* From The Appeal…
The same Gallup poll in which the majority of adults surveyed said the criminal-legal system is “not tough enough” also found that most Americans don’t think police and prisons are the answer. In response to a question that asked whether “more money and effort should go to addressing social and economic problems such as drug addiction, homelessness, and mental health” or, instead, “more money and effort should go to strengthening law enforcement,” 64 percent of respondents picked the first option.
Bolstering these findings, a poll commissioned by Vera Action in September found that the majority of voters prefer increased funding to address the root causes of crime and disorder, such as better schools, affordable housing, mental health care, drug addiction treatment, and reduced access to firearms.
The poll also found that voters were more likely to support candidates who embraced a comprehensive approach to public safety. In contrast, when both candidates used “tough on crime” messaging, voters were more likely to pick the Republican.
This dynamic recently played out in Illinois, where Republicans tried to claim that people released due to the Pretrial Fairness Act—a state law that eliminated cash bail—had gone on to commit rampant crimes. Instead of adopting their tough-on-crime rhetoric or dismissing concerns about crime altogether, Illinois Democrats successfully defended their reforms and proposed alternative solutions for improving public safety.
“They actually owned the issue and reminded voters about why we need accountability and justice and why we need bail reform,” [Insha Rahman, vice president of Vera Action] said. “They explained how it puts safety and not wealth as a priority for who is released after an arrest. And then they also said that you have really valid concerns about increased shootings and carjackings and other kinds of crimes. If you blame the wrong causes, you’ll miss the right solution. Rolling back bail reform isn’t going to address gun violence or carjackings. So let’s talk about solutions that do work.”
* Also, it’s time to start getting real about high tech’s role. Yes, technology can be invaluable at times, but it’s no replacement for actual police work despite all the media hype. The Sun-Times reported this week that Chicago has “the largest network of surveillance cameras outside London,” plus a plethora of license plate readers and facial recognition technology. And yet, clearance rates are dismally low.
The ShotSpotter network is currently in the news, but questions abound about its effectiveness. From The Triibe…
For years, there has been debate on whether the technology is actually a useful deterrent. A 2021 study by the MacArthur Justice Center showed that more than 90% of ShotSpotter alerts lead police to find no evidence to corroborate gunfire when police came onto the scene.
A study by the city’s Inspector General that same year found that roughly 9.1% of Chicago Police Department responses to ShotSpotter were linked to a gun-related crime, and a recent report from the Cook County state’s attorney’s office obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times last week reported that the technology led to arrests in just 1% of more than 12,000 incidents over a roughly five-year span.
There are benefits, of course, like perhaps faster ambulance response times. But is it really working as advertised?
I mean, calling in that many false alarms would get a regular person sent to prison. It appears to be diverting huge amounts of police resources.
And then there’s this from Block Club Chicago…
Hundreds of Chicago police officers daily are assigned to what the department calls rapid response duty, with the stated mission of responding to emergencies. But a Block Club analysis of police data shows those officers are rarely dispatched to 911 calls.
In the first half of 2023, only a tenth of the activity reported by rapid response officers was dedicated to 911 calls — a steep drop from 2020, when 911 responses accounted for nearly half of their activity, according to data from the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications.
Instead of servicing 911 calls, rapid response officers spent the majority of their time conducting traffic stops, the dispatch data shows. […]
The [2023 inspector general’s] investigation found that for half of all 911 calls, responding officers failed to document their time of arrival at the crime scenes — an oversight so routine that the inspector general’s office couldn’t track response times or hold the Police Department accountable for delays.
CPD appears to be reevaluating that system, Block Club also reported.
- Give Us Barabbas - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:04 pm:
I’ve said before that shot spotter is a pig in a poke, and that money should go towards more patrols. Now we see that the rapid response patrols are neither. Seems obvious that the department is shirking when it comes to responding to actual calls but wants to spend more money on shot spotter that generates a handful of actionable cases.
- Anyone Remember - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:18 pm:
“But is it really working as advertised?”
Here in Springfield, the answer seems to be “yes” … . However, Springfield hasn’t had any cases like Adam Toledo.
- DuPage Saint - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:26 pm:
As to poll why not do both. More money for social services and crime prevention and tougher sentencing for some people that really seem to need it. Seeing people with multiple multiple felonies out on street seems to be asking for problems
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:31 pm:
===why not do both===
Not disagreeing, but that second part is almost never mentioned in the usual discourse.
- H-W - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:33 pm:
From The Appeal story at top, Insha Rahman of Vera Action said:
=== If you blame the wrong causes, you’ll miss the right solution. ===
Not sure why I have not heard this before, but it is a great truism worth remembering and using.
- vern - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:37 pm:
=== and tougher sentencing ===
Not to pick on DuPage Saint, but this is a great example of how broken policing discourse is. Getting tougher on criminals can involve more tools than just longer sentences. Speed and certainty are tools too. The current sentences will work if we solve most crimes quickly, and then prosecute them quickly. That will take more resources, but also better application of those resources. That’s what the articles in the post are about. We could apply automatic life sentences to every crime, and it still wouldn’t make a dent if most criminals don’t get caught.
- Nick - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:50 pm:
People aren’t picky about wanting lower crime, feels like the main take away. More police funding? Polls well. Tougher sentencing? Polls well. Addressing the root causes? Polls well.
- DuPage Dad - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 12:56 pm:
Phillip Converse wrote “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics” back in 1964. His key point was that most people do not have strong belief systems; that is, they do not think ideologically. A minority of people have fixed preferences and answer survey questions consistently, but most simply give random answers.
I think about this article a lot and think he was right about everything. I encourage you to read it online somewhere.
- DuPage Saint - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 2:26 pm:
@Vern. You are absolutely correct I would think speed and certainty are the most important thing in reducing crime. If caught fast and no super long delays in trial and the certainty of a just and timely punishment I think that would reduce crime. And that coupled with social services and other things like addiction treatment would help as would a good education and jobs Nothing is cheap but in long run worth it
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 2:44 pm:
Leave it to Rich Miller to bring me out of retirement on a Friday afternoon. Great post, Rich.
=== As to the poll, why not do both ===
The problem with the traditional Law & Order model is that arrest rates are abysmal. Long sentences don’t work as a deterrent for people who are not thinking rationally, and they especially do not work for people who do not think they will get caught.
Just look at Donald Trump, Sam McCann, and Rod Blagojevich.
Secondly, this suggestion embodies an approach to policymaking that is at the heart of what’s flawed in our democracy. Compromise for compromise sake leads to extremists making more extreme demands, to move the “middle ground” more in their direction. It leads to legislation and budgets where “everyone has to take a haircut”, so that programs that do work only get 90% of what they need to be successful, and programs that do not work get 90% of something they do not deserve in the first place.
This is kind of what we are kicking around with ShotSpotter. Its been around for 16 years, in 130 cities, and they still cannot provide a single peer-reviewed, published study showing that it has a measurable impact in crime.
16 years, 130 cities. No evidence. In law and in logic, “evidence of absence” allows us to conclude the evidence doesn’t exist. Surely if it did, ShotSpotter with its hundreds of millions would have funded an independent study to show that it works.
That is not to say other Law & Order measures do not work. Increasing case closure rates would help a lot. For that, CPD is going to need community help, which means acknowledging past mistakes, making amends, and ensuring an end to all of the madness. Ironically, Mayor Johnson’s progressive creds mean he is probably the best person to help restore public faith. I don’t know how best to build the necessary bridges with other civic leaders to make that happen because I haven’t really thought that far ahead. But I believe that it has to be done, and Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
Chicago needs a comprehensive plan that includes every tool at its disposal.
- Dotnonymous x - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 2:48 pm:
Who profits from Shot Spotter?
- ArchPundit - Friday, Feb 16, 24 @ 4:26 pm:
YDD, makes a good point. I’ll just add that the drug war has ruined our police. That they were doing traffic stops instead of answering calls is more about juking stats than public safety.