Misinformation: From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel to Charlie Sykes

Crime, the theory went, was caused by societal problems that were impervious to police intervention. That was the unchallenged conventional wisdom espoused by academics, sociologists, and criminologists. I intended to prove them wrong. ----  New York City Police Chief, William Bratton, in his book, The Turnaround: How America's Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic.

Did anyone read this book?  Anyone?

It is like the children's game telephone where you whisper into someone's ear and it comes out garbled as the statement is passed around.

First, there was an article in Governing magazine, Bratton's Brigade. The author focused on the success of Bratton's proteges.

Jerry Slaske, communications director for the Public Policy Forum read the article and wrote in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Choosing Milwaukee's Next Top Cop.

... The philosophy of those who served under Bratton, the article notes, is that police are "not here as apologists for crime, and we're not here to explain it. We're here to get results."

Slaske is not incorrect when he writes:

That means a relentless analysis of crimes and their patterns, getting cops out of their cars and onto neighborhood streets, becoming familiar with residents of a district or beat, making police brass accountable for results, and giving commanders the authority to deploy resources and tactics as they see fit.

But his failure to acknowledge the role of the police in the community becomes more serious as Charlie Sykes takes up the cry.

Sykes read Slaske and posted in his blog , Two And A Half Times NY's Murder Rate, echoing Slaske that Milwaukee needs a police chief that does not follow the sociologists.

Guys, read Bratton's book. All of you. The operational word in the quotation is impervious.

Crime, the theory went, was caused by societal problems that were impervious to police intervention. That was the unchallenged conventional wisdom espoused by academics, sociologists, and criminologists. I intended to prove them wrong.

There is no bigger an advocate for Community Policing than Bratton.  He understands that quality of life variables influence crime, and that law enforcement needs to acknowledge that. Bratton used neighborhood police officers, decentralized command and gave more authority to the precinct officers. Referring to his mentor, academic Bob Wasserman*, Bratton wrote:

Wasserman explained that police can't be an island, that we have to work in partnership with the community...He was one of the first in the profession to understand and define the elements and potential of what we came to know later as community policing...

There is much that can be written about the reduction in crime in New York City and the potential to reduce it in Milwaukee and Madison. It is argued that much of the reduction in NYC crime was a changing demographic; I concur in part. It can be argued that the impact of Bratton's practices on NYC crime was minor; see, Steven D. Leavitt's Freakonomics.

But the central point of this post is that Slaske's op-ed piece and Sykes' blog post is a far cry from what William Bratton did in New York.

If the Milwaukee Police and Fire Commission uses Slaske and Sykes observations as a measure for hiring a new police chief, they will not get a William Bratton.

Bratton worked with the academics, sociologists, and criminologists; he simply did not allow their analysis to leave his department feeling that police intervention was meaningless and ineffective. But he used the tools of those other professions in building his overall strategy to combat crime.

By the way guys, Bratton supports gun control laws and firmly opposes conceal and carry.

* A firm opponent of racial profiling.