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.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Pfaff

John Pfaff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JohnFPfaff

28 Sep
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).
Read 4 tweets
24 Sep
Intriguing data point of the night.

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).

(Of course, psych/emotional harm matters too.)
Read 6 tweets
21 Sep
One more detail here. I've seen ppl outraged at the DA over this bond. That... may not be the case here.

PA rules vary by county, but believe this is a county where the initial bail decision can be made by the arresting officer and the judge... alone.

No DA. No def lawyer.
It's a crazy rule. The cop and the judge (all too often likely a former DA) get to set the initial bail with no lawyers present.

There eventually has to be a hearing with lawyers, but believe that can be up to two weeks later.

Two weeks in jail. That's big.
Imagine a county where the DA doesn't want to prosecute minor stuff anymore, but the police and former-ADAs-turned-judges do.

They can effectively create two-week sentences for offenses that consistently get dropped by the DA.

That could be all they wanted in the first place!
Read 4 tweets
20 Sep
I just can't.

$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¢.

And got arrested for it by the STATE police.

pennlive.com/news/2021/09/m…
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?
Read 11 tweets
14 Sep
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.
If that's right--that the NCVS seems to track ppl's sense of local safety more than generic safety--I have no idea what it means.

Could mean that the NCVS and Gallup suffer from a shared bias... like a weakened ability to reach those most affected by crime.

But... don't know!
I feel like the NCVS/UCR divergence of the 1960s-1980s is one of the less-acknowledged puzzles with crime data, and it strikes me as a big one:

Did CRIME rise in the 1960s-70s? Or its PERCEPTION? Or police INVOLVEMENT?

Or, perhaps the best suggestion I've seen:
Read 5 tweets
13 Sep
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.

Tell that story.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(