Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbooth | Hacker News Reader

The homicide division doesn't prevent murders, they solve them.

People generally credit methodology changes under the term 'community policing' for the turn-around. Basically, the idea is that rather than just riding in, cracking skulls, slapping cuffs on once a night, engage with the community more, address more stuff like noise complaints and vandalism, to build relations with the community and coincidentally crack down on the same troublemakers a lot of the time. In theory (and in practice), it turns out to be more effective at stopping crime from happening than the deterrent factor of riding in lights blazing every night.

(This isn't to say that NYC cops are perfect or that stop-and-frisk doesn't happen all the damn time, just outlining the general theory behind community policing)

View on HN

> The homicide division doesn't prevent murders, they solve them.

I don't think larrys was suggesting otherwise, just that it'd be interesting to know if the homicide division was reduced in line with the homicide rate. Similarly, what has happened to the percentage of cases being solved and successfully prosecuted?

> 'community policing' [...] turns out to be more effective at stopping crime

It's known as "policing by consent" by the British, where officers are meant to follow the "Peelian Principles" from 1829 [1]

Of particular relevance here:

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

[1] http://independentpolicecommission.org.uk/peelian-principles

"I don't think larrys was suggesting otherwise, just that it'd be interesting to know "

Exactly.

My feeling is that under the "work expands to fill the time available for completion" Parkinson's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law we would find that the size of that division didn't drop as much as it could (ratio wise) since a detective can always follow more leads. And if those leads led to arrests the labor would be justified. Without regard to whether the extra work was the reason or not.

All this of course assumes also that the staffing level was appropriate to begin with. No way to really know that. After solving crimes in NY Metro is not the same as solving crimes in a different geographic area (travel time or other support resources could be different).

The articles coverage of stop and frisk is bizarre, the police talk about how effective it's been despite halving the rate at which they do it. This would indicate that stop and frisk has a near zero effect on the murder rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com