Your article deftly sidesteps the issue of race.
Obviously, you are aware of the fact that blacks and Hispanics together are responsible for up to 95% and and in some cases even an astonishing 98% of violent and property crime in cities from across from New York to Oakland, from New Orleans to Detroit.
And that on the whole, white America has roughly the same rate of crime as Sweden in 1950s.
and that black-on-white crime accounts for an enormous portion of crime overall.
This allows you to embrace Wilson's recommendation to incarcerate huge numbers of people without mentioning its disproportionate impact on people of color.
It also allows you to sidestep the biggest unmentionable in American society:
the fact that most whites are (notwithstanding their noisy pronouncements on racial harmony) prepared to make enormous sacrifices to live in areas with as few blacks and Hispanics as possible, and to send their children to white majority schools – that their choices are narrowing rapidly as the Hispanic population explodes throughout America.
The result is a split between "multicultural America," and the sought after enclaves where affluent whites live in a parallel society.
Ps. have you ever done an article on crime in the EU? Muslim and third world immigration there has created an American-style underclass which is responsible for 80% to 90% of crime.
It would be interesting to know whether criminologists and others in Europe are beginning to pick up on Wilson's work:
At this point, it is quite common for Muslim teens to brutally murder whites for fun & sport (and of course to make a statement about the new masters are in Europe) and to receive probation or just a few weeks of incarceration - the maximum for even the most horrific crimes is 10 years juvenile detention.
Crimes of extreme and horrific violence that would receive decades or life sentences in the United States routinely receive sentences around 18 months in Europe.
In many cities, the police are giving up, are totally demoralized.
@Charlotte - I don't think the worst of Occupy occurred in NYC - that was probably Oakland where I doubt Broken Windows was ever accepted.
I have to stop shooting from the hip on some issues. Are you aware of any studies that examine whether an influx of immigrants reduces crime? In the city I now live immigrants have flooded a part of town (ironically the other side of the railroad tracks) that had been almost exclusively African American since the revolutionary war - a very old community. The result of this influx is what a liberal friend called a new "vibrant community" and areas that were high crime are now flourishing. BUT, there is plenty of friction between the two groups, especially in the local high school. Did the lower crime rate come as a result of the new immigrants, or a some measure of prosperity that came into the area (things are going back to being poor again, but that's another story)? I'm not aware of any studies - I'm not even sure how you could prove it one way or the other.
Thanks also for the clarification on how Obama was able to afford the $1.65 million house.
@Ms. McDonald - Another great article.
@B Samuel Davis - I agree with your sentiment but here are some facts
1. Obama made most of his money from his books, not being a community organizer or a senator. In fact, Mrs. Obama balked at her husband working in public office because it wasn't going to pay the bills. At the time they carried a heavy student debt load from attending law school.
2. The reduction in crime in NYC was not due to the influx of immigrants... the influx of immigrants was due to the reduction in crime AND the flourishing economy of the late '90s. When the NYPD and FBI finally rid of the drug gangs and their accompanying violence, the City gave vacant land and dilapidated buildings to any owner or developer who would rehab the properties. The majority of people who took up the offer were immigrants, many of whom weren't scared to set up shop in poorer areas, carried plenty of cash and hired workers from their own ethnic groups to complete construction projects. Only problem was that many of these workers came to the US illegally.
Excellent Article. Wilson's "broken window" formula has been tried with success in many cities, and been proven correct.
The latest confirmation of Wilson's theory on policing is the different police responses to the Occupy Wall Street group. And to think the worst happened in NYC where Wilson's lessons where so successfully applied years earlier by Mayor Guilianni.
Without taking anything away from Professor Wilson, most of what he said amounted to the sort of plain common sense that used to be standard in our country but which in recent years has all but disappeared.
Interesting - with the most interesting aspect the persistence of the "root" cause theory of crime. Maybe this theory persists because there is money and power in the assertion that crime is caused by poverty and racism. In other words, money for the poverty parasites that get rich off the misery of the community they "serve." And power for people who these parasites usually work hand in glove with - the Democratic Party which relies on the theory as a means by which to get and remain in power. Best of all for these people, since the theory is all wrong, no amount of money will solve the problem. So, we have going on 50 years that these people have been sucking blood from the cities. In the meantime, nothing was accomplished other than the parasites got wealthy, and Democrats were assured of close to 100% of the vote. Of course,conditions in the community stayed the same - or got worse.
Obama of course is one of these blood suckers - it's how he was able to afford a $1.65 million dollar home on a 'community organizers' salary while those 'he served' lived in poverty. See Heather Mac Donald's fine articles on Chicago for more information on Obama's pathetic and utterly useless stint as a 'community organizer.'
As for crime reduction, not to take anything away from Mayor Giuliani's more or less unheralded accomplishment in saving New York from being the next Detroit, at least part of the reason for the reduction in crime may have been the influx of immigrants into the cities in the 1990's. How the arrival of these immigrants, most of whom had solid families, reduced crime has never really been examined. Indeed, to even undertake such an examination would be contrary to the "root cause" theory of crime, and it is likely that funding would likely be difficult to find. That's only one of the ways that those who have a vested interest in one point of view ensure that nothing comes out to challenge that point of view (think global warming). Another is to simply assume that crime is caused by poverty and racism, and ridicule any proof otherwise (think about a hundred other issues).
The root cause theory of crime dovetails perfectly into Democratic attempts to portray crime in, among other places, the African American community as somehow the result of poverty and racism, rather than crime being a result of Democratic policies that have purposely led to the destruction of the family. Has anyone even taken a good look at the relation between single parent families and crime?
In short, 50 years of Democratic policies have done nothing but harm to the cities of America - and yet the Democrats get close to 100% of the vote in the cities. That's the reason - the entire reason - why no one wants to turn away from the "root cause" theory of crime - as a theory it fits perfectly into a view of the world under which Democrats can remain in power while at the same time ensuring that the communities represented by Democrats remain dependent on government no matter how much money is spent. It's also why Democrats will never admit that the root cause theory is wrong - it just isn't in their interest to do so. And it never will be.
But there has to come some point - maybe after 100 years - that Democrats will have no choice but to admit that their policies in the cities are failures. In the meantime, another generation, maybe two will be lost - how are you going to explain to two generation of children that we knew that those in power were corrupt bloodsuckers whose policies were destroying them but we didn't say anything?
Knight Ryddder -- I'm confused. Are you suggesting that we should let the "recidivistically inclined" out of jail so they can satisfy their recidivist desires?
Thank you, Ms Mac Donald. Dr. Wilson will be sorely missed but it seems to me you are his successor.
We expected more from Ms. McDonald. She failed to point out that one reason crime hasn't spiked during the recession is that we've put so many of the African "American" thugs and border jumpers in jail and kept them there, that we aren't as swarmed with the recidivisticly inclined as we once were.