If the NYPD can safely cut arrests by two-thirds, why haven't they done it before?

[phantom power]

The Post, which enthusiastically championed the NYPD during this year's turmoil, portrayed this slowdown in near-apocalyptic terms—an early headline for the article above even read "Crime wave engulfs New York following execution of cops." But the police union's phrasing—officers shouldn't make arrests "unless absolutely necessary"—begs the question: How many unnecessary arrests was the NYPD making before now?

Policing quality doesn't necessarily increase with policing quantity, as New York's experience with stop-and-frisk demonstrated. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg asserted that the controversial tactic of warrantless street searches "keeps New York City safe." De Blasio ended the program soon after succeeding him, citing its discriminatory impact on black and Hispanic residents. Stop-and-frisk incidents plunged from 685,724 stops in 2011 to just 38,456 in the first three-quarters of 2014 as a result. If stop-and-frisk had caused the ongoing decline in New York's crime rate, its near-absence would logically halt or even reverse that trend. But the city seems to be doing just fine without it: Crime rates are currently at two-decade lows, with homicide down 7 percent and robberies down 14 percent since 2013.

The slowdown also challenges the fundamental tenets of broken-windows policing, a controversial strategy championed by NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton. According to the theory, which first came to prominence in a 1982 article in The Atlantic, "quality-of-life" crimes like vandalism and vagrancy help normalize criminal behavior in neighborhoods and precede more violent offenses. Tackling these low-level offenses therefore helps prevent future ones. The theory's critics dispute its effectiveness and contend that broken-windows policing simply criminalizes the young, the poor, and the homeless.

Public drinking and urination may be unseemly, but they're hardly threats to life, liberty, or public order. (The Post also noted a decline in drug arrests, but their comparison of 2013 and 2014 rates is misleading. The mayor's office announced in November that police would stop making arrests for low-level marijuana possession and issue tickets instead. Even before the slowdown began, marijuana-related arrests had declined by 61 percent.) If the NYPD can safely cut arrests by two-thirds, why haven't they done it before?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/the-benefits-of-fewer-nypd-arrests/384126/

[former9thward]

1. Because they are ordered by their

supervisors to make Revenue arrests. And their supervisors are ordered by City Hall to make those arrests. The city needs the money.

[WhiteTara]

2. The police just showed how unnecessary they are.

The city hasn't had a spike in crime, but a huge drop in arrests. The people of NYC must be sleeping easier tonight.

[razorman]

3. Because the city needs the revenue from fines.

[sendero]

5. Bingo...

.... and court fees and jailers must be paid, etc.

[razorman]

16. Exactly. "Always follow the money".

[QuestionableC]

4. The whole beef is this:

The police are pressured by the city administration to issue summons and make arrests for low level misdemeanors,,offenses and traffic violations. These are a source of significant revenue for the city. The officers comply and put their boots on the proverbial necks of the population. In return, the officers expect the city administration to back them unquestionably.

In Garner's case, the officers were enforcing the selling of loose cigarettes which is a common method to bypass NYC's heavy taxes. The officer killed Garner and the officers Union felt the admin turned their backs on the officers. So they turned their backs on de Blaiso.

It's all one big mess. Most of the officers don't enjoy the stats and quota oriented policing. But they're forced to do it by admin. They would much rather be community police oriented, however talking to people, playing basketball with kids, and helping people generates no revenue for the city.

[sendero]

6. You only left out one huge fact..

... they (the police) do it for the money, their money.

[QuestionableC]

7. Not really

If they got a commission for writing tickets you would have a point like 10% of all the fine revenue they generate. In reality they get paid the same whether thru write 100 tickets or 0 tickets, whether they spend their shifts arresting and harassing persons of color or spend their shifts at the community centers talking to children about gang violence prevention.

[sendero]

10. Nonsense..

.... if they didn't do it for the money they wouldn't be engaged in a "work slowdown" whose entire purpose is to cost NYC revenues.

Also, nobody wants to mention that the backdrop for this entire NYPD nonsense with the mayor is a contract negotiation. this isn't about "respect" this is about weakening the mayor to gain advantage in the negotiations.

[QuestionableC]

13. They don't get a comission on ticket revenue.

[sendero]

14. They get quid pro quo....

`..... from the city in the form of wages.

[csziggy]

15. They do it to justify their existence and to justify enlarging their numbers

Every beauracracy does this. The goal is to keep the bearacracy alive and to keep it growing - and to NEVER EVER let their numbers or budget be cut.

Locally the Public Works department set up a program to pave every dirt road in the county. I think the beginning was a federal program, but it got to the point that even when the federal dollars dried up the program continued. After they had paved every road they could coerce the adjoining property owners into giving them right-of way for, they kept pushing for more paved roads.

North of us used to be a plantation - sometime during the 1980s the owner died and it was tied up in an estate. The owner had made a deal with the county that at some point in the future they would donate right of way for a road to run through the property and in addition give acreage for a school to the county. It was an illegal deal - under the Florida Sunshine Law it should not have been kept secret but it was. But someone in the Public Works department found the documentation and decided that the right of way should be opened and paved. The estate heirs didn't want it open - it would be a security nightmare for them and they were not ready to sell the land. The property owners in this area didn't want it open - my husband and I went to hearings and spoke against it. The county administrators who had made the illegal deal didn't want it opened because it brought out their illegal acts.

The only ones who wanted to have that road opened and paved were the people in the Public Works department - because if they didn't get that job on their list, they would have to cut their department by a third.

After a decade of wrangling, the road was opened, the estate grandfathered in a subdivision of the plantation that went against all the comprehensive planning to restrict urban sprawl - BUT we managed to stop the road from being pavede. Public Works hates it - they have to keep their road graders in shape and keep people trained to use them. The people who bought on that road hate it because they didn't pay tens of thousands per acre to live on a poorly maintained dirt road. The major positives are that Public Works has to have the extra staff to maintain the road and when it is eventually paved, the entire county will not have to pay for it - the property owners along the road will be assessed for the paving.

But the people who live on my road are happy - if that road were paved it would make our road a throughway and increase the traffic immensely.

[JaneyVee]

8. If they don't like doing it then why...

Did they and the police union throw a temper tantrum when DeBlasio decriminalized marijuana and cut stop and frisk?

[QuestionableC]

9. A misplaced belief that stop and frisk reduces violent crime

[Live and Learn]

12. More likely a loss of power.

Being able to stop anyone at anytime is pretty powerful stuff.

[Skittles]

11. it's a money maker

[jwirr]

17. Easy - they need the fines to pay the bills.