....er....I thought the automobile was invented in Germany.
Did he just promise to cure cancer?
Socialized health care...this year? Don't get sick.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
A Bipartisan idea for the Stimulus
William J. Suntz’s cover article in the February 23, 2009 issue of The Weekly Standard entitled “Law and Disorder – the case for a police ‘surge,’” is brilliant. What’s more, if it was in a different publication (say, The Atlantic, or Newsweek) its premise would be falling off the lips of both Democrats and Republicans. The basic premise of the piece is that as the “surge” in Iraq was successful in tamping down violence there, so could a domestic surge of Police quell the violence in the United State’s urban centers.
The author points out that the front line of America’s race problem is very much entwined with the crime rate. You probably wouldn’t be shocked to learn that poor black neighborhoods have a much higher murder rate that the suburbs – but listen to the actual numbers. “In the United States in 2005, the homicide rate among wintes stood at 3.5 per 100,000. Among blacks, the figure was 26.5.” Almost eight times the rate! The argument he goes on to make is compelling, that government is falling flat on it’s obligation to keep urban black populations safe. That is racism, isn’t it? (Related 2005 posting).
Stunz makes the case that the correct response to crime in urban centers is not more efficient imprisonment of offenders, but rather deterrence brought about by the increased safety felt by a community:
“The answer is the same in American cities as in Iraqi ones. General Patraeus saw the process: Increase soldiers’ street presence, make civilians feel safe, and the local traffic increases; before long, the streets are inhospitable to terrorists and militia members. Over time, the real work of pacification is done by civilians reclaiming their own streets.”
Stunz goes on to make a nice comparison of criminal acceptance of risk and price stability. As he puts it, “Criminals are what economists call ‘risk-preferring;’ they enjoy taking changes.” He points out that when punishment for crimes varies widely, it’s a form of “price-instability,” more like a lottery. “Fluctuating ‘prices’ thus rob criminal punishment of its deterrent power.” I think this example is interesting and it makes sense – the decision to commit a crime is of course – at least by the rational minded – weighed against potential consequences. Potential crime is only prevented when the prevailing feeling is you’re more likely to get caught than not.
This article is so commonsense it makes you wish you could make every politician sit and absorb it. The sad part, as pointed out in the beginning of the article, is that with all this completely wasted (my words) spending in the stimulus package, we could easily finance a surge in police officers across America’s violent urban neighborhoods. The first and maybe most important purpose of government is protecting its citizens. We’re spending crazy amounts of money anyway – why wouldn’t bringing safety and security to all neighborhoods be something both Democrats and Republicans would support? Surge or no surge, that is government spending I can get behind!
The author points out that the front line of America’s race problem is very much entwined with the crime rate. You probably wouldn’t be shocked to learn that poor black neighborhoods have a much higher murder rate that the suburbs – but listen to the actual numbers. “In the United States in 2005, the homicide rate among wintes stood at 3.5 per 100,000. Among blacks, the figure was 26.5.” Almost eight times the rate! The argument he goes on to make is compelling, that government is falling flat on it’s obligation to keep urban black populations safe. That is racism, isn’t it? (Related 2005 posting).
Stunz makes the case that the correct response to crime in urban centers is not more efficient imprisonment of offenders, but rather deterrence brought about by the increased safety felt by a community:
“The answer is the same in American cities as in Iraqi ones. General Patraeus saw the process: Increase soldiers’ street presence, make civilians feel safe, and the local traffic increases; before long, the streets are inhospitable to terrorists and militia members. Over time, the real work of pacification is done by civilians reclaiming their own streets.”
Stunz goes on to make a nice comparison of criminal acceptance of risk and price stability. As he puts it, “Criminals are what economists call ‘risk-preferring;’ they enjoy taking changes.” He points out that when punishment for crimes varies widely, it’s a form of “price-instability,” more like a lottery. “Fluctuating ‘prices’ thus rob criminal punishment of its deterrent power.” I think this example is interesting and it makes sense – the decision to commit a crime is of course – at least by the rational minded – weighed against potential consequences. Potential crime is only prevented when the prevailing feeling is you’re more likely to get caught than not.
This article is so commonsense it makes you wish you could make every politician sit and absorb it. The sad part, as pointed out in the beginning of the article, is that with all this completely wasted (my words) spending in the stimulus package, we could easily finance a surge in police officers across America’s violent urban neighborhoods. The first and maybe most important purpose of government is protecting its citizens. We’re spending crazy amounts of money anyway – why wouldn’t bringing safety and security to all neighborhoods be something both Democrats and Republicans would support? Surge or no surge, that is government spending I can get behind!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
