Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Letters

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Here's the link again: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch2_c.htm…

If you read the DOJ document I linked to closely, you'll see that 3 police departments, Dallas, Long Beach, and New Orleans, reported that they had DATA indicating crime going down after imposing youth curfews.

New Orleans Curfew: "decreasing the incidence of youth crime arrests by 27 percent the year after its adoption."

Long Beach Curfew: "The ordinance led to a 14-percent decrease in the average number of crimes committed per hour in 1994, compared with 1993. Gang-related shootings decreased in that time period as well, down nearly 23 percent."

Dallas: "For example, 3 months after the enactment of the Dallas curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department found that juvenile victimization during curfew hours declined by 17.7 percent and juvenile arrests during curfew hours dropped by 14.6 percent, according to the recent OJJDP report."

That is Data. Not polling.

Posted by Max A on 09/22/2011 at 9:53 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

"But what about individual cases, then? You cite only the cases where they haven't worked."

Again, I haven't seen evidence of any individual cases in which curfews "worked" in that they lowered juvenile crime in comparison to adult crime or juvenile crime rates in other cities that did not have curfews.

Posted by Robert Gammon on 09/22/2011 at 9:52 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Bob, Thanks.:)
Yoyo-g

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 9:44 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Yoyo, g,

I didn't address gang injunctions in my comment because my story wasn't about gang injunctions. I haven't researched the issue, so I'm not clear as to whether they work or not.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there is evidence that they are effective. The reason is that they're much different than curfews, because they target specific people who have a known track record for committing crimes, and thus are more likely than the general population to break the law.

Also, police spokeswoman Holly Joshi made it abundantly clear that even if Chief Batts had been in town and available for comment for my story, he likely would not have wanted to be interviewed because he had not yet come up with a revised plan for how OPD would implement and enforce a curfew in light of budget cutbacks.



Posted by Robert Gammon on 09/22/2011 at 9:38 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

p.s. re "The study I cited does analyze these issues, and concluded that there is no evidence that curfews work. I'm also unaware of any other study that took these factors into account and still found that curfews are effective."

OK, fair enough. I read right over that and mea culpa. But what about individual cases, then? You cite only the cases where they haven't worked.

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 9:29 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Bob, Thanks for that (but the link yields "internal server error" - can you re-post?). I still don't think it's fair to say (as you more than once have said) that there's "no evidence" that they don't work (or worse, as you said once, simply that they "don't work"). You personally simply have not found any evidence that they.

It seems also that we're mixing curfews with gang injunctions. With regard to GIs, why not mention cases, like the dramatic case of New York and Bill Bratton, where GIs arguably *have* worked? Bratton believes in both curfews and GIs and is on record saying so. With his dramatic track record in NY, he seems pretty credible to me. But not you? What's wrong with Bratton IYO?

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 9:28 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

"Here's the second hit you get when you google "Long Beach Curfew Law". It's a little further down the page if you only google "Long Beach Curfew", but it's still on the first page.

http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch2_c.htm…"

If you read this report closely, you'll find that it's nothing more than a poll. The researchers asked police departments if curfews worked, and then cited statistics supposedly showing that they did work. But as my story originally noted, such studies do not stand up to scrutiny, because they do not reveal whether cities that experienced drops in juvenile crime after adopting curfews also experienced drops in adult crime. If they did, then you can't attribute the drop in juvenile crime to curfews.

Such polls also do not analyze whether other cities that do not have curfews also experienced drops in juvenile crime.

In short, polls such as this one are not scientifically credible.

The study I cited does analyze these issues, and concluded that there is no evidence that curfews work. I'm also unaware of any other study that took these factors into account and still found that curfews are effective.


Posted by Robert Gammon on 09/22/2011 at 9:18 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Max, True. I realized that too late....We could start pver again there. :)

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 9:14 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

These comments would be better on the article itself. They'll be read more often when people search for curfew issue.

Posted by Max A on 09/22/2011 at 9:12 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Z, Can you please pull out the sentences(s) you refer to and quote them here? The pdf is evidently so big that clicking on the link didn't work for me...thx

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 8:54 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/2312…

Click above--US Department of Justice link published in 2010 'Best Practice to Address Community Gang Problems' page 43 sums it up well

Here is another link for those who support curfew and injuction measures in Oakland

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/support-p…

Thanks

Posted by ZRobinette on 09/22/2011 at 8:51 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

p.s. Max, I don't doubt that Bob tried and failed to reach Batts. Bob has, after all, repeatedly written here that Batts should be fired. Why should Batts give him the time of day?

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 8:49 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Max,

Right, and you only had to look as far as Bill Bratton to see that gang injunctions work, sometimes dramatically so.

There's a clear bias here, but at least it's not hidden. We all know where Bob stands. His evidence is cherry-picked. He may see that, he may not. I'm not sure any longer, because it seems he believes what he believes so fervently. I don't have a problem with it as long as the bias remains clear. I think the problem is that his medium is not really the same as Chip's. Everyone assumes and knows that Chip is a columnist. Whereas in the Express, Bob writes sometimes as a reporter and sometimes as an editorial writer, and naive readers are more likely to assume that his opinions are as thoroughly vetted and balanced as statements made by other reporters.

Yoyo-g

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 8:36 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Thank you for the comments. To add to the debate here is a link to a report published by the US Department of Justice entitled Best Practice to Address Community Gang Problems. Note page 43 which sums it all up fairly well. I am for all measures of protection and safety.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/2312…

Posted by ZRobinette on 09/22/2011 at 8:33 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Chief Batts came here from Long Beach and when he arrived, he talked about how curfews had been successful in Long Beach.

Robert Gammon said he couldn't reach Batts for his story. But one would have hope that Gammon had tried a little harder to research the Long Beach curfew.

Here's the second hit you get when you google "Long Beach Curfew Law". It's a little further down the page if you only google "Long Beach Curfew", but it's still on the first page.

http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch2_c.htm…

It's a document from a credible organization, the US Department of Justice, and it cites some success stories, along with pros and cons.

It includes data from Long Beach, New Orleans, and Dallas, all of which suggest that crime went down after the imposition of a curfew.

Data from a credible source, supporting curfews, is exactly what Robert Gammon claimed he couldn't find. I found it with an obvious google search.

Posted by Max A on 09/22/2011 at 8:20 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

Z, I agree. But since only a one-sided solution is constantly being touted by EBX (social programs, social programs, social programs - curfews "don't work," there's "no evidence" that curfews work, there's "no evidence" that gang injunctions work, yada yada yada), I am pushing for the other side.

A patient who's bleeding out should not simply be prescribed a more wholesome diet. She might need a tourniquet as well.

Sometimes a bandaid IS what's needed until deep healing can take place.

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/22/2011 at 8:14 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

All the debate is fine. However, Oakland ranked sixth in the nation again this year for violent crime-two more deaths since this debate began. Unemployment is high, Oakland unified schools ranked a D overall, dropout rates are extremely high and as schools are slated to close, these kids will have one more obstacle to overcome. We can agree these are sad times.

Clearly, there is ample room for many viable solutions. One solution will not be enough and one solution should not negate another. As the writer above states, look to New York City or look to Stockton, CA whose city used the state funded Cease Fire program successfully.

Mayor Quan recently stated she is looking at a multi-faceted approach; something everyone should get behind. Chief Batts stated clearly what he needs to get the job done. Oakland would do well to support Chief Batts. We would do well to get beyond a 'fixed position' approach to public safety solutions and seek ways to integrate all viable measures. All concerned parties wish for the same outcome.

Bottom line, in these violent uncertain times we should be saying YES AND to all viable solutions. YES to more prevention programs AND YES to curfew and injunction measures all aimed at one thing-- protecting people.

Posted by ZRobinette on 09/22/2011 at 7:38 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of September 21

All the feel-good talk aside, Bill Bratton, who reduced violent crime by 39% in New York, believes in gang injunctions. He's been called on to advise the UK on their gang problem. Maybe Oakland should give him a jingle.

"As New York's police commissioner in the 1990s, the 'supercop' introduced a ground-breaking policy under which officers cracked down hard on even the smallest infringements to deter people from carrying out bigger crimes.
This led to major crimes falling 39 per cent, with murders down 50 per cent, during his time in charge..."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20…

Posted by yoyo_guru on 09/21/2011 at 9:37 AM

Re: “Letters for the Week of August 24

No, it wasn't and if you read the responses to the Amazon review, not by Amazon itself but by a notorious leftist hatchetman, you would see the nasty review itself was debunked.
But then the intellectually better thing to do would be to read the book itself to see the author's reasoning which led to his conclusions.
The ideological think tank is an academic institution and accredited in the state where it lives. It is no more an ideological institution than Harvard or
Berkeley or Yale or Columbia or you name it.
You have obviously not read the book because your last sentence totally gives you away. You give no examples refuting his copious documentation
and use shabby terms like 'bunk' to describe arguments that you have never read much less refuted.
Gintis is a longtime socialist so why didn't you mention his ideological bias ?
I've read books Gintis has co-authored with Sam Bowles.
If you look at the customer reviews on Amazon you will see where they were refuted as well as the customer refutations of Gintis on Woods.
The publisher is a longtime conservative publisher that has been around since 1945 and their sales show that they are anything but 'fringe.'
And what does one book on the 2004 campaign have to do with Woods's
book ? Every publisher puts out a wide variety of books.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China ?
Woods is thoroughly educated in economics as well as history and this is not his first economics book.
Did you really think that you were going to impress with what you wrote ?

Posted by mike_hardesty7909a on 08/31/2011 at 6:36 PM

Re: “Letters for the Week of August 24

Thomas Woods's book got pretty thoroughly debunked in the Amazon reviews, in particular a review by professional economist and UMass prof Herbert Gintis. Woods's degrees (both baccalaureate and PhD) are in history, not economics. He works at an ideological think tank rather than an academic institution. His book is published by an ideological fringe publishing house that is known, among other things, for publishing the thoroughly-debunked smear piece Unfit for Command (the **original** Swift Boating) in 2004. Woods's claimed "documentation" documents little, and his arguments are basically bunk.

Posted by Jim1967 on 08/31/2011 at 3:59 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation