He doesn’t, because he can’t (other than maybe a few ppl #onhere, which is …. not “orthodoxy”).
The claim is never that lethal violence hasn’t risen, it’s that traditional tough-on-crime approaches aren’t where we should prioritize more resources.
Now there is, in fact, evidence that gun control laws work. And that when they don't, it may be due to the black market--which we can target as well!
(The black market is not a "oh well, what can you do?" problem, tho it is often invoked that way).
But think this quote by @CaterinaGRoman is imp to keep in mind: the lege often likes law-enforcement based responses bc they are fast and easy. Maybe we need to focus on other, less-law enforcement centered approaches.
I've mentioned this before, but bears repeating: Breaking the Pendulum, by Goodman, Page, and @MichelleSPhelps, is essential reading to understand the politics of punishment during periods of change (or even what leads to periods of change).
The neatness with which we categorize past shifts from punitive to progressive and back makes those transitions seems inevitable, which makes them seem predictable.
Their core point is that they were never inevitable, and often the product of various sorts of shocks.
As it is now. The financial crisis of 2008 ushered in a uneasy alliance that pushed for (some) reforms. Covid upended that, George Floyd's murder destabilized more (and why did THAT one catch fire, not previous ones?), then the homicide spike, now the police failure of Uvalde...
Not ONE WORD that a progressive came in first in Alameda County. Not even a single word that Alameda exists.
No effort, at all, to distinguish mayoral races from DA races (they’re different!).
No mention of the progressive win in Des Moines.
Also, the article ONLY interviews ppl involved in CA politics.
By not talking to ppl running in local races elsewhere (other than one or two Congressional types), it actually provides basically no evidence for its own central claim abt “national” implications.
At least the Times has been consistent—Krasner’s win showed the national strength, Boudin’s loss its national weakness.
That there’s only 1 year between these takes suggests maybe both are a little too hasty.
Does anyone want to publish my take on the realities of string theory? on the impact of 13th century Islamic art on Euro architecture? on the cinematic quality of 1970s dystopias?
No. They shouldn't.
But anyone can get their take on crime policy and politics published anywhere.
Criminologists: I study gang violence, so I'm hesitant to talk about mass shootings.
Pundits: I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR FIVE MINUTES, AND I CAN SOLVE CRIME TOMORROW.
Just bc crime policy is a Really Big Topic right now does not mean that everyone has to write on it.
It's not just noise. Often, it's misguided oversimplifications published in some of the most valuable writing real estate out there.
1. "Police" is a term that takes on a lot of different definitions. One reply several made to my police-per-capita graph is that in Europe, lots of jobs that they call police we don't (like, perhaps, passport control). So their "ppl patrolling streets" rate may be lower.
2. Official police budgets may significantly understate police spending. Chicago's big settlement bill comes out of general fund resources. Where are pensions hiding? Vera found for corrections that ~14% of spending wasn't in the corrections budget.
The utter indifference to the implications of the arrest here. No one checked Lowe’s pic against the video camera before arresting him and locking him in jail for over two weeks.
Just … basic due diligence before upending someone’s life.
And this is a good rebuttal to the common police complaint that there’s no punishment when DAs don’t prosecute. Arrest and pre-dismissal detention are often quite punitive themselves.