De Blasio and NYC crime

[Link]

NYC has seen a dramatic transformation over the past few decades from a city that was losing population and riddled with crime to perhaps the lowest crime rates ever and a growing, vibrant population.

See:
http://gothamist.com/2013/11/03/nyc_on_pace_in_2013_for_least_amoun.php

Both Giuliani and Bloomberg have helped transformed the city from the days of the 1980s.

Its clear, however, that De Blasio offers a change of pace from his predecessors. How will his polities change the current trends, and will he continue to keep New Yorkers safe?

So you are torn between your alleged libertarian ideals and your feeling that it is okay to violate the rights of negros.  Quite the pickle.  I don't envy you.

NYC is certainly safer than the 70s-90s, but their crime is rate is kept artificially low.

I suppose an argument can be made for the broken windows phenomenon.  Part of fighting crime is psychological warfare.  If there is an atmosphere of lawlessness then not only will law abiding citizens and businesses flee but also criminals will be emboldened.  Stuff has definitely changed in NYC.  Times Square keeps getting more and more family friendly each time I go back (not necessarily a good thing).  For heaven sake I watched an opera sitting on a nice free seat in the middle of times square.  I walked in a park in the sky that used to be a crime riddled derelict part of town.

[Link]

As for crime more generally, I kind of doubt deBlasio will actually change that much in the police department (besides surface changes, like getting rid of Stop-and-Frisk), so I don't think it'll shift that much. Crime has a noted tendency to follow generational trends; ~20 years after heightened birth rates (like in the early 2000s), there's usually a rise in crime. So deBlasio might have some issues in his 2nd-3rd terms as mayor, but I doubt this coming term will be marked by some kind of rise in crime.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'm inclined to think stop and frisk had a significant effect on reducing crime.  But it was unbelievably unconstitutional.  I mean I heard about it at thought it was messed up but when I saw the actual statistics I was stunned such a practice could go on for YEARS in the nations largest city.  It really makes me wonder about this whole Constitution thing.  It's a bit of a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

That has to be some of the most ineffective policing I've ever seen.  That's just putting out a minority dragnet and seeing what turns up.

[Link]

Maybe stop-and-frisk had a tiny effect, but nowhere near what its supporters claim and certainly nowhere enough to justify its blatantly unconstitutional bigotry.

Yeah I'm just talking out of my rear end.  I really have no idea how much it helped.  But honestly it doesn't really matter.  It was so unconstitutional that the point is moot.  How such a practice was allowed to go on for so many years is baffling.