Bears repeating today: reformers gain nothing by trying to downplay the homicide spike.
Homicide spiked. A lot.
Yes, not to historic highs. But it was the biggest one-year jump. And it'd have been a huge % change in 1993 too.
Denying this plays into the status quo's hands.
To argue "overall violent crime" fell is almost a literal "... but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Yes, homicide makes up ~3% of all violent crimes. But it is the most emotional and politically salient of all. By far.
If homicide spiked, "crime rose."
To try to downplay this is to give the status quo EXACTLY what it wants.
It suggests that reforms are a luxury to be indulged in only when crime is low--not smarter, better ways to reduce harm.
It betrays a lack of confidence, confidence reformers should have.
On top of that, most places didn't really make any reforms, and the reforms they did were far less aggressive than they are described.
This was, by and large, a homicide spike that happened on the status quo's watch.
Push on that, rather than downplaying a homicide spike.
I will add, though, that it is completely legit to point to other crimes for this point.
If you're asking if bail reform caused the homicide spike, we absolutely need to ask then ... did it cause the other crimes to drop? (Prob no for both, mostly.)
I've seen a bunch of tweets today abt how we spend $x per person on Rikers.
That's not how jail/prison finance math works. At Rikers, think ~90% of spending is wages and benefits. Which means total spending is fairly insensitive to population, and it isn't "going to" detainees.
It also means as jail pops fall, spending-per-person-in-jail will almost axiomatically rise, because unless we lay off staff, we'll be spending the same amount, just... per fewer ppl held there.
It's important to stop talking abt jail/prison spending in "per detainee" terms.
Talking about "spending per person in jail/prison" misleads ppl abt where the money is going (wages, not programming), and also means we grossly overstate the savings we hope for when cutting back prison/jail pops (since total spending won't move absent LABOR, not pop, cuts).
In 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, of those serving time for a VIOLENT crime that is NOT homicide or rape:
• 62% claim NO ONE was physically hurt
• 21% admit serious injury (death/rape/stab/shot/broken bones)
• 17% admit minor injury
According to the BJS prisoner count, there are ~350,000 ppl in for violence other than rape or homicide (SPI-16 est is 375K, so... close).
That would be over 200,000 ppl in prison for violence who claim to have hurt no one.
Further complicates "violence" as a category.
Of course, these are self-reports, which are always noisy and messy.
Still, even if we assume some desire to downplay harms, still suggests many in prison for violence didn't cause physical harm (betting a lot are robberies).
$50,000 bond imposed on a homeless man who almost certainly made a mistake (and thus didn't break the law) when he thought over OVERpaid for a Mountain Dew but inadvertently underpaid by 43¢.
As article points out, felony theft in PA requires intent: he had to INTEND to stiff the store.
The DA has to prove this *beyond a reasonable doubt*. The sign said "2 for $3." He paid $2 for ONE.
I can't imagine a DA who could win this one at trial.
Still: a **$50,000 bond**
The state would lose this case for sure if it goes to trial.
But that $50K bond? Now the man's in jail. Bet he gets a misdemeanor "time served" plea offer to go home that day. Does it take it? Or does he languish longer in prison and have toroll the dice on SEVEN YRS in prison?
Been thinking more about this graph, and I wonder if it shed any light on the NCVS/UCR divergence of the 1970s/1980s. Has anyone seen a paper linking these together?
Because the local fear of crime seems to track the NCVS more than the UCR.
I know I’m in the minority here, but I feel like trying to underplay a historic spike in homicides (and a likely spike in shootings) by pointing out that all OTHER crimes mostly fell is a not a great strategy for reformers.
It actually plays into Tough-on-Crime’s hands.
To argue that crime fell--even when murders really did rise by quite a lot--suggests that "reforms" are a luxury to be indulged in only when crime is low or falling.
We need to lean into the rise, not recoil from it.
Murder went up. By a lot.
On the status quo's watch.
Murder went up in places with no reforms. It went up in places with reforms... but those reforms were always less than their detractors (and many proponents) said.