around DC, I mean the waterfront and anything along the blue line except Arlington at a few glances, I got off the metro one time and went straight back down the escalator after seeing the surrounding area.

DC is not a safe place from the lighting, to its overabundance of homeless. I know its not popular but there is an economic incentive to steal if you don't have a home or income. Also you have quite the drug problem for a town that really doesn't contain all that many people who can do drugs without coming up on a urinalysis. Which means the drug problem is all coming from a much smaller segment of the population. A segment seemingly isolated in pockets throughout the city.

Posted by ben | July 2, 2008 1:04 PM

DC needs the same thing that most corrupt parts of the world need. Good, competent, non-corrupt leadership with the ability and will-power to start fixing things.

Posted by Nelson | July 2, 2008 1:11 PM

I lived in the D.C. area for many years. D.C. was the town of Marion Barry, the coked up whoremonger. And when it all that came out, they re-elected him to the city council under the one of the truest campaign slogans ever: "He May Not Be Perfect, But He's Perfect for D.C."

When crime began to spiral out of control in the late 80s, D.C.'s answer was to hire more cops--including people with criminal records.

No one told you these things before you moved there?

Posted by M. Hodak | July 2, 2008 1:14 PM

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend!

Lived in Center City Philadelphia for about 15 years. Center City is now a much more vibrant place than when I lived there, but still Killadelphia is a nickname one hears - and that tragic recent murders of two young men coming home from jobs at Starbucks have made the newer young Philadelphians very nervous.

The other night I went to a show in town and before and after it we walked literally from one end of Center City to the other, once at night and once in the evening. The evening was an intimidating experience. During neither walk did we spot a single police officer.

Where the hell are they? the City of Philadelphia pays a LOT of supposed cops. I don't even care if they sit in their cars (like they used to when I lived there, GOD FORBID they step out into the wilds of Logan Square!) - just be visible!

The most important thing to keeping these "renaissances" of downtown areas going is the safety issue. The cops need to be out there doing their jobs. In my case, all they did when I tried to talk to them is tell me if I were smart (we'd just had a series of things happen in our very nice Logan Square nabe) I'd move out of town.

Posted by BlackOrchid | July 2, 2008 1:16 PM

Sorry about your friend. I hope he turns out ok.

Posted by Reality Man | July 2, 2008 1:19 PM

sorry for all the typos! hope it was still semi-understandable English -- "night/evening" equals "afternoon/evening" if that helps!

anyway I hope your friend recovers quickly and his attacker(s) are caught and punished appropriately.

Posted by BlackOrchid | July 2, 2008 1:19 PM

I'm sorry for your friend. I wish him a speedy recovery and second the recommendation to him (and you and your mom) to join us on the south side of the Potomac. That remark by zengolf leads me to identify him as a Marylander. You'd be bitter too if you lived there. ;-)

DC police are notoriously bad (as are PG County cops, another reason to stay out of MD) in almost every metric. You might recall the court case that held that DC police have no obligation to actually serve and protect the people. They have certainly been eager to make the most of that. What's interesting is that every few years they get a new chief (much like every few years the school system gets a new head) that promises to institute the policing strategies employed in other formerly high-crime urban areas. Somehow nothing ever changes.

Posted by Christina | July 2, 2008 1:30 PM

I would imagine that the percentage of violent crimes committed in D.C. by first time offenders is fairly low, and I imagine that most of the repeat offenders have previous convictions for violent crime. It would seem that locking up first time violent offenders until they were old would cause the violent crime rate to drop quite a bit. Please don't complain about the cost of incarceration. The central purpose of the state is to protect the law abiding from the lawlessly violent, and as long as the state is involved in all manner of other activities, there is self-evidently enough resources to carry out the primary task.

Also, the notion that most young African American men cannot refrain from engaging in violent crime, as was implied above, is really offensive. It is also offensive to state that one cannot have a police force which polices effectively unless one is willing to tolerate police brutality. Make no mistake, a police force in which illegal brutality is tolerated will not target that brutality only on violent or even nonviolent criminals. It will visit brutality on the wholly innocent, and will engage in all other manner of corruption. The Chicago Police Department, like the Daley machine, has mostly been a disgrace for decades. I hear the new Police Chief in Chicago, a guy who was recruited from outside, is trying to change things. I wish him well.

Sorry to hear of your friend, Megan.

Posted by Will Allen | July 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Alexandria is nice, or at least it was 10 years ago when I visited. For the first stops off the metro, you don't need a car much. I know you are an urbanite, but sometimes enough is enough.

Best wishes to your firend for a full and quick recovery. I hope they catch the guy and put him away for a long time.

Posted by wph | July 2, 2008 1:34 PM

That's horrible and I'm sorry to hear it. I hope he's all right.

Most of my friends in DC are young women living alone. Stories like this always makes me very nervous. Have I ever mentioned how much I love Fairfax?

Posted by Swimmy | July 2, 2008 1:42 PM

The answer is right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#Demographics

Places with falling populations (and therefore declining equity) have rising crime rates. Not really rocket science. Just look at NYC for comparison; NYC population dropped and violent crime went up, until a peak in the 80s. Then, as population began to rebound violent crime began to sink. Pretty simple really. You see the same trend in Chicago. The population decline reversed and equity started to go up, and violent crime went down. It really isn't hard to figure out why people whose biggest asset is declining in value year over year become criminals. Sheesh.

Posted by freddiemac | July 2, 2008 1:45 PM

On my visits to DC, I have quickly perused the police blotter in some local DC paper (I forget it's name, but not the Post), I have noticed that muggings in DC tend to be joint events, where one mugger attacks the victim and another grabs for the money, wallet, etc.---and they all seem to be gun toting events.

I fought off a mugger in Chicago once, I don't think I would try it in DC. I have remarked more than once to friends, DC muggers aren't playing around.

Posted by Robert Wenzel | July 2, 2008 1:48 PM

It is also offensive to state that one cannot have a police force which polices effectively unless one is willing to tolerate police brutality.

On the other hand, it is almost certainly true that you can't have an engaged, effective police force without increasing complaints of brutality as compared to the old hands-off days. Unless the politicians, the media, and the public are prepared to do the dirty work of sorting the legitimate complaints from the self-serving nonsense, long-term improvement are impossible.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 2, 2008 1:52 PM

"The other night I went to a show in town and before and after it we walked literally from one end of Center City to the other, once at night and once in the evening. The evening was an intimidating experience. During neither walk did we spot a single police officer."

Judging from your blog you walked literally seven blocks down Philadelphia's version of Rodeo Drive, which is literally one quarter of the way across Center City. How many cops did you expect to see during your ten minute stroll, and did you expect them to hold your hand as you crossed the streets? I regularly walk unaccompanied on and near the street where the Beau Zabel murder happened and haven't had the slightest issue in 7 years, and the risks that you took were far smaller. There are real issues in this city, but any area where a panicky suburbanite might find themselves walking is far safer than the statistics (which are of course improving every year) would suggest, and you're running a far greater risk once you get on the Schulkill.

Posted by Townleybomb | July 2, 2008 1:56 PM

Regarding falling populations and rising crime rates has anyone identified the causality here? I could easily see it the other way around. Crime goes up and people flee the city. Crime comes back down and people feel safe enough to move in.

Posted by craig | July 2, 2008 2:04 PM

I have lived in Virginia, and DC is still relatively better than many parts of the suburbs. PG county in Mayland is especially scary.

I grew up in Chicago, and I must admit that it is safe, and the police are terrifying. I do prefer getting kicked around at 17 to being arrested for some minor charge.

Now I live in lower Manhattan and it appears to have no police and no crime. If DC gentrified to this level it would improve.

Posted by GP | July 2, 2008 2:09 PM

Truly awful. Best wishes for your friend.

Posted by Joe Bingham | July 2, 2008 2:09 PM

Absolutely, Rob. Every time some city attorney decides it is easier to settle than to litigate a dubious brutality suit, effective policing takes a step backwards. Of course, when a police force allows a reputation for brutality to fester, as Chicago has with it's horribly mismanaged force, the jury pool gets poisoned eventually, making settlement all the more likely, no matter the merits of the suit.

Posted by Will Allen | July 2, 2008 2:17 PM

Freddiemac:
It really isn't hard to figure out why people whose biggest asset is declining in value year over year become criminals.

Seriously? You really think that people turn to crime because their houses or condos have declined in value? What percentage of muggers would you estimate have ever owned real estate?

Megan:
Could this be a race thing? That is, because the population is so heavily black, any attempt to crack down on crime will be perceived as racist? Note grrgle's comment at 12:05.

Posted by Brandon Berg | July 2, 2008 2:19 PM

Joe Magarac,

I moved from DC to Pittsburgh (after living in NY) and, oh yeah, am shocked by the difference.

I assumed a lot has to with the differences in populations. There are a lot of very poor people in DC and a visible minority of yuppies and middle-class students all packed together. Whereas Pittsburgh has half the population it once did (and is thus a prime eg. of a place that lost a great deal of its population but which is not experiencing a surge in crime) and is much more working-class overall. Less people and if you attack someone chances are they're not going to be a yuppie.

Then, of course, as you say, guns play a big role too. The person you mug in DC is almost certainly going to be unarmed. Not here.

Where in Pittsburgh do you live? Bloomfield?

It, also, seems a lot of bad places in the Pittsburgh area have their own cops (not Pittsburgh city cops). So they know the local drug dealers and folks, in a way a true big city cop wouldn't. In New York you might be a cop from Staten Island coming in to deal with people in Brooklyn, a borough of millions. Where, I'm pretty sure, the cop in, say, McKees Rocks, PA is going to live there and know most of the people. It's almost a small town for him. It's a lot tougher for the cop in the bigger, much more anonymous area.

Posted by L.C. Greenwood | July 2, 2008 2:21 PM

This is awful. I'm very sorry to hear it. I of course respect your wishes to keep gun politics out of it, but I will say that I was mugged at gunpoint in D.C. -- at the Columbia Heights metro at 5:00 p.m! -- a few months ago, and that's what drove me back into the libertarian movement. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by Peter Orvetti | July 2, 2008 2:32 PM

Out of curiosity, why did the guy shoot him? Was your friend resisting? Did the perp seem high on anything?

Posted by Stephen | July 2, 2008 2:34 PM

My sympathies to your friend.

The perpetrator picks the place and time. This makes it very difficult to plan against them unless you are planning for a response in your own home. On the street, you are probably just going to get robbed unless a fellow citizen comes to your assistance. So what's left is deterrence. Apparently, it's not very effective in DC. If you are going to live there, then work on improving it. What can you do to improve upon this situation? (There, I stayed off of firearms, but my blood pressure is dangerously high as a consequence.)

Posted by wGraves | July 2, 2008 2:42 PM

"Regarding falling populations and rising crime rates has anyone identified the causality here? I could easily see it the other way around. Crime goes up and people flee the city. Crime comes back down and people feel safe enough to move in."

Don't confuse correlation with causation. I don't think the decline in cities was due to crime in the first place. Each region is different, but in some regions the decline in cities was referred to as "white flight", so that may explain part of it right there.

Posted by freddiemac | July 2, 2008 2:53 PM

"Seriously? You really think that people turn to crime because their houses or condos have declined in value? What percentage of muggers would you estimate have ever owned real estate?"

Not just homeowners, but the families of homeowners.

Imagine that you bought a house in generic big city in 1970. Say you payed 50k for the house. Now it is 1980 and your neighborhood has lost a lot of residents and your house had declined in value significantly. Maybe it is only worth 40k. You lost 10k in assets and your mortgage is underwater. If you lose your job then the house is gone. Is it so surprising that people, when faced with desperate economic situations, will rob liquor stores? Seriously this is happening right now.

Example: Stockton California http://stockton.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

One of the hardest hit areas in home foreclosures is experiencing a big spike in crime. This doesn't surprise me. Why does it surprise you? In places where residents bought homes and their value increases significantly have experienced lower crime rates (see NYC).

This is also happening in DC, as the link I provided demonstrates. For the first time since the 50s DC's population is growing, and the crime rate in DC is contracting. This isn't hard Brandon, you just have to think. Is thinking hard for you?

Posted by freddiemac | July 2, 2008 3:03 PM

"Don't confuse correlation with causation."

I'm not. That's why I asked if the causality had been identified.

Posted by craig | July 2, 2008 3:06 PM

Bear with me - for once I have something serious to say. I got mugged a couple of weeks back myself - in broad daylight on New Hamsphire Ave; I was jumped from behind by four guys. I was lucky, if you want to put it that way: they hit me in the head with something and then ran, leaving me shaken and a little hurt, but at least no poorer for the experience. This was my fifth year of gentrification, and it's going to be my last: I am putting my house on the market and moving to the burbs.

I was struck, in the period that followed, how the police were able to drive me around the neighhborhood; they seemed to know where the local gangs hung out, and they seemed to know some of the personalities. This highlights the problem - it's a failure of institutional and governmental will, not lack of knowledge or understanding of the problem.

I wish I could say I shared your confidence in Fenty, but he was my council member before he became mayor, and he is nothing if not a player in the same DC political system that got us to this pass. Like the others, he has the same blinkered belief that crime is inevitably the simple product of poverty, rather than, say, family breakdown, a defective culture, or just basic brutality. He can't bring himself to undertake serious measures to rememdy a problem that he imagines stems from a natural condition. So there's no possibility that the cops are simply going to begin busting and holding gang members for jaywalking, or use stuff like that as a pretext to stop, search and seize - a neighbor tells me they arent' even busting people now for possession if the quantity of marijuana is smaller than the amount that qualifies the holder for "possession with intent to distribute." If anything, they're undertaking efforts that are the exact reverse of the ones they need to undertake - and there's no way you're going to solve the crime problem that way.

Posted by Nanonymous | July 2, 2008 3:09 PM

Make that "a natural and terribly unfair" condition.

BTW, you might check out some of the debates on the Yahoo listserves for ANC 409 and Petworth - the stuff people are posting is astonishing (if you believe, as I do, that most of the middle class people who have moved into DC in the last few years are well-educated, conventionally liberal middle class types).

Posted by Nanonymous | July 2, 2008 3:14 PM

Megan,

I would suggest you visit DC court sometime for an answer to your question. The fact is that judges and juries in DC routinely refuse to put criminals in jail. Jury nullification is rampant in the District. Black judges and juries are loath to put another "young black man" in prison and thus turn them lose to pray on people like you and your friend. In addition, in most cities, the police at least protect the good neighborhoods. It is understood by criminals in large cities such as New York or Chicago that while it is one thing to commit a crime in your neighborhood, it is entirely different to do it in a good neighborhood. I guarantee you any criminal who goes into Williamsburg (NYC) or Rittenhouse Square (Philadelphia) and robbed and shot someone would be hunted down and sent to prison for a very long time. Criminals know that and thus don't try to ply their trade in those areas. In DC there is no special emphasis put on crime in the tourist or good areas of the town. Criminals are free to range and prey anywhere in the city and face no special scrutiny for preying on people in respectable neighborhoods. Like Willie Sutton robbing banks, criminals in DC rob people in your neighborhood Megan because "that is where the money is".

Unless and until the DC government and culture changes, (not likely), the only solution is to arm yourself. If people who did this kind of thing were routinely shot in the attempt, it would stop. Sadly, the same black judges and juries who would let a black thug go in the name of keeping another young black man out of prison, would no doubt throw the book at a white person who shot said black thug trying to defend themselves.

Welcome to the District Megan. You are in the minority as a white person and are most definitely treated as such.

Posted by John | July 2, 2008 3:15 PM

Megan: Best Wishes for your friend. I live in MPLS, where our crime rate has gotten out of control too.

A quote from your post: "but the city government remains corrupt and incompetent."

As part of the Republican minority who reads your blog, I think part of the problem in DC is because it's a one party town. Anytime one party completely controls a constituency, that party has little reason to improve their governance. Look at LI, which was a GOP stronghold for years. Their property taxes are some of the highest in the nation b/c the GOP won every election and did not have to be held accountable for their governance. As long as D.C. only elects Democrats without considering Republican candidates, there will be no competition and no read motivation for the Democrats to reform themselves.

Posted by IR-MN | July 2, 2008 3:21 PM

Judging from your blog you walked literally seven blocks down Philadelphia's version of Rodeo Drive, which is literally one quarter of the way across Center City. How many cops did you expect to see during your ten minute stroll, and did you expect them to hold your hand as you crossed the streets? I regularly walk unaccompanied on and near the street where the Beau Zabel murder happened and haven't had the slightest issue in 7 years, and the risks that you took were far smaller. There are real issues in this city, but any area where a panicky suburbanite might find themselves walking is far safer than the statistics (which are of course improving every year) would suggest, and you're running a far greater risk once you get on the Schulkill.

Ahem. I was born and raised in South Philly my dear. I lived in Center City and Roxborough for 15 years.

You can bite me, frankly.

Where I walked was the BUSIEST and yes also the nicest part of town - and btw I chose to do that ON PURPOSE to avoid crime - and that is exactly the place where you should have a police presence to not only deter crime but also make the suburbanites and tourists feel comfortable (since, believe it or not, the city needs the money of such awful snobs as I).

Philadelphia chooses not to do this. They also haven't got cops out on the beats in the neighborhoods EITHER. Not sure where they are most of the time? But it's not out on the streets.

Live in denial Townleybomb, and most certainly if it makes you feel better, vent your misplaced anger at me or anyone else who chose to leave the city to avoid crime, but after breaking up one mugging, nearly being the victim of a tire iron to the head in broad daylight in front of the Franklin Institute, and having a car stolen - ALL IN ONE MONTH - I chose to follow the advice of my local detectives and leave for greener pastures.

You, Townleybomb, have been living in Philadelphia during an incredible economic boom. It's not exactly going to get BETTER when economic times become hard, which they are about to do.

At any rate, I sincerely love my hometown, I love Philadelphia, and I know that having cops more visible can and will deter crime. I just wonder why such a simple thing is not done?

Posted by BlackOrchid | July 2, 2008 3:25 PM

As LC Greenwood said, differences in population explain why two cities, both of which have declining population, can experience very different crime rates. Freddiemac's argument that there is one key to understanding crime rates - declining population - is wrong.

It's also wrong to say that a police force that is willing and indeed eager to dispense a little rough justice in the process of arresting suspects is brutal or corrupt. Police work involves capturing people who don't want to be captured: it isn't going to be pretty. If the bulk of the DC populace wants a police force that doesn't hurt the men it arrests - which apparently is exactly the case - arrests will be low, and crime will be high.

If a Pittsburgh cop roughs somebody up in the process of arresting him, people here will cheer. But my siblings in the DC area assure me that there is no cheering when the same thing happens in DC. Call that police brutality or call it effective policiing, but it works.

If I felt like doing the legwork I could paste dozens of links to Pittsburgh-area news stories in the past 5 years in which police suspects of all races, be they drug dealers or war protesters, were beaten up while taken into custody and complained about it. Nobody else cared, nothing was done, the cops stayed on the beat, and crime is very very low. But when the same thing happens in DC, half the population gets outraged, the police step back, and crime stays high.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 2, 2008 3:29 PM

Freddiemac - I'm not disputing your thesis, but I'm not sure how the link you provided gives any evidence to support your thesis.

Stockton had crime rates (both violent and property related) well in excess of the national average in 2006. Great. But to provide evidence for your thesis, wouldn't you need to show a _trend_ in Stockton crime? Indeed, your post indicates that there has been a trend (a spike), and there may well have been, but the data isn't to be found where you say it is to be found.

Posted by RMH | July 2, 2008 3:30 PM

I hope your friend makes it, Megan. I wish him (and you) all the best.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | July 2, 2008 3:36 PM

Goodluck, and cheers for fast and full recovery.

Posted by aaron | July 2, 2008 3:36 PM

"At any rate, I sincerely love my hometown, I love Philadelphia, and I know that having cops more visible can and will deter crime. I just wonder why such a simple thing is not done?"

Cops can't be everywhere. The only way to stop violent crime like this is to lock people up and never let them out. D.C. for a variety of reasons, black racism being one of them, refuses to do that. What is worse, once criminals know thta a city is easy on crime, they tend to congregate there making things even worse.

Posted by John | July 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Why do you say "crime doesn't pay?" Did the person who did this to your friend get caught? Or if he got away, was he not able to steal very much?

By the way, could you tell us where this happened and why it happened?

Posted by blue | July 2, 2008 3:42 PM

Imagine that you bought a house in generic big city in 1970. Say you payed 50k for the house. Now it is 1980 and your neighborhood has lost a lot of residents and your house had declined in value significantly. Maybe it is only worth 40k. You lost 10k in assets and your mortgage is underwater. If you lose your job then the house is gone. Is it so surprising that people, when faced with desperate economic situations, will rob liquor stores?

Was this intended as a serious point? Les Miserables meets FreddieMac?

Posted by Occam's Beard | July 2, 2008 3:44 PM

No, Joe, it is wrong to claim that a police force that believes it has license to dole out "rough justice" will be disciplined in doling it out, thus only affecting criminals. That's not how human beings work. Yes, arresting criminals is rough work. So what? Once you have them arrested, put them in jail, and keep them there for several decades. I'd bet that similar crimes in Pittsburgh and D.C. receive dissimilar sentences, or, as a D.C. resident noted above, jury nullification in D.C. plays a role.

In the city in which I reside, a man was arrested for murder yesterday. It was reported that he was convicted of robbery just two years ago, and the judge handed down a sentence which resulted him being on the street last week, free to commit homicide.

Locking people up for extremely long periods after they have identified themselves as being lawlessly violent is how one reduces lawless violence, not giving license to the police to beat on people after they are arrested.

Posted by Will Allen | July 2, 2008 3:51 PM

Will Allen -

You had me at "so what?" I submit that a tolerance for aggressive policing and a willingness to impose tough sentences are two peas in a pod. Folks who call "tolerance for aggressive policing" a "license to the police to beat on people" probably don't impose tough sentences on criminals.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 2, 2008 4:01 PM

in 2004, crime in Stockton was down:

http://www.stocktongov.com/stateofthecity/2004speech.cfm

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=10934

The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 3,625. The number of murders and homicides was 37. The violent crime rate was 13.6 per 1,000 people.

http://stockton.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

From this website violent crime increased to 14.8 per 1,000 people. An increase in violent crime. Not surprising, given this link:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/14/real_estate/California_cities_lead_foreclosure/index.htm

Sorry, too busy to do proper googling.

Posted by freddiemac | July 2, 2008 4:05 PM

Joe,

Some of the roughest, nastiest police in the country are in New Orleans. What good has it done them? While it sounds great to beat the crap out of criminals, it is usually a sign of an ildiciplined unprofessional and ineffective police force.

Posted by John | July 2, 2008 4:07 PM

John -

I don't mean to suggest that a police force that beats up everyone it arrests - and even a few people it doesn't - is good or is likely to reduce crime. Freddiemac is the guy peddling a single-statistic explanation for crime rates, not me.

I do mean to suggest that police work is sometimes going to involve hurting people, and if a population reflexively objects to that it is going to have less police work and more crime. It is probably also going to shrink from imposing tough sentences on criminals, which as Will Allen and others correctly note will also allow for more crime.

Sorry for training the spotlight on Pittsburgh so much; I'm done. My sympathies remain with Megan and her friend.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 2, 2008 4:16 PM

TAPPED is informing us that said friend is none other than Brian Beutler.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=07&year=2008&base_name=person_of_the_day_brian_beutle

Get well soon Brian

Posted by Steve Balboni | July 2, 2008 4:17 PM

Freddie, seriously, do you think that your typical homeowners are going to knock over liquor stores to meet their mortgage payments? Please.

How about this for an alternative explanation: home foreclosures are more to happen to those with poor judgment (and/or shouldn't have had mortgages in the first place), who for the same reason are more likely to commit crimes in the first place. Furthermore, abandoned houses breed crime like nits make lice.

As a wise man (ahem) said upthread, correlation is not causation.

Posted by Occam's Beard | July 2, 2008 4:19 PM

No, Joe, you called for giving police the license to dole out physical punishment, not as a means to effect an arrest, but as a means of achieving justice. That certainly implies beating on people who don't need to be beaten in order for them to be arrested safely. It has exactly nothing to do with aggressive policing. It is corrupt.

I can't speak from experience regarding Pittsburgh, but I can regarding Chicago and some other cities, like New Orleans, which was mentioned above. There is zero correlation between a police force's willingness to engage in violence, and effective policing. You can get you head laid open in zero seconds flat by one of New Orleans' finest, the same folks who were boosting Cadillacs from car dealers' lots, and fencing them in Baton Rouge, as Katrina advanced on the city.

Posted by Will Allen | July 2, 2008 4:24 PM

"Freddie, seriously, do you think that your typical homeowners are going to knock over liquor stores to meet their mortgage payments? Please."

No. I never said a typical homeowner will rob liquor stores. But then again the typical homeowner doesn't experience falling equity now does he?

"How about this for an alternative explanation: home foreclosures are more to happen to those with poor judgment (and/or shouldn't have had mortgages in the first place), who for the same reason are more likely to commit crimes in the first place. Furthermore, abandoned houses breed crime like nits make lice."

Evidence? Do you have any evidence at all that foreclosures over the last 40 years are in any way related to poor judgement? Are we taught in Econ 101 that people are by and large rational decision makers?

Isn't the current run up of foreclosures cause by declining equity? Seems that way to me.

I like how you poo poo my argument without presenting a single shred of evidence or even examining the evidence at all. Rather, you cling to a plausible scenario I presented to those who are clearly too dimwitted to interpret evidence and need ancedotes. Falling equity is strongly correlated to rising crime. Rising equity is strongly correlated to falling crime. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Posted by freddiemac | July 2, 2008 4:33 PM

Will Allen -

I called for no such thing. I agree that "there is zero correlation between a police force's willingness to engage in violence and effective policing." But I also claim that there is a high correlation between a populace that considers reasonable use of force excessive, a populace that imposes short setences on violent criminals, and a populace with a high crime rate.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 2, 2008 4:35 PM

Joe, look, when you write.....

"It's also wrong to say that a police force that is willing and indeed eager to dispense a little rough justice in the process of arresting suspects is brutal or corrupt."

.....you are writing that a police force can engage in violence for purposes not related to achieving a safe arrest, but rather for the purpose of dispensing "rough justice", and not be brutal and corrupt. This is an erroneous statement.

If you has simply written what you are now posting, that there is a...

"high correlation between a populace that considers reasonable use of force excessive, a populace that imposes short setences on violent criminals, and a populace with a high crime rate."

...then I wouldn't have responded, because I agree with the latter statement.

Posted by Will Allen | July 2, 2008 4:46 PM