Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Robert Snyder and Ann Wessel some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

A policing approach that urbanists can embrace

Some police experts suggest focusing more on crime hot spots and less on citywide "beats" or 911 response times, a strategy that should appeal to advocates of urban density.

Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess.

Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess. None

Seattle Police Chief John Diaz

Seattle Police Chief John Diaz City of Seattle

There are many reasons why people might not want to live in a densely populated city, but crime has to be at the top of the list. And the sheer number of crimes committed in cities is likely to be greater because, after all, as Willie Sutton the criminologist might have pointed out, that’s where all the people are.  

Advocates for density and more transit-friendly communities don’t often spend time talking about crime. We talk about the benefits of density for reducing climate change, improving water and air quality, and making neighborhoods more pedestrian-friendly. We point out how cities are better than other options for organizing ourselves.  

But are they safe? That’s a question we need to answer just as confidently as we counter objections to the more typical urbanist reasons why density is better. One option is to propose all kinds of innovations. We ought to drug-test cops. We should end the war on drugs and legalize and tax them. We should increase spending on law enforcement. How about body cameras for police? And perhaps more relevant for urbanists, the oft-cited Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, which calls for greater focus on how design of public and private space can reduce crime.  

What about a simpler idea?

Seattle Councilmember Tim Burgess and Cynthia Lum, a professor of criminology at George Mason University, recently spoke with Crosscut writers about evidence-based policing strategies to prevent and reduce the incidence of crime. Burgess, a former Seattle police officer, suggests that Seattle police should “switch from the policing of people in favor of the policing of place.” That, he argues, increases the legitimacy of the police. And according to Lum, it's more effective at reducing crime.

I also think it’s a good principle for urbanists to adopt. Creating a sense of place is what promoting density is all about. Having law enforcement focusing on place is consistent with our values

What this means is that rather than roaming the streets on assigned “beats,” the police department would explore allocating some officer time and resources to specific areas with the greatest evidence of crime. I live in such a hot spot. I was mugged at my front door on Capitol Hill, and if it weren’t for the fact that there are so many people in my neighborhood, my would-be robber would have gotten away. Instead he was apprehended and I got my laptop and other things back. 

Lum says that focusing on prevention in high-crime areas has greater benefit than quickly responding to crime after it happens. It means officers actually talking to people on the street. Lum suggests proactive policing, which could include talking with people standing on corners, stopping vehicles going in and out of areas where there is a lot of crime, and spending more time there getting to know business owners and residents. These things have worked in other cities.  

But this is Seattle, and we’d have a long way to go persuading some community leaders and homeless advocates that we weren’t opening the door for more abuses of upstanding citizens because of their race or economic status, in the name of trying to catch criminals. And imagine the heat the City Council and Mayor would take from the police union for fundamentally shifting tactics away from rules, procedures, and beats to intense geographic focus on prevention where we know crime is happening. I don’t believe we’re talking about rounding up panhandlers. Burgess would lose me and other density advocates if that were the case.

That brings me to Burgess and Lum’s second point. Lum, a former police officer herself, says she didn’t understand the importance of her manner and attitude until a member of the community pointed it out to her. “Officer Lum,” the person said, “you can just be so rude sometimes.”

It was an eye opener. Lum argues that treating everyone — even a suspect being placed under arrest — with respect and dignity makes an appreciable difference in crime prevention. When officers are polite and respectful the level of trust in them by everyone, even regular offenders, goes up. That means the police become partners with local residents rather than an occupying force or harassing juggernaut. It also means being able to support people who want to change.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, May 16, 2:20 p.m. Inappropriate

Urbanists should add to their green religion zealotry list a fitness test, self-defense course, and a concealed weapons permit along with the appropriate hardware. Patrol your neighborhoods in groups, catalog all the expired licence plates, graffiti spots, and suspicious places and try to cooperate with the police and not instantly film them in action with your smart phone cameras. Urbanists should also be less rude.

animalal

Posted Mon, May 16, 8:42 p.m. Inappropriate

If you will indulge a behavioralist streak, a major part of what makes a city inviting is not just safety, but the perception of safety and comfort on the part of the citizens. Furthermore, the perception of disorder can create those hot spots you describe in the first place (e.g. broken windows theory). That was the major idea behind the controversial panhandling ordinance. For the same reason, a concerted effort to go after graffiti may also be constructive.

But beyond this old debate, your points are spot on. It seems like an efficient allocation of resources if nothing else. Just as oil rigs are best deployed where the major petroleum deposits lie, so should policing efforts be focused on the most troubled areas. Of course, there is the danger that such an approach merely shifts the hot spots around. I've seen it in Portland with the city's efforts to create drug free zones, as well as Seattle's decision to clean up downtown during the Nickels administration, which pushed crime to other parts of the city. Also, as you point out, relationship building is key.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »