According to the Baltimore Sun, Baltimore police are arresting fewer people, then notes that the higher arrest rates may have had a positive effect.
But they also might have led to some steep crime declines. In 2002, with Norris at the helm, the city saw a low of 253 homicides, still far short of the goal then-Mayor Martin O'Malley set of dipping to 175.
Currently, with the year not yet over, 262 people have been killed in Baltimore. That projects to roughly 286 over the course of the year.
Nonetheless we learn
David Rocah, an ACLU Maryland staff attorney, said this year's arrest numbers show that the department has "moved slightly in the right direction, but not enough for anyone to say the problem has been solved."
So is the higher homicide rate an acceptable trade-off for the ACLU?
Isn't it possible that many arrests - even if all they do is take someone off the street for a short time - have the effect of disrupting criminal activity? And isn't it possible that that's played a role in lowering the homicide rate?
Posted by SoccerDad at November 26, 2007 2:08 AM | TrackBackThis is definitely getting sent to BOTW, right? :)
Posted by: Ezzie at November 26, 2007 1:49 PMHi, SD. You and I have discussed once or twice how we respectively see zero-tolerance policing on infractions.
If the arrests for murder or major felonies were down while the crimes were going up, I would be somewhat concerned. On the other hand, if the police are trying to churn numbers by rolling up on people for open containers, disorderly conduct (i.e. the offense of being seriously disliked by a cop), drop in the bucket assault (e.g. you touched my jacket, it's an assault), then it's another matter.
I have heard again and again from friends and acquaintances about the rude treatment that they experience from Baltimore City Police. Not every unprofessional rudeness is a civil rights violation, to be sure.
Posted by: Bruce at November 27, 2007 2:18 AM