“I and others argued that crime would rise [in NYC]. Instead, it fell. We were wrong.” [Kyle Smith, National Review]
Of course, to the extent that stop-and-frisk police practices violate the U.S. Constitution — as they often do — NR should have known better than to support them even if they showed some results. Aside from that, though, it’s good to be open to changing one’s mind based on evidence.
2 Comments
Of course, NYC is somewhat of a unique situation as other trends are pushing crime downwards.
The stop-and-frisk policy, almost by definition, was lawful. The problem, of course, was that in its implementation, it crossed lines (which is to be expected given the sheer volume of police and people in the city), and some of the defenses to the numbers were problematic to say the least.
The issue is whether lawful policing was inhibited which resulted in crimes that did not have to happen. A falling crime rate does not mean that there wasn’t criminal activity that should not have happened.
the other thing that happened since the end of stop-and-frisk was that rents in NYC went through the damn roof
there wasn’t some magic No Harassment No Crime thing, it’s just that all the people disposed toward committing crimes couldn’t afford to live there anymore
Baltimore and San Jose also got rid of all their police enforcement around the same time and they’re crimeholes now