An Interesting Approach to Reducing Violent Crime

I see a lot about crime on a day-to-day basis. Not as much as, say, a police officer, but more than your average person. I see it from all over the country, too.

Far too often, people immediately jump to gun control as the solution to violent crime. It’s not, and we can prove it, but they don’t want to see the evidence. They’re often just trying to leverage crime to do what they wanted to do anyway, but almost everyone can agree that reducing it is a good thing.

I’d just rather reduce it without reducing my ability to defend myself from whatever violent crime remains.

Yet earlier today, I came across an interesting solution being proposed, and it’s one that sounds like a good idea even if it doesn’t address violence.

The good news: It’s easier to prevent fatal mistakes in difficult situations than it is to change the fundamentals of the criminal justice system, the economy or the social safety net. There are helpful things to do that don’t require lots of money or a big political fight.

For starters, we can make our neighborhoods more forgiving of universal human frailties by operationalizing the wisdom Jane Jacobs had 60 years ago in the “Death and Life of Great American Cities.” Noting that low-income areas vary widely in rates of crime and violence, Jacobs identified one critical factor: the presence of “eyes on the street” who can help defuse conflict before it escalates.

So how do we get lots more eyes on the street? It helps that human conflict is concentrated in time and place (the bar at 3 am, Friday night at the movies, etc.), which can allow for focusing existing resources more efficiently. Los Angeles has shown that using data to target first responder attention can double the amount of crime prevented.

But of course, eyes on the street are about much more than the police.

When Forrest Claypool took over the Chicago Park District under Mayor Richard M. Daley, he asked the police superintendent how many more officers would be needed to make the parks safe; as recounted in Claypool’s “The Daley Show,” the superintendent said “None. You just have to get people back in the parks. The drug dealers and gangbangers don’t want to be around people.”

A large experiment from Philadelphia shows the impact can be enormous: When Philly turned vacant lots into pocket parks, more people came out in public, and shootings declined by 30%. In Chicago, with its abundance of parks and 50,000 vacant lots, a strong parks department and the Cook County land bank (which helps fix up empty lots) could make a real difference.

Other data from Los Angeles shows that getting more foot traffic from more commercial establishments in an area can reduce violent crimes by nearly 20%. This highlights another cost of having so few grocery stores on the South and West sides

Now, this makes a great deal of sense to me. After all, even at the most basic level, criminals don’t want witnesses to their crimes. They don’t want the average citizen to see them because that can lead to them being reported. Sure, there can be some degree of retribution if there is an arrest, but the cops have gotten pretty good about not tipping off the bad guys as to who ratted them out.

Regardless, it’s easier for them to just avoid witnesses in the first place.

That’s especially true when you’re dealing with a heated argument or an act of retaliation for some slight, be it real or imagined. The honor culture aspect of our inner cities is what it is, but the truth is that most who adhere to that culture are cowards at heart. They’re not the coldhearted killers they want people to think. They’re terrified of repercussions for their acts of violence.

So, they don’t want witnesses at all.

As a result, getting more people out of their homes and into the streets, building stronger communities, will push the violence out of these neighborhoods. Do that throughout an entire city and you’ve got a recipe for reducing violent crime without any new gun laws.

We know gun control doesn’t work, but this might.

And honestly, even if it doesn’t, more people out and about means they’ll be more likely to get some improved degree of exercise, some vitamin D from the sun, and some mental health benefits from interacting with others.

Even if it doesn’t reduce violent crime, it could still be a worthwhile endeavor.