This past year, “defund the police” has been a frequent call from activists seeking systemic reform of the American criminal justice system.
Article by Jarrett Stepman from Daily Signal.
It became a popular rallying cry after the May 25 death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis. And Minneapolis is among cities that partially defunded police departments and proactive crime prevention programs in response to the incident.
However, the months since brought a massive surge in violent crime, a phenomenon called the “Minneapolis Effect” by two legal experts who spoke at a virtual event held March 16 by The Heritage Foundation.
Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah, and Lawrence Rosenthal, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, laid out the case that the serious, protracted rise in crime is tied to rhetoric and actions after Floyd’s death and the ensuing protests.
Cassell, also a former U.S. District Court judge for the Utah district, spoke about his research into the rise in crime.
“I got involved in this particular topic when I read headlines that I think many people read last summer,” Cassell said. “We were seeing an alarming increase in homicides and shootings in many American cities.”
So what is going on?
Cassell said that some explanations for the increase in violent crime aren’t likely. For instance, not many of the homicides actually took place at the protests and riots; they occurred in other areas.
So the crime increases aren’t just a result of the protests themselves. And when the protests and riots subsided, the higher homicide rates continued.
Seasonal differences in the number of homicides also don’t explain the phenomenon, Cassell said. Oftentimes an uptick in crime occurs in the warmer months, but these jumps were “well in excess” of usual seasonal fluctuations, he said.
Although purchases of firearms have jumped since the beginning of the pandemic, Cassell said, these guns represent a “drop in the bucket” of the total number of guns in America. The shooting surge also happened at the end of May, not in March, when people started buying guns, he said.
Economic causes for the increase in violent crime are also unconvincing, Cassell said, because large-scale unemployment and other effects of the pandemic and lockdowns occurred before the surge in violent crime in May.
Finally, Cassell said, the COVID-19 pandemic itself is an unlikely cause of the spike in violent crime. Not only did it begin more than two months before, but other types of crime didn’t increase significantly.
This is, very specifically, a surge in violent crime—and usually involving firearms.
Cassell said that the most likely cause is what he calls the Minneapolis Effect, similar to the so-called Ferguson Effect, referring to the violence that followed the fatal police shooting of a black man in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014:
Here I think we have anti-police protests surrounding George Floyd’s killing. As a result, police had to be redeployed away from their normal beats and high crime areas to police the protests. And even extending beyond that, I think what we see has happened is a reduction in policing, particularly the kinds of policing that might be expected to have the most effect on homicides and shooting crimes.
Police activities curbed in the wake of the protests over Floyd’s death were what Cassell called “proactive policing,” which includes policies such as stop and frisk as well as vehicle stops.
For instance, according to crime data from the Philadelphia Police Department, the number of total vehicle stops in the city has dropped significantly since the end of May.
New York City saw a steep increase in homicides, but a decrease in arrests. Chicago experienced a similar trend.
Cassell pointed not only to quantitative data but to statements and actions by authorities in various cities since the Floyd protests began:
Following the anti-police protests that occurred in Milwaukee as they did in many other cities around the country, police morale was low, officers began to pull back. We see that police departments in Milwaukee, or police officers in Milwaukee, were distracted or just not doing shooting reviews. They were often deployed to demonstration lines, so there was really a significant redeployment [of] police power in Milwaukee.
The bottom line, Cassell said, is that clear links appear to exist between the Floyd protests, the actions cities took amid following those protests, and the significant increase in homicides and shootings since:
We can sometimes debate whether police officers make the difference. But when we’ve talking about things like homicides and shootings, police presence, stop and frisk, other proactive measures designed to take guns off the street—do in fact take some guns off the street, and do in fact reduce some homicides and shootings—and when that was changed beginning in the last week of May, the predicted empirical result would be an increase in homicides and shootings.
Rosenthal, formerly Chicago’s deputy corporation counsel for counseling, appeals, and legal policy, said a strong connection likely exists between a decline in proactive policing and the spike in homicides.
Rosenthal also touched on why a few alternative theories are unlikely to be the cause of the increase in violent crime.
One such theory is a decline in community cooperation with authorities. But Rosenthal said that many proactive policing methods were put in place specifically because of low cooperation with police in some communities. A good measure of cooperation, Rosenthal said, is the number of calls to 911.
Cassell’s research, however, showed that although proactive policing went down following the Floyd protests, 911 calls seeking police assistance did not drop. So, given the information available, it’s difficult to link the decline in community cooperation to the surge in homicides.
Rosenthal described another theory attributing the spike in violent crime to the “blue flu.” That’s when police officers call in sick and don’t do their jobs because of anti-police rhetoric, or even for racist reasons, he said.
It’s “possible” this is the case, Rosenthal said, but it’s hard to find any hard evidence. Anonymous interviews would be one way to track it, he said.
“The interviewing data that’s available, though, does not suggest that police response to these kinds of scandals and community criticism is an unwillingness to perform their jobs,” Rosenthal said. “Very little of that [is] reflected in the relevant data.”
The best, and most proven, way to cut down on violent crime is proactive policing, he said, where officers actively patrol hot spots where a high amount of criminality takes place around vulnerable victims.
Oftentimes, this sort of aggressive policing puts officers in situations where a violent confrontation is more likely and an officer’s judgment could be questioned.
An incident such as Floyd’s death in police custody, Rosenthal explained, could lead officers to avoid situations in which a confrontation may take place. He said this effect often fades over time, but the deeper problem is an active “de-policing” movement that demands “systemic reform” and “defunding the police.”
Institutionalizing policies that tend to make police officers internalize the potential risks of proactive policing without the benefits could be a setup for long-term failure in crime-fighting, Rosenthal said.
That suggests policymakers should proceed with caution in how they change police policies, he concluded:
It is a reason to proceed with what I regard as first and foremost not a legal issue but a management issue. We need more effective management in our police departments, but that’s not going to occur if we do nothing more than increase officers’ perception that they are likely to face discipline when they engage in proactive policing.
Paul Larkin, a senior legal fellow at Heritage, was host of the event, titled “‘Minneapolis Effect’: Hostility Toward Law Enforcement, Police Officer Passivity, and the Rise of Violent Crime.”
‘The Purge’ by Big Tech targets conservatives, including us
Just when we thought the Covid-19 lockdowns were ending and our ability to stay afloat was improving, censorship reared its ugly head.
For the last few months, NOQ Report has appealed to our readers for assistance in staying afloat through Covid-19 lockdowns. The downturn in the economy has limited our ability to generate proper ad revenue just as our traffic was skyrocketing. We had our first sustained stretch of three months with over a million visitors in November, December, and January, but February saw a dip.
It wasn’t just the shortened month. We expected that. We also expected the continuation of dropping traffic from “woke” Big Tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but it has actually been much worse than anticipated. Our Twitter account was banned. One of our YouTube accounts was banned and another has been suspended. Facebook “fact-checks” everything we post. Spotify canceled us. Why? Because we believe in the truth prevailing, and that means we will continue to discuss “taboo” topics.
The 2020 presidential election was stolen. You can’t say that on Big Tech platforms without risking cancelation, but we’d rather get cancelled for telling the truth rather than staying around to repeat mainstream media’s lies. They have been covering it up since before the election and they’ve convinced the vast majority of conservative news outlets that they will be harmed if they continue to discuss voter fraud. We refuse to back down. The truth is the truth.
The lies associated with Covid-19 are only slightly more prevalent than the suppression of valid scientific information that runs counter to the prescribed narrative. We should be allowed to ask questions about the vaccines, for example, as there is ample evidence for concern. One does not have to be an “anti-vaxxer” in order to want answers about vaccines that are still considered experimental and that have a track record in a short period of time of having side-effects. These questions are not allowed on Big Tech which is just another reason we are getting cancelled.
There are more topics that they refuse to allow. In turn, we refuse to stop discussing them. This is why we desperately need your help. The best way NOQ Report readers can help is to donate. Our Giving Fuel page makes it easy to donate one-time or monthly. Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal as well. We are on track to be short by about $5300 per month in order to maintain operations.
The second way to help is to become a partner. We’ve strongly considered seeking angel investors in the past but because we were paying the bills, it didn’t seem necessary. Now, we’re struggling to pay the bills. We had 5,657,724 sessions on our website from November, 2020, through February, 2021. Our intention is to elevate that to higher levels this year by focusing on a strategy that relies on free speech rather than being beholden to progressive Big Tech companies.
During that four-month stretch, Twitter and Facebook accounted for about 20% of our traffic. We are actively working on operating as if that traffic is zero, replacing it with platforms that operate more freely such as Gab, Parler, and others. While we were never as dependent on Big Tech as most conservative sites, we’d like to be completely free from them. That doesn’t mean we will block them, but we refuse to be beholden to companies that absolutely despise us simply because of our political ideology.
We’re heading in the right direction and we believe we’re ready talk to patriotic investors who want to not only “get in on the action” but more importantly who want to help America hear the truth. Interested investors should contact me directly with the contact button above.
As the world spirals towards radical progressivism, the need for truthful journalism has never been greater. But in these times, we need as many conservative media voices as possible. Please help keep NOQ Report going.