Slashdot Mirror
'Moneyball' Approach Reduces Crime In New York City
HughPickens.com writes The NYT reports that NY County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.'s most significant initiative has been to transform, through the use of data, the way district attorneys fight crime. "The question I had when I came in was, Do we sit on our hands waiting for crime to tick up, or can we do something to drive crime lower?" says Vance. "I wanted to develop what I call intelligence-driven prosecution." When Vance became DA in 2009, it was glaringly evident that assistant D.A.s fielding the 105,000-plus cases a year in Manhattan seldom had enough information to make nuanced decisions about bail, charges, pleas or sentences. They were narrowly focused on the facts of cases in front of them, not on the people committing the crimes. They couldn't quickly sort minor delinquents from irredeemably bad apples. They didn't know what havoc defendants might be wreaking in other boroughs.
Vance divided Manhattan's 22 police precincts into five areas and assigned a senior assistant D.A. and an analyst to map the crime in each area. CSU staff members met with patrol officers, detectives and Police Department field intelligence officers and asked police commanders to submit a list of each precinct's 25 worst offenders — so-called crime drivers, whose "incapacitation by the criminal-justice system would have a positive impact on the community's safety." Seeded with these initial cases, the CSU built a searchable database that now includes more than 9,000 chronic offenders (PDF), virtually all of whom have criminal records. A large percentage are recidivists who have been repeatedly convicted of grand larceny, one of the top index crimes in Manhattan, but the list also includes active gang members, people whom the D.A. considers "uncooperative witnesses," and a fluctuating number of violent "priority targets," which currently stands at 81. "These are people we want to know about if they are arrested," says Kerry Chicon. "We are constantly adding, deleting, editing and updating the intelligence in the Arrest Alert System. If someone gets out of a gang, or goes to prison for a long time, or moves out of the city or the state, or ages out of being a focus for us, or dies, we edit the system accordingly — we do that all the time."
"It's the 'Moneyball' approach to crime," says Chauncey Parker. "The tool is data; the benefit, public safety and justice — whom are we going to put in jail? If you have 10 guys dealing drugs, which one do you focus on? The assistant district attorneys know the rap sheets, they have the police statements like before, but now they know if you lift the left sleeve you'll find a gang tattoo and if you look you'll see a scar where the defendant was once shot in the ankle. Some of the defendants are often surprised we know so much about them."
"It's the 'Moneyball' approach to crime," says Chauncey Parker. "The tool is data; the benefit, public safety and justice — whom are we going to put in jail? If you have 10 guys dealing drugs, which one do you focus on? The assistant district attorneys know the rap sheets, they have the police statements like before, but now they know if you lift the left sleeve you'll find a gang tattoo and if you look you'll see a scar where the defendant was once shot in the ankle. Some of the defendants are often surprised we know so much about them."
I would very much like to know the racial makeup of that list. Given it came from the police themselves, it certainly leads to questions about how such individuals end up on those lists.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I would guess there's relatively little crime within a block of the police station. Police should create a mobile platform and move the police stations to where the crime happens every few weeks or months.
Let's make sure you end up back in jail. Feedback loop anyone?
New York might be the "greatest city in the world" (to some); but, hey, it's a big world out there.
Was the banning of tetraethyl lead in gasoline. Since then crime stats have gotten better and better.
That's the only problem.
Using "small data" to keep track of actual-criminal nuances: Fine.
That the list contains people without convictions means that you can be added, and your sentence affected, by things you haven't been proven guilty of: Due Process Fail.
I glossed through the lengthy article and didn't see if the DA's "Moneyball" approach is working, and to what extent if it is.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
With the title moneyball, I am imagining the police pulling a wad of cash through the streets, and jailing anyone they catch.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You'd think the justice system would already deal with the "large percentage [of] recidivists who have been repeatedly convicted of grand larceny" during sentencing. CA has three-strikes to force it.
"...a searchable database that now includes more than 9,000 chronic offenders (PDF), virtually all of whom have criminal records..." ...how do you get a chronic offender who doesn't have a criminal record...?
Sounds like pre-crime to me.
Less crime is great, but these methods presuppose that the DA & the police are working so closely together as to be indistinguishable. If that's a desirable arrangement, we still need someone who is willing to prosecute police misconduct.
So, you have no criminal convictions, you have done nothing anyone could charge you for, but a police officer does not like your answer, or just you, and decides to put you on a list designed to significantly effect your sentencing, and make sure that officers pay you special consideration whenever possible? America has been taking too many lessions from Canada in the criminal law department. That is 100% unconstitutional.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Hmmm...this reminds me of the story about operational analysis of bomber armor in WWII. Briefly, the Allies examined bombers that returned from raids, compiled where they had been hit by flak and machine gun fire, and started a program to armor those spots. Then they realized, that the planes that hadn't returned probably had been damaged in the spots that the returning planes had not been, and that's where the armor was needed. In this case, singling out the people who get arrested over and over, while not a bad idea, is focusing on the incompetent criminals - the people who are good at it will get arrested at much lower rates than the ones who are in and out of the system all the time.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
The database contains "more than 9,000 chronic offenders" which include "uncooperative witnesses"? Does anyone else worry about this?
I wanted to put a petition on whitehouse.gov for a study to be conducted on why crime fell in half in the last 25 years, but I don't know enough people to get it up. Seriously. Why has crime fallen in half, in spite of there being recession. Was it Lead? Was it abortion? Was it birth control? Was it more cops? Was it better policing methods? Have poor people become more knowledgable of hard drugs? Are most of the crooks currently in jail, so they can not commit crimes?
This is an important issue, and as a society, we don't know why crime is down. It could have major implications on drug policy.
9,000 chronic offenders (PDF), virtually all of whom have criminal records
How can you be a chronic offender and NOT have a record?
Wall Street, responsible for the global economic meltdown (JPMorgan CHASE, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, etc., etc.), is in Cyrus Vance Jr.'s district, and it was Vance Junior who went after some tiny little Chinese immigrant bank, Abacus Bank, instead of going after a single one of the major players.
I call bullcrap on this!
This is what I refer to as the Bin Laden Playbook: he gave it to us on 9/11, and our political parties and their cronies (and future employers) in the Surveillance Industrial Complex have been profitably running them ever since that day. Pavlov's Dopes, indeed.
When law enforcement hands the meat and potatoes to the prosecution daily, its no wonder the prosecution sits on its thumbs when one of their own goes ballistic and murders someone in the street. They are biased. There can be no justice for the people when the very foundation of the system is built upon this bias. That is hypocrisy and that is why the people have taken to streets in protest. What do you expect? Ultimately, the very entities this system was designed to protect arrogantly acknowledge this and praise it. They put that in their grand data base and swish it around.
One downside to Mr. Vance's approach is that motorists or taxi drivers that kill or maim (like remove a young girl's foot who is sitting near the roadway in a plaza, or simply run a slow moving granny over and kill her while she is in a crosswalk) rarely will be charged with even a moving violation let alone with manslaughter.
Two reasons:
1) Giuliani defeated Dinkins for mayor of NYC
2) Relaxation of gun control
Putting police officers inside giant plastic bubbles and then tilting the whole of Manhattan Island to help them collect bananas is clearly the best approach to fighting crime.
Why this wasn't done years ago is beyond me.
You can't have that because the reason might not fit the narrative of whomever is in power. eg; If it is due to less gun control, the liberals wont like it. If it is due to less drug prohibition the conservators wont' like it.
You need to check your timeline - I was born late '70s and I remember the transition, so sure as heck I was affected.
But you are correct - the drop in crime should be leveling off soon(if not already). Now we're into the tougher ways to further reduce crime. One thing that the massive jump in crime did was really exercise our law enforcement abilities.
Heck, I even remember my grandfather using an adapter so he could use the (cheaper) leaded gasoline in his unleaded car. I know now that it ruined the catalytic converter and really screwed with emissions, but hey, I was a pre-teen back then.
Still, the drop was precipitous enough that many state penal systems cancelled lots of planned prison construction, and prison overcrowding is now mostly over. Well, at least for states that didn't try to shove 3 times as many prisoners as their prisons were rated for into them(California).
I don't read AC A human right
You're going to feel pretty silly when you realize you juts re-invented police cars.
Yep, because Hollywood has all the right answers when it comes to reducing crime. Looks like journalists can't do anything more than propgate acontextual jargon that only stimulates poorly held perceptions of what it is like to be "modern" and using "smart" technology. Who cares, Hollywood? Charlie Brown still can't kick the football.
Interestingly it's not unconstitutional (I know I'm surprised to see the cops not breaking the constitution also)
There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits formation of a "usual suspects" list.
This worries me enormously. One more step towards 1984. If anyone has not read 1984 I don't think you can really know what you are talking about.
The "crime" problem in the USA stems from the way your society is organised: no democracy (no Proportional Representation), brainless gun culture, moronic belief in the American Dream, crazy oil-based foreign policy, greed is good mentality, enormous and growing gap between rich and poor, and a complete and utter collective ignorance of alternative possibilities. The collective ignorance coupled with overweening nationalism and a conviction that your empire is the best and only way of doing things is scary.
Trying to tackle crime in this context is big time 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff' stuff.
But while you get yourselves sorted, why not learn from others around the world about how to tackle "crime". Check out the nordics. Get yourself educated about criminology - there's some great science on it in John Pratt, Contrasts in Punishment: An Explanation of Anglophone Excess and Nordic Exceptionalism (Routledge, ISBN: 9780415524735)
And here's a starter pack:
Germany’s Prison Act states “the sole aim of incarceration is to enable prisoners to lead a life of social responsibility free of crime upon release.”
6 reasons why European prisons better than US =
http://www.businessinsider.com...
work in progress
Other than that.....?
That the list contains people without convictions means that you can be added, and your sentence affected, by things you haven't been proven guilty of: Due Process Fail.
That stuck out like a big sore thumb to me. It's police and prosecutorial misconduct, pure and simple. (I'm appalled that this wasn't brought up until this far down in the discussion.)
Other items, just from the little bit quoted here:
- 'people whom the D.A. considers "uncooperative witnesses,"'
One of the big differences between the US and English systems is that in the US you are NOT REQUIRED to risk your own life to do the police department's work by testifying about what you've seen. (You aren't allowed to lie, but you are allowed to be silent.) The police often can't, or won't, provide you with protection against criminal retaliation for your testimony, at the same time that they block you from obtaining or using the means to protect yourself. Don't want to be a martyr? Just say nothing.
But these guys are turning that principle on its head: If they decide you're an "uncooperative witness", into the database you go, to be harassed and minutely scrutinized from then on, threatened with arrest at any slip-up, treated differently, and far worse, than other citizens. That's selective enforcement at its worst, and denial of civil rights under cover of law.
Then there's "gang members". If some policeman don't happen to like you and the friends you hang out with, they he can define your group as a "gang", regardless of whether you've committed any crime, and treat you and your group as they would big-time repeat offenders. Any bets on whether this gets used against political opponents of the prosecutors' party?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Once they've identified those people they should try to give them training and a good job. Far more cost-effective and beneficial than locking them up.
This could be a case of mistaken nomenclature. Sure, it sounds like its just a guy that won't talk, but I doubt they put everyone on there that doesn't talk or the list would be a mile long, which is what they're trying to avoid. However, that guy, thats always around crime and has been questioned regarding 10 gang incidents, but is supposedly not in the gang, and won't talk? It signifies affiliation. It also points out which areas are under severe threat from gang intimidation.
I don't know, they didn't really go into too much detail about the term, but its mentioned alongside gang activities, so that's my guess. Point is that we're being really pedantic about two words that weren't expounded upon as a reason to scrap what appears to be a pretty level-headed approach to prosecution. Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.
Yes, The Commish was a TV cop drama, but one of their strengths was to do policing based on numbers and statistics. OK, they took the normal 'over the top' abilities of TV, but the basics were good. TV today is getting basically 'instant DNA scans', to the extent that McCoy wished was in this tricorder! The same with stats on TV shows.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Most here know, that statistics are not useful if the sample size is below a certain number.
But, did you know that the statistic can not usefully be -applied- to a group less than that number?
In other words, statistics can not be applied to individuals. (Unless the samples were all that individual.)
-That- is what is wrong with "profiling" used wrongly.
In fact it is the basis for racism. Humans have an instinct to assume the individual in front of them is the same as others that look the same, because that is safer in primitive wild conditions. But it is not a good way to think in civilized times, because it is often wrong.
The police should treat all people the same, because they can not know what they are facing. They should be polite but watch them carefully. Relaxing if the person looks one way and being tense when they look another way, is not good on either side. A criminal can maskerade as an honest person. An honest person can maskerade as a criminal, if they like the dress style.
The question does not actually have anything to do with race, religion or politics... 8-)