Why is the crime rate so low in New York City?

Answer 1

Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? Were Guiliani's tough-guy tactics the bitter medicine the city needed? Or was the declining crime rate the result of Dinkins' less aggressive measures, such as expanding the NYPD by 25%?

According to Wikipedia, crime in the city began to decline while Dinkins was mayor: "...crime actually declined during the last 36 months of his four-year term, ending a 30-year upward spiral and initiating a trend of falling rates that continued well beyond his term."

But would crime have continued to decline, and stayed down, without Guiliani? The national economy was doing quite well in the 1990s, and around the time Guiliani became mayor, the entire nation enjoyed a small but perceptible drop in crime. Some might say that Guiliani had a much easier job of wiping out crime than Dinkins did, because conditions were already favorable for such a decline.

Guiliani was a big fan of the "Broken Windows" theory (see the Related Link below) which is a sociological concept which states that the appearance of decay and disorder in a neighborhood -- such as broken windows, burnt-out storefronts, excessive litter, and other such nuisances -- creates an atmosphere that tells criminals, "It's okay to commit serious crimes here, because look, the neighborhood's falling apart already."

Consequently, Guiliani expended a lot of police power on these nuisance crimes: petty theft, possession of marijuana, graffiti, etc. But the "Broken Windows" theory has received a lot of criticism from fellow sociologists. Many sociologists instead credit the "mean reversion" theory (see the second Related Link below) for the reduction of crime in the 1990s.

The biggest criticism of the Broken Windows theory is that it falls victim to a classical logical fallacy: it mistakes correlation for cause-and-effect. An unrelated example of this is the popular assertion that, "violent gangsta rap turns innocent kids into violent criminals." If you take a sample of 100 violent criminals, you will likely find that most of them -- let's say, 90 out of 100, or 90% -- listen to hardcore gangsta rap with violent lyrics. You might say, "Hey, look, all these violent criminals listened to violent music before they committed crime! That must mean that violent music causes violence!"

But...what kind of music do you EXPECT a violent criminal to listen to? Britney Spears? The fallacy is in assuming that, because a person listened to violent music and then went out and committed violence, that the violent music must have CAUSED the violence. The reality is simply that violent people are more likely to listen to violent music, in the same way that a liberal-minded hippie is likely to enjoy listening to Bob Dylan. People choose music that suits their personality.

Similarly, when a neighborhood is shabby-looking, with broken windows, burnt-out storefronts, and litter and graffiti everywhere, it is more likely to deteriorate from there, and become plagued by more serious crimes. The fallacy is in assuming that that the minor problems -- the broken windows and the litter and graffiti -- CAUSED the more serious crime.

There are other factors to consider. For example, a neighborhood that is shabby and run-down is likely plagued by economic problems. In a rich neighborhood, where everything is neat and tidy, all the residents have good jobs and families, and thus are less likely to commit crime. People who live in shabby neighborhoods are poor, and usually attend under-funded, over-crowded public schools where they cannot get an adequate education. People in these circumstances are more likely to commit crime. It's not the broken windows and the graffiti themselves that caused the crime. Rather, it's the economic disadvantages. The broken windows and the graffiti are simply another symptom of economic disadvantage.

Guiliani's critics have also accused the police of fudging the crime statistics, to make it look as though crime was declining more than it actually was.

Another suggested factor for the decline of crime all over the country in the 1990s has been -- surprisingly -- abortion. Some sociologists argue that, since abortion was legalized in the U.S. in 1972, the number of unwanted babies born into poor, broken homes -- who are statistically much more likely to become criminals -- were never born.

And finally, another important factor to consider is the decline of the crack cocaine era. Crack cocaine is a deadly dangerous drug. It is highly, highly addictive, and an addict will do anything -- ANYTHING -- to get their next fix. Even worse, a person who is high on crack is out of their mind: they're delusional, paranoid, hyperactive, aggressive, and often violent.

Crack was invented in the late 1970s, and all through the 1980s the United States was in the throes of a literal crack epidemic. In the 1990s, the popularity of crack declined, and heroin -- the most popular drug in the 1970s -- became all the rage again. Heroin is no less addictive than crack, but, because it is a depressant instead of a stimulant, it is a more peaceful drug. Heroin addicts still rob and kill people to feed their addiction, but since heroin does not make you delusional, paranoid, hyperactive, and aggressive, people tend to be less violent when they're on heroin, than when they're on crack.

See the third and fourth Related Links for the Wikipedia entries on David Dinkins and Rudy Guiliani.