The good news, among the mostly bad that we have been hearing lately, is that homicidal violence in New York City is at a 50-year low. But can we keep it that low?
Murders, which in 1990 numbered over 2,000, are now down to the 400 range. And make no mistake, this is not part of some national trend. If New York had the same homicide rate as Chicago, we’d be recording 1,800 murders; if Detroit’s, then 4,000.
For over 20 years, I have predicted that crime in the city would continue to drop. For a long time that was not the conventional wisdom, as others proclaimed that we would soon experience a “bloodbath” or that police strategies had no real bearing on the crime rate.
The difference is that old-time anti-crime activities were usually conducted in sporadic drives. But now the NYPD has developed the nation’s best anti-crime system — one that confronts criminals before they strike — and continues to fine-tune it. Yet this system may be dismantled when a new mayor takes office next January.
No mayor wants crime to rise, but some will make changes in policing to accommodate critics.
Complaints against the police are natural. In many instances, this is a good thing — because it means the cops are doing their job. The drug gunmen who used to shoot up the streets of New York certainly weren’t happy when the law came down. Then there are some public figures who attack cops because it helps to advance their political goals.
In fairness, there are people who have legitimate gripes. It’s not enough for cops to simply protect citizens, they must respect them.
A cop responding to a gun call is probably going to concentrate on not getting shot and may be brusque in his dealings with bystanders. Most of us would cut him some slack in such a situation. But sometimes disrespect occurs — every street cop has sometimes strayed over the line.
Yet this kind of a situation is best dealt with if the citizen talks to neighborhood police brass and a superior then has a heart-to-heart with the offending officer. Once, after I arrested a disputatious gentleman, my boss told me, “That guy was not disorderly, you were.” I’ve carried that reprimand in my memory ever since.
But such events are not a basis for scrapping successful crime-fighting programs.
The danger is that a mayor will respond to complaints by cutting back on police operations — like stop, frisk and question — in which case the following will happen:
Crime will gradually rise. Apologists will explain this as due to the economy or some other convenient excuse. (Of course, the economy has been very bad for four years, and crime has still fallen to new lows.) Then will come a tipping point, as occurred in the late ’80s when the police were overwhelmed, the criminals took over the streets and whole neighborhoods were turned into free-fire zones with bodies dropping all over the place.
What can be done to prevent this scenario? In the 112 years since New York City has had a single police commissioner, every incoming mayor but one did not retain the incumbent. (The one mayor who did turned out to have made a wise choice.)
If the new mayor does yield to the temptation to clean house, he or she must select a solid police head — one with a proven record as a crime-fighter and equal ability to communicate with the public.
We don’t need a commissioner who mouths the old discredited notion that “cops can’t really do anything about crime.” New Yorkers will never buy that line because they have seen with their own eyes that it is false.
Whoever is running City Hall in 2014 is going to be expected to keep crime under control. If crime zooms in our city, the public and eventually history will judge the mayor severely.
Thomas A. Reppetto is the former president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and the author of “American Police, 1945-2012.”