I bring this up for a number of reasons but most importantly because in this one, somewhat short, newspaper article the reader gets perhaps one of the clearest renderings of the debate between the importance of prevention vs. the importance of enforcement.
Enforcement:
Officials say the drop shows crime-fighting efforts are having an effect.
"The connection between violence and offenders with prior drug, firearms and other such crimes is clear," Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Michael Spears wrote in an e-mail response to questions from The Indianapolis Star.
"We spend a significant amount of our resources working to interdict drugs, remove guns from the street and build strong cases against persons involved in such crimes."
Spears and other Police Department leaders, including one who nearly a year ago said the city was "at war," this week joined the mayor to call for an income tax increase to hire 100 additional police officers and fund other criminal justice needs.
...
Mayor Bart Peterson this week pointed to the reduction in homicides during a speech asking for a $90 million income tax increase to fund 100 new police officers, improve the court system and partially pay off debt in police and firefighter pensions.
Here's a city where the desire for more enforcement has led to the mayor - the first Democrat elected mayor of this predominantly Republican city since 1967 - to call for a tax increase to pay for it.
On the prevention side:
Police and community leaders have worked harder than ever to find new ways to attack the social problems, said Olgen Williams, a Westside community activist who runs Christamore House in Haughville.
"I get a good sense right now that people are a little calmer," Williams said. "Young people are chilling a little, and they have a little bit of hope because we've got so many people showing a concern about their lives and their choices."
Although Williams understands the need for more police, he laments that the community still spends too little on youth programs and efforts to reintegrate ex-convicts into society.
"If we took $85 million and injected it into quality-of-life issues, education, training and job skills, wouldn't that be a great impact?" he asked.
Investing in programs that teach job and life skills can have a greater role in reducing crime than prisons, courts and police officers ever could, Williams said.
"When given the right structure, young people and adults can make better choices," he said. "That impacts our whole society."
Which side do you fall on? Or better yet, is there a way to get both? How do we make the investments needed for the long term payoff that would accompany more job opportunities and better educational options while also finding funding for the short-term payoff of locking up criminals and making our entire criminal justice system work more efficiently and effectively?
Social scientists are skeptical of the drop in homicides in Indianapolis, rightly pointing to the need for more data before establish a trend. So we'll have to keep an eye on that city and others nationwide to see what the homicide trends are.
Comments (2)
"Here's a city where the desire for more enforcement has led to the mayor - the first Democrat elected mayor of this predominantly Republican city since 1967 - to call for a tax increase to pay for it."
Actually, it seems he's getting the results WITHOUT a tax increase. But let's not let minor details get in the way of the real agenda....
Posted by Anonymous | July 2, 2007 8:00 PM
Learn how to read Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous or would comprehension of the English language get in the way of your agenda.
Posted by Fante | July 2, 2007 10:16 PM