Just picked up this story about a minute ago. The “broken windows” strategy that Giuliani used in New York City to successfully harass and intimidate (largely black and Latino) working class New Yorkers had already been persuasively debunked. Even James Q. Wilson, chief proponent of the theory noted that it was only speculation, not backed up by data.What is impressive about the lead-based argument is that to make the claim the researcher tested the relationship in nine different countries over time and found the relationship in every single case he studied. To my mind this is a powerful example of social science that both moves the scholarship forward and lends itself to sound practical application. It also further undermines Giuliani’s case as “America’s mayor”, which I always felt was weak even discounting his habit of alternately ignoring and demonizing non-white New Yorkers.This last bit gets to the crux of the matter:
Nevin’s finding implies a double tragedy for America’s inner cities: Thousands of children in these neighborhoods were poisoned by lead in the first three quarters of the last century. Large numbers of them then became the targets, in the last quarter, of Giuliani-style law enforcement policies.
The broken windows strategy is very similar to the war in Iraq. An external force attacking its enemy seeks to establish an order that accord with values not shared by the populous.
The death of these experiments will demonstrate the good intentions of ‘neighborhood policing’ and ‘nation building’ are as foolish as paleocons have always said. War is war and to hell with what the people thing. Policing is policing. Arrest the criminals and leave no leaflets saying ‘we are not your enemy’. If local populations will not be swayed by the values of the external force, then the external forces, in response, will become more brutally efficient.
Us vs them is clear and easy.
—
I find it difficult to understand the causal relationship between lead poisoning and crime. It’s absurd, just as Bratton says. People aren’t convicted of crimes based on their lead-content.
—
Thirdly, it was not Giuliani who came up with the idea but with the decision to change police tactics. It was Bratton, and Bratton took his cues from another researcher. The common sense explantion of broken windows is still clear. The question of Giuliani’s involvement revolves around whether or not it makes sense to be pre-emptive in all high crime areas or to leave some high crime areas as a control group. So I don’t think, given certain black attitudes about the man, that he could have won either way. I think he was right to not leave any high crime areas as a control group to prove out the theory.
what is it about the relationship between lead and crime that you don’t understand? it is a much more direct connection than the broken windows theory.
Bratton didn’t take his cues from a researcher, he took his cues from the theorist. note the difference. james q. wilson never tested the soundness of his theory. and as far as giuliani goes he was damned when he suggested that the police protest dinkins.
I wish I could find the name of the guy who ran the computer models on NYC. He went on to New Orleans. But there was this guy who plotted serious crimes on a map overlay of the city. The little crimes were happening where the big crimes were, but cops were not being deployed to the places where crimes were actually being reported because of force of habit, cultural factors, etc. This guy had the empirical data that showed Bratton exactly where to redeploy cops. Rudy made the call.
Lead poisoning may be a catalyst, but it doesn’t cause crime. I mean get Freudian about it. We all hate our mothers but the presence of lead makes the difference between hating and killing? You might as well talk about the presence of bottled water and its correlation to college educational acheivement. Bottom line, I think lead poisoning is a trailing indicator of poverty, like malaria in the Third World.
Mike we’re talking about two different phenomenon.
Giuliani employed two tactics to reduce crime. The first involved GIS data…which is what you’re talking about now. Figure out where the crime is occurring…put resources there. Straightforward.
But he also employed a broken windows approach. He arrested people for violating all types of things that normally people wouldn’t be arrested for–like jaywalking. Like littering. This is the set of practices I’m referring to.
You aren’t willing to accept the argument that lead poisoning reduces impulse control, but are willing to accept that more broken windows in a neighborhood increases crime?
Vandalism is crime. I don’t think zero tolerance makes sense nor am I 100 percent behind stop and frisk. But I think arrestable offenses can be given full enforcement within reason. I think we may be talking about different things. I’m thumbing in an airport now, ill give it more thought.
Rudy Giuliani or Vampire Ghouliani?
Hey Doc.
After reading your exchange with Cobb I think I’ll keep my comments short and sweet. Those articles you referenced were fascinating stuff. Never heard anything about that before, but I can see why. Despite the truth in the data and the strength of the evidence, no public figure is willing to strand up and proclaim this truth out loud because of how it might sound. Much easier to let Giuliani keep lying.
Lead poisoning in children is linked to lower IQ and less impulse control, right? If less lead poisoning is an explanation for lower crime rates, then it seems like the same places with lower lead poisoning and lower crime rates should also see IQs (and school performance) rise, fewer discipline problems in schools, higher literacy rates, etc.
It seems to me that there are so many variables at work here that it’s almost impossible to untangle them. There really does seem to have been a full pendulum cycle from lock-em-up to let-em-loose to lock-em-up, which tracks vaguely with crime rates. But is that because crime rate is strongly determined by those? Or do you just trail the crime rate with your enforcement strategies? (If crime rates are skyrocketing, you’d never start becoming more lenient in enforcement. Similarly, if crime rates are historically low, you probably won’t start super strict enforcement.)
All other things controlled for, I think you’re right about much of this. You should see higher IQ scores. You should see fewer discipline problems in schools. You might see school performance rise–I say might here because there are many other factors that might come into play in school performance.
You are making a distinction between the crime rate and the arrest rate that is important, because the two aren’t the same. And there are other variables that have to be taken into consideration–in urban areas the public drug trade looms large.
Research links crime to lead-exposure http://t.co/SG4UHCUz