I am going to pick on Don Babwin here, as well as the headline writer at the Associated Press. I do not like the article they produced that purports to explain for us why the city of Chicago is suffering from so much violence that it’s now known as the murder capital of the country.
Let’s be clear, the problem is real and the causes need exploration. There have been more murders in the Windy City this year than in New York and Los Angeles combined, and there were a record-setting 91 murders in Chi-Town in August. I’d like to know what factors that are specific to Chicago can explain the discrepancy between its murder rate and the murder rate in other major metropolitan areas. Chicago is not alone among big cities in seeing an uptick in deadly violence (see Baltimore, for example), but it’s not a phenomenon that is being felt across the board, and it bucks a longer term trend that has seen the national violent crime rate drop by half since the early 1990s.
This Associated Press does one thing right. It actually looks at who the victims are and makes at least some effort to discover why they died. And, it’s true, there are a lot of gang members on the list.
Young African-American men are the chief victims. In a city that’s one-third black, the overwhelming majority of those murdered in August — 71 — were, like Malik, African American. Another 11 had Hispanic surnames. Almost half were in their teens or early 20s.
And more than 70 percent of those shot to death appeared on the Chicago police’s “Strategic Subject List,” which includes 1,400 people considered likely targets of violence based on gang involvement or criminal record.
To those outside Chicago, the rising murder toll might suggest a city wracked by widespread violence, but August portrays a much narrower picture of constant tit-for-tat attacks among gang members, with bystanders sometimes caught in the crossfire.
There are 22 police districts in Chicago, and there are four that collectively provided a third of the homicides that occurred in August. This tells us that most of the murders are localized in identifiable neighborhoods and that most of the victims are predictably at risk of being shot. These neighborhoods have devolved into a downward spiral of revenge killings.
This is a familiar thing. Once violence breaks out on a wide scale it can escalate and burn out of control. But this doesn’t help us understand why Chicago has so many of these neighborhoods relative to cities like New York City and Los Angeles. We’d like to know what got the ball rolling and why the Chicago authorities are having such a tough time fighting the resulting fire.
Instead, we get profiles like this:
Fourteen-year-old Malik Causey loved the way gangs took what they wanted from people on the street, the way members fought for each other, the way they could turn drugs into cash and cash into $400 jeans.
His mother tried to stop him. She yanked him out of houses where he didn’t belong. She cooked up a story about Malik punching her so the police would lock him up to keep him safe for a while.
Then on Aug. 21, Monique Causey woke to discover that her son had sneaked out of the house. Before she could find him, someone ended his life with a bullet to the back of his head a few blocks away.
“I went to him and cried and told him he wouldn’t make it,” Causey said. “But this fighting, jumping on people … this is all fun for them. This is what they like to do, you know, so how can you stop them?”
Later on, there is a small effort to humanize this fourteen year old boy.
Today, Monique Causey, who works for a company that makes pizzas, thinks her son might still be alive if only she’d been able to move him someplace safer. She spoke of how smart her son was, what a whiz he was with computers and how he understood that he needed to leave behind his life on the streets, go to a safer school in the suburbs, graduate and make something of himself.
After he died, she discovered, still in the package, a pair of $400 jeans in her son’s bedroom. She knows where the money came from — the same place that killed her son.
“The streets,” she said.
If your explanation for why this young teenager was shot in the back of the head on August 21st is no deeper than he “loved the way gangs took what they wanted from people on the street” and he enjoyed “fighting, jumping on people,” then you’re not only going to struggle to have any sympathy for him but you’re not going to be any further along in understanding why he belonged to a gang, how that gang makes money, why that gang was feuding, or how the city is trying to resolve the fight.
He was a fourteen year old boy, not an animal. And his neighborhood is currently a killing zone while countless other urban neighborhoods are experiencing a peaceful existence.
On the most basic level, this article fails to provide clues that might explain “Why Chicago is the murder capital.”
Telling us that it has a lot of gang activity doesn’t tell us why those gangs are so active and so much more murderous than the gangs in other cities. There’s no effort to look at Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan for curtailing this violence or the plan of his top police officers, nor any comparison to more successful efforts in other big cities.
What we’re left with is a list of dead people who it’s difficult to mourn.
Police don’t know why someone thrust a knife into Hutchen’s chest. But he had been in many scrapes with rival gangs, and had 56 arrests over the years, mostly in drug and weapons cases. Also, according to his court file, he’d told a judge that he’d worn a wire so federal agents could listen in on a cocaine buy…
…One Englewood victim was Denzell Mickiel, 24, who was shot in the face on Aug. 8 over what police suspect was a gang dispute. At the time he died, Mickiel was awaiting trial for allegedly firing shots at a group of people in 2014…
…On that day, Victor Mata, 22, a member of a faction of the Satan Disciples, was found dead in the front yard of a house. It was the fourth time he had been shot in recent years.
Christopher Hibbler, 42, who belonged to the Black P Stones, a leading black street gang, died when people in a car sprayed gunfire at the corner where he was standing…
…Johnell Johnson, a 37-year-old member of the Black Gangsters on the city’s West Side, was found dead in the street, shot in the face.
When you present the information this way, it’s easy for the reader to conclude that these folks should have been in jail in the first place and that they’re doing the rest of us a favor and saving us money by snuffing each other out. That lets too many people off the hook because, again, what we want to know is what factors make Chicago so much worse than other cities. There are clearly things that are not being done that could be done to tamp down this violence.
The presentation here also makes it too easy to forget that these gang members are terrorizing their neighborhoods and that innocent people are getting killed in the crossfire. A city has a responsibility to protect its citizens and effectively police its neighborhoods, so you can’t just write off these killings as a cheap way of dealing with very bad people.
This is also why it’s so important, in any story like this, to look at the policing, because other cities with lower crime rates and less gang violence are not solving the problem with mass incarceration. We’ve tried the “lock ’em all up” approach, and it produced mostly negative results.
Unfortunately, this article doesn’t get us any closer to understanding Chicago’s problem, and its shortcomings are practically an invitation for us to revert to policies that are known to fail. In fact, the article doesn’t even offer a single idea for what might be done to solve the problem.
Drugs are only briefly mentioned and guns are only discussed as the instruments of death, never as a possible cause of it. We get no insight into what the police are doing or failing to do. Community efforts are not mentioned.
This piece doesn’t educate us. It suggests that all the dead are criminals and makes no suggestion that any of us should care about them, their innocent victims, or have any part in helping their communities.
I’ve read an article in which it was hypothesized that Chicago’s neighborhoods are more segregated than in New York and that’s what’s led to the resurgence of murder. Perhaps that’s what has allowed this cycle of violence and reprisal to get a toehold.
Doesn’t address how to stop it. These things are so enigmatic and difficult to address. When I was a kid growing up, violent crime was on the rise and it seemed like it would just get worse and worse forever. And then suddenly it shifted. To this day no one really knows why.
To this day no one really knows why.
True, but hasn’t stopped many from claiming credit for the reduction.
We know why, lead reduction.
Lead reduction is the leading hypothesis, yes. Lead poisoning fits the uptick in violent crimes (measured in murders/capita) in the time period after world war two and ending in the 1990ies in the western world.
Still, I would love to see some more studies, because it should be easy enough to compare different countries murder rates nd when they banned lead in gasoline.
So, does Chicago have more lead poisoning? I get a lot of hits on searching for lead and Chicago, apparently there is some problem with plumbing.
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0122-3
Australia experienced the same thing about 20 years after banning lead gas just like we did. They banned it 10 or so years later and violent crime began dropping about 20 years later, in a different time period (2000s for Aus v. 1990s for USA). That is about a generation after the ban.
Then I agree, we know. Good.
Btw, I think we also to a reasonable extent know why violence dropped in a massive way in at least Europe before the automobiles:
Long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf
Warrior elites set a bad examples in how problems are solved in a high status manner.
So, to sum it up: Don’t have elites who shoot or stab each other and surrounding hoi polloi and don’t poison the population.
Though that just covers civilian violence (which reached a low point in Europe in the first half of the 20th century), so you might want to throw in not electing genocidal nazis and other war mongers.
In the U.S. it can be difficult to confirm, because we reduced lead in paint and in gasoline so long ago. But many countries lagged behind on this issue, particularly in the developing world where removing lead from the environment is on going. So the opportunity for scientific research is not gone.
Some American inner cities with older buildings can still provide evidence. Flint, Michigan, for instance.
The results for Canada are coming in and they show the theory deserves scrutiny.
.
http://www.motherjones.com/topics/lead-and-crime
Which is why the first response to the question “Why Chicago?” should be to examine the problem areas and see if there are unusually high levels of environmental lead. Someone needs to do this.
At most it explains half the decrease.
I was big proponent of this, and then I got a client that was a lab at a Harvard Medical School hospital.
Here is what I wrote in 2013.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/4/1176311/-Did-Environmentalists-dramatically-reduce-the-murder
-rate
The epidemiologists I know are profoundly skeptical. There are just too many links in the chain for a straight forward causal explanation to fly. For one exposure should result in consistent result as it does in the case of IQ. But in point of fact only a certain percentage of those exposed to lead become violent.
This may of course be because we do not all react to lead exposure the same way. But the effect of lead on IQ is well understood. The same is not true with respect to crime.
Correlation is not causation. The correlation is certainly interesting. But claiming causation appears to overstate the evidence.
It’s not that lead makes you violent.
It’s that it affects the executive functioning of the brain, i.e. the ability to make better weighed decisions, and control your own behavior.
So, two kids may be exposed to the same amount of lead during brain development. The kid who has two parents in the middle class, attends a good school, and is kept busy with after school activities and/or friends who aren’t out committing crime, whether property or personal, may be able to cope with the lead-induced damage.
The other kid with an absent parent, attends a school that isn’t able to adapt to individual aptitude, and has friends who are out committing crimes is unable to cope.
By affecting the executive judgment of an individual, lead exposure makes it less likely that the individual will make “better” decisions and control impulsivity. Rather than coping with the damage, they’ll succumb to poor decision making and will act with more impulsivity.
While I realize that two correlating charts don’t necessarily make something the cause to an effect, with lead it seems pretty likely. Over time, looking at different countries, and even county/city and time, they keep matching up.
That’s not the conclusion they make.
Its also not the conclusion the EPA has made.
Look I wrote an article because I thought it was true.
But even if, IF it is true its only half.
Maybe, maybe not.
I’ll defer to Kevin Drum on this one. He doesn’t go on to say that that the increase and decrease in crime is 100% because of leaded gasoline usage and then the prohibition of it. But the more he digs, the more it seems likely.
It IS true, but you’re right, result is about 30-50% it is the single biggest cause however.
Well said.
AJC Atlanta attorney accidentally shot wife after SUV hits bump in road
CBS45 Police continue to investigate
Alumni Highest Effort Award
When white people, particularly prominent white people, are involved in a horrible gun related accident, authorities defer to them and take their word for it at least in the early stages of an investigation.
What, the presence of an ocean of automatic weapons on every “side” hasn’t prevented violence and murders?! WTF? This does not compute! Doesn’t fear that the other guy is armed stop all violence? That’s Second Amendment 101, I thought…
Presumably the national media is running such stories because Law n’ Order strongman Trump bloviated about the wave of murders in “Obama’s hometown!” during the debate. As I recall, HRC did not respond by saying it was a special problem of Chicago, so Trump advanced his goal of white fear to some extent. If murder numbers are horrific in one city, they are horrific in every “inner city”.
Obviously, Trump and the “conservative” movement haven’t the slightest concern for the (non-white) victims of the nightly gun play in Chicago, that goes without saying. “Obama’s hometown” is just used as more evidence of those scary non-whites. Should Trump win, the likelihood that the ensuing Repub gub’mint would act on Chicago’s gang violence (or urban violence in general) is zero. To “conservatives”, violence in America’s cities is their citizens’ just desserts for consistently supporting lib’rul Dems, and Repubs most certainly aren’t going to throw additional federal funds to them. The idea that today’s “conservatives” have any use for urban America beyond vilifying it is comic.
To a large degree, this is a matter for the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago to address. Specifically, where’s Rahm? Where’s the city council? Yes, there isn’t anything he or they can do about the ocean of firearms that pollute our country, a country that the NRA and the Supreme Court have now rendered uncivilized. But the federal gub’mint has never had any direct avenues to address urban violence–and no way to enact Trump’s enthusiasm for some sort of nationwide stop n’ frisk. Legally, there is little the federal gub’mint can do to directly regulate the policing of state municipalities. But “Law and Order!” has always sounded great, so keep screaming it.
Any linkages to the destruction of black inner city public neighborhood schools during Rahm E’s tenure? The ANGER it caused in the citizens?
You beat me to it. That was one point I was going to raise. However, it was the black community that helped Rahm get re-elected over Chuy Garcia, a true representative of the people and their needs.
Did they ever go toe to toe, or did Rahm split the anti-s with a ringer?
Garcia was Rahm’s only opponent. Friends who live and work on the South Side (both black and white) said that African Americans were not happy about voting for a Hispanic candidate, despite the fact that he was far and away the best one for them and for the city. I was sad to hear this.
You might find this summary of the election results interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/chicago-mayoral-runoff-results-rahm-emanuel-chuy-garcia/
Diane Ravitch blogged on it recently…
https:/dianeravitch.net/2016/09/10/did-the-obama-administrations-policies-contribute-to-chicagos-de
adly-violence
23 comments, many from locals. Some of them will set your hair on fire. Gentrification on the low down. (http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/1/12750594/cps-chicago-public-schools-apartments)They are calling it NO CHILD LEFT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
guns poor in from Indiana where there is very little control of who’s buying them and why
Chicago might have tougher gun laws but they can’t stop the vast influx of legally purchased guns from Indiana
Maybe they should build a wall…
I hear president Obama thinks drone assassinations prevent terrorism. Perhaps he should turn his attention to the terrorists in Chicago rather than waste time committing murder and war crimes in the Middle East and Africa.
There are several drivers to crime and violence which may be important. It is EXTREMELY important that the standard “reductio ad absurdam” be avoided in this issue. No pathology stew of bad stuff is caused by only one thing. There are, in a city as big as Chicago, many problems and many causes.
I am a white guy on both sides of my family, although the German side had its problems at times. My grandmother was born Jan 10, 1900, in Hyde Park, when this area was the preferred living area for the Faculty member of the University of Chicago. My great-grandfather was principal of Hyde Park High School early in the last century. Cities were good places then. They are less so now. The area where she was born is a big area of problems. 20 years ago, my folks rescued my great-grandfather’s portrait from Hyde Park High. It used to be in the place of honor in the hall. When they got it, it was in a closet, and it was simply given to us. No interest at Hyde Park High in an old, bearded, white guy.
One other thing: Why do young minority and non-minority men seek out gangs? They are not part of traditional power structures. Gangs are power structures which provide an alternative path to becoming a successful person in an area. If you can’t get a job, if you are not comfortable or interested in school, if there is pressure from the gangs, joining a gang is the most sensible thing to do. Left unchecked, gangs will proliferate. Easy money by extortion, drug sales, prostitution, etc, is very attractive. And there is pressure to join.
The other point I neglected to make above echoes Booman’s point about the cycle of retribution: once that gets started, there is difficulty in breaking it. Especially since the police are so alienated from the residents, and there is that “no snitchin'” thing going on. No one is allowed to assist the police. The risks of helping the cops are so high in a gang area that no one will help. Our court system, in which no testimony is anonymous, means that retribution is guaranteed.
Per Wikipedia:
The Confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.
The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right’s long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.” It is also cited in Shakespeare’s Richard II, Blackstone’s treatise, and statutes.[2]
Amazingly enough, i know all that shit. My point, which you avoided, is that testifying against gang members means that retribution is inevitable. Which is why people don’t testify.
What’s your answer? We don’t need a lecture about English common law. We need a discussion which is grounded in the mean streets of Chicago at about 100th st S.
The only “answer” to the problem of retribution against witnesses would be to repeal, or modify, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution.
A coupe of things to note:
I don’t know why. I DO think there is a threshold where people begin to believe that law enforcement is effective. In LA the murder indictment rate improved dramatically, and the result was that murders went from about 3000 in LA in 1993 to about 350 in 2015.
Read that number again. The murder rate in Chicago is lower than it was in the mid-90’s
So I do think there is an inflection point where people as whole realized that their environment was not as violent as they thought, and that in turn led to changes in behavior.
But that is a complete guess.
No one really knows why crime went down. So we can’t really explain the differences between cities very well.
Yeah, much of what you say I agree with.
OK, it may be that violence is lower than earlier. The murders seem very high in Chicago. The “no-snitchin’ code” is a huge issue. The situation at this point has a life of its own. One murder leads to another. The cycle needs to be broken. How to break the cycle? Arrest a lot of folks? Put more cops on the street? Have a gang summit?
I don’t agree that “broken windows” is ineffective. There is a lot of evidence that it is highly effective. New York City is now a safe place to walk around after 10 PM. In the 60s, it was pretty much impossible to enter Central Park after dark. Today, it’s a casual thing.
Crime started dropping precipitously before NYC’s “broken windows” policy and before the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy.
Stop-n-frisk is constitutional. Period.
At this point, the MANNER in which it is conducted in NYC is considered unconstitutional.
The practice itself was ruled constitutional in 1968, and is called a “terry stop”.
NYC’s Stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional. Period.
Crime started dropping precipitously before NYC’s “broken windows” policy and before the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy.
All of those things you list but the real reason is the lack of government in Illinois for about 20 years. Governors ended up in jail. The current GOP gov only policy is to cut taxes and spending. Daley was mayor for too long. The state/Chicago have been running on auto pilot for years.
Rahm volunteered to lead a city filled with active mines and pulled grenades. He has managed to get rid of the police chief and some of the people in the DA office. He finally got money to hire some more cops. The 4 communities Boo describes have poor police presence. The cops are only visible when the body is dead in the street. Rahm needs to get a task force ( FBI, NSA, DEA, etc.) and come up with a plan to deal with the gangs. I fear no plan and Chicago will get a new mayor and the killing will continue while the new mayor comes up with a plan.
While I agree that Chicago has been badly governed for years, and that I would be very pleased to flay Daley alive and pour salt over his body, I don’t see that as contributing.
The disorder in Chicago is at the street level. Young men, without hope, without plans, without a future, are making a society of their own. It is a society of gangs, in which they gain status within a group that has influence locally, in their neighborhood. No one trusts the cops. BLM has made things worse by elevating the few murders of cops and taking attention away from the hundreds of black-on-black murders.
I think that this is a local culture thing. Boo made reference to a cycle of retaliatory murders. I think that is a large part of it. The cycle must be broken. How do you break it? I have a lot of suggestions, but don’t really know.
Just the other day, a party of suburban folks were at Millenium Park (the new park next to the Art Institute on the lake shore). They got into an argument with some other group (WHY??). A guy, a multiple felon, pulled out a gun and shot one of these suburban guys dead. Just like that. In daylight. In Millenium Park. I’ve been to Millenium Park possibly 50 times since 1962 (although the park wasn’t created until about 1997).
Most of what is written about crime in America is utter nonsense. If you are actually interested in what the data say, the best person to follow on twitter is a Fordham Law Professor @JohnFPfaff on twitter.
Basically no one is really interested in a disinterested resuscitation of facts. For example, it is NOT true that the rise in incarceration is primarily the result of tougher drug laws. Increases in drug sentencing explains only about a quarter of the increase.
I guarantee no one on the left will believe you when you say that.
It is NOT true that mass incarceration had no role in the decline in the crime rate. It is closer to the truth to say we don’t really know what effect it had, though it had probably though not certainly had some.
The thing to remember is that NO ONE saw the incredible decrease in crime coming before it happened.
NO ONE’s explanation of crime works, except for perhaps the environmentalists who will point to the removal of lead. Guns: well the number increased and crime went down. Inequality – it increased in crime went down. Secularization of society – it increased in crime went down. Violent video games: their use exploded and crime went down. Pornography? Freely available on the web and crime went down.
I guarantee in these discussions NO ONE will note that the decline in crime has occurred not just in the US but in other industrialized countries as well.
What that should tell you is the factors that led to the decline in crime are poorly understood. And in fact no one predicted the recent increase, and we don’t really know if the increase, which is confined to a few cities, is really anything more than statistical noise.
I could go on: the left greatly overstates the role of private prisons (though they certainly are a terrible idea). In general I think the discussion is led by people who focus on a narrow part of the problem because it fits their ideological perspective.
But the data basically say we don’t really know very much about causation and crime.
And that answer is just no acceptable to those who want to make a particular ideological argument.
A quibble. I really wish people would quit referring to people caught in the crossfire as “innocent victims”. This phrasing implies that there are other people who are, shall we say, deserving victims: the gang members. Sorry, but I don’t believe anyone deserves to be shot in the face, even if they’ve done a lot of bad stuff.
I’ve read that investigative stops by Chicago police are down over 90% compared to last year. The dropoff has been associated with “bad police morale” after the Laquan McDonald case. The couple of articles I’ve found on it don’t make the situation entirely clear to me, but I wonder if Chicago PD has basically been on strike to protest being held accountable for the McDonald shooting.