Skip to content Skip to main menu
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Academic Rules
    • View Evaluations
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
    • RoloLaw
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff
    • COVID-19 Information

    Support

    • Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Faculty Support Unit
    • Berkeley Law Events
    • Business Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Building Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Information
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    For Students

    • Dean of Students Office
    • Academic Policies
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
    • Inclusive Restrooms
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

UC Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Criminal Justice
      • Environment and Energy
      • Human Rights
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • Past LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendars
          • 2023 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2022 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2021 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2020 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2019 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2018 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • LL.M. Executive Track Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Steps to Apply
        • Application Forms & Deadlines
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Checklist
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing Resources
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admission
          • Steps to Apply
          • Application Form & Deadline
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Checklist
          • Check Application Status
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • JSP Student Awards cont.
        • JSP Student Placements cont.
        • Events Calendar »
    • Certificates & Honors
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • One Year Curriculum Planner
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2024-2025 Academic Calendar
      • 2025-2026 Academic Calendar
      • 2025 LL.M. Executive Track Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2024-2025 Academic Calendar
        • 2023-2024 Academic Calendar
        • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
        • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
      • Future Academic Calendars
        • 2026-2027 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
          • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony – Who’s Coming
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • Transfer & Visiting Student Applicants
        • Pre-Law Preparatory Academy
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Plan Your Visit
        • Virtual Engagement
        • Recruitment Events
        • Law Building Tour
        • View the Prospectus
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Studying at Berkeley Law
      • Living in the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
          • Native American Opportunity Plan
          • Financial Aid for Active Military and Veteran J.D. Students
          • Resources For Bar Related Expenses
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
        • Tuition & Fees
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • Forms
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • LRAP & PSLF Testimonials
          • LRAP FAQs
        • Satisfactory Academic Progress
        • Withdrawals and Financial Aid
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Financial Aid
      • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance for JSD
        • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
      • J.S.P. Financial Aid
      • Other Financial Aid Resources
      • LL.M. Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Ways to Fund Your Studies
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty on Social Media
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Guess Who’s Coming to Jury Duty?: How the Failure to Collect Juror Demographic Data Contributes to Whitewashing the Jury Box
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • Lawsuit Filed Over Radioactive Waste at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
      • Global Rights Innovation Lab Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
      • Human Rights Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Featured Reports and Projects
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
          • Georgia Valentine
        • Clinic News
        • Resources and Publications
        • Juvenile Fees
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
          • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
        • Adult Fees
          • Ending Unjust and Ineffective Criminal Fees in California
        • Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
        • Access Reports
      • Social Enterprise Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How to Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • Business Community Legal Advice Workshop
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Climate Migration & Displacement Project
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Family Defense Project
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Queer Justice Project
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Community Defense Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Alaska
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawai’i
          • Kentucky
          • Mississippi
          • U.S./Mexico Border
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
          • Montana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • IRAP Project
        • David Nahmias
        • Angélica César & Mackenzie Gettel
        • Skylar Cushing
        • Addie Gilson & Eli McClintock-Shapiro
        • Tori Porell, Supervising Attorney FosterEd
        • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization (DECrim) Project
        • Caity Lynch, JD ’25
        • Berkeley Immigration Group SLP Supervising Attorneys
        • Family Defense Project
        • Gabby Cirelli, JD ’24
        • Brooke D’Amore Bradley, JD ’23
        • Taiya Tkachuk, ’24
        • Emily Chuah ’24
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
    • Advocacy Competitions Program
      • Eligibility by Class Year
      • Internal Competitions
        • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • 2025 McBaine Competition
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court Competition 2024 Photo Essay
          • Previous Years’ McBaine Competitions
          • Past McBaine Winners
          • McBaine — Frequently Asked Questions
          • Helpful Materials
        • Halloum Negotiation Competition (Spring)
          • Competition FAQ
          • Previous Winners
        • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
        • Bales Trial Competition
      • External Competitions (BOA)
        • BOA Tryouts
        • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
        • Moot Court Team
        • Tech & IP Team
        • Trial Team
      • Competition Videos
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • How to Apply
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • Administrative Rules
      • Frequently Asked Questions
      • Field Placement Program Evaluation Database
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Ninth Circuit Practicum
    • Domestic Violence & Gender-Based Violence Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • History & Impact
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • CDO Email Archive
      • Appointments and Drop-In Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • How to Apply to Private Sector Jobs
          • 2L Summer Private Sector Job Search
          • OCI Alternatives
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
          • Public Interest/Public Sector Employer Events & Resources
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Your 2L and 3L PIPS Job Search
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • PI/PS Job Search Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions & Resources
        • Alumni Clerkship & Judicial Staff Directory
        • Clerkship Yearbooks
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
      • Judicial Externships
      • OCI Programs
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • OCI Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • Executive Education
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Help the CDO
    • Careers in Law Teaching
      • Alumni Faculty Directory
      • Videos of Academic Placement Committee Programs
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
  1. Home
  2. Articles
  3. News
  4. Op-Eds – ARCHIVAL
  5. A big bite out of crime

A big bite out of crime

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on Bluesky
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article

By Franklin Zimring, New York Post

The drop in street crime in New York City after 1990 is not only the largest decline ever documented in a major city but also a major test of the conventional wisdom that has dominated crime policy in the United States for a generation.

Between 1990 and 2009, the rate of murders, robberies and burglaries fell by more than 80%, while auto theft in 2009 was down 94%. Such huge declines in crime require a new method of score-keeping — instead of measuring the size of the drop, it is more informative to ask what proportion of the old crime level remains, and the answer in most cases is “not much.”

In less than 20 years, the robbery rate is 16% of its 1990 high, the auto theft rate is 6% of its former level. The homicide rate is 18% of its 1990 high, and lower in 2011 than it was in 1961.

And these amazing statistics are not just creative accounting by the police — independent tests available to check police crime statistics confirm both the size and the timing of the official crime statistics for homicide, auto theft, robbery and burglary. Gotham is now a safer place to live in 2011 than half a century ago.

Part of New York’s good fortune was the tailwind of a national crime decline during the 1990s, but the New York decline was twice as large and almost twice as long as the national drop. Why was that? What can we learn from this experience to help other cities?

A close reading of the history in New York City points to four policy surprises. Institutions that were thought to be ineffective (like police) produced great results while the major instrument of crime control everywhere else in the United States — expanding prisons — were not needed in New York. Here are the city’s four unexpected lessons about combatting crime.

1 Not all “broken windows” are created equally

Twenty years ago, social scientists believed that police efforts couldn’t make a substantial dent in urban crime, because police couldn’t be everywhere. Criminals could simply outwait the police or relocate.

But even a careful discounting of New York City crime numbers — taking out the 40% crime drop that most places experienced in the 1990s, as well as the effects of population change in Manhattan — still leaves plenty of credit for the cops.

Almost half of the city’s record-breaking drop in robbery and burglary and almost a third of the disappearing auto thefts are the product of better policing, statistics show. But why did New York’s police make so much of a difference?

It turns out that criminals aren’t quite as persistent as we used to assume. If police prevent a robbery Tuesday night on 125th Street, that doesn’t mean an extra robbery on 140th Street or even next Thursday. Instead, the impulses that produce muggings are situational and contingent and that means the short-term interventions can have long-term consequences for crime rates.

The epic success of police in New York came at a time when the number of cops increased, their strategies of enforcement changed and street police became much more aggressive. We still don’t know with precision which of these changes had the most dramatic results. In particular, we don’t know whether large numbers of misdemeanor arrests and massive stop-and-frisk campaigns add value to preventive policing.

But the popular theory that New York used “order maintenance” or “broken windows” policing strategies is not correct. The broken-windows approach concentrates efforts on marginal neighborhoods rather than the highest crime areas where the situation is hopeless. But New York’s strategy concentrated cops in exactly those “hot spots” of the city where violent crime kept happening.

New York cops used arrests for minor crimes and disorderly conduct not to maintain order but to get the fingerprints of people they suspected were threats to commit more-serious crimes.

And it turns out that not all lower level offenses are created equal in this regard.

Marijuana arrests jumped in the mid-1990s to a peak more than 10 times the 1990 volume and stayed very high. Whereas gambling arrests increased between 1997 and 2001, then dropped off suddenly and continued to decline through 2009.

The most plausible interpretation is that police used gambling arrests as part of an aggressive patrol for some time but didn’t find the persons brought in to have records, warrants or other indices of danger that were targets of the policy.

Prostitution, meanwhile, would appear to be a classic affront to public order. Yet the rate of prostitution arrests never got higher than it is in 1991, even as the police force expanded. Why was prostitution never a priority while marijuana misdemeanor arrests skyrocketed? The only plausible answer is that order maintenance and quality of life were labels but not real motives for the pattern of arrests.

As Jack Maple, one of the designers of the NYPD’s policing strategy in the 1990s, once said, it’s about looking for “sharks” and “not the dolphins.”

2 New York won its war on drug violence without winning the war on drugs

One cause of the epidemic of violence that engulfed New York City in the late 1980s was the disorder and conflict that came with the rise of crack cocaine in the mid-1980s.

There were two contradictory theories about how best to combat many problems generated by urban crack. The hardline view of drug warriors like national drug czar William Bennett was that the only way to combat drug violence was to substantially reduce all forms of illegal drug use — more focused priorities were considered halfway measures doomed to failure.

But public-health analysts argued instead that the government should isolate the most threatening problems associated with drugs — things like drug killings, the takeover of public streets by open air markets, AIDS transmission — and produce concentrated efforts to reduce these harms. While this “harm reduction” approach was not associated with police in the 1980s, it was the NYPD that proved harm reduction worked.

During the 1990s, police increased narcotics unit manpower by 137% and dedicated their efforts to destroying open-air drug markets.

This gave the streets back to the public and also reduced drug-related killings by 90% as the turf wars associated with open-air markets ended.

Yet drug sales continued indoors. Most indicators of hard drug use in New York show stable trends in drug use over the past two decades — including emergency-room drug mentions, hospital drug abuse treatment and urine tests of criminal defendants.

The number of drug-overdose deaths in 2004 and 2005 is 90% of the volume in 1990 — indicating pretty flat trends in the use of at least the high-lethality illicit drugs. The volume of drug-involved homicides in 2005, meanwhile, is only 5% of the number in 1990.

The police were happy enough with this outcome to reduce the manpower in the narcotics unit in 2008 back to fewer officers that were on duty in 1990. Drug harm reduction was a proven success in Gotham.

3 Cutting crime doesn’t require increasing imprisonment

The sevenfold expansion of imprisonment in the United States since 1972 was based on the assumption that high-rate criminal offenders could only be controlled if they were locked up. But New York City has cut its crime rate by 4/5ths since 1990 while reducing the number of persons in its prisons and jails by 28%. The incarceration rate in the rest of the United States increased by 65% during the same period.

Over the 11 years after 1997, prisons and jails sent 20,000 more persons back to the streets of New York City than they admitted.

If national trends had been followed, by 2007 New York City would have been locked up 58,000 more people than it did. At a modest $25,000 per person per year, the public savings of that many fewer prisoners istwice the cost of the expansion in policing.

That the city that used incarceration much less than its neighbors yet ended up reducing its crime much more than other places turns the conventional wisdom of American crime control upside down.

But where have New York’s robbers and burglars gone if not to prison?

Here’s one major clue — 28% of felons sent back to the city in 1990 were reconvicted of a felony in the next three years, but by 2006 the re-conviction rate had dropped to 10%. This signals that the personal crime rates of these offenders have dropped by 64% in 16 years. Those who used to be active offenders commit far fewer crimes without being locked up.

The problem with all these statistics is that they are after the fact of behavioral changes. There is little direct observation of changing patterns of street life in former high-crime neighborhoods. There are anecdotes from drug-scene workers of younger persons mixing marijuana and alcohol instead of crack in the mid-1990s, but no sustained studies.

While many questions remain, however, it’s fair to say that lower levels of crime lead to lower levels of crime. What we used to call “career criminals” are much easier to alter than had been believed. The crime rates of mid-career offenders are quite sensitive to upward and downward variations in general crime rates.

The same situational and contingent forces that work for others deter persons with substantial criminal records. In other words, crime doesn’t pay — at least not as much as it used to.

4 Small changes can make big differences in urban crime

Not all the civic changes in the last decade have been positive. The 2011 report card for urban progress is uneven at best — jobs are scarce, schools are problematic, single parent families are common and economic inequality is rampant. But violence and the imprisonment of the poor have both dropped by huge margins.

Even the major changes in police force levels and tactics haven’t been of overwhelming scale — it’s a few thousand more police in a city of 8 million. The people and places and patterns of life in the city have changed only modestly. And yet the threat of murder and robbery and home burglary have dropped not by half but by more than 80%. If this is a “New York miracle,” it is much closer to the loaves and the fishes than the parting of the Red Sea.

The objective of programs like closing open air drug markets and intensive patrol of hot spots is to make small changes in the environment in which criminal decisions get made. Proponents of long-term incarceration could scoff at police closing two or three square blocks of a city to public drug traffic because they argue that persistent offenders can always buy or sell drugs elsewhere. And there is evidence that drug purchases and sale and consumption continued at a pretty steady pace in New York. But drug killings dropped, and there were fewer public settings residents consider dangerous and inaccessible.

Even though the extra police presence is transient and the extra police numbers are not huge, most criminal offenders seem responsive to modest and even temporary alterations in the environment of the city. The further removed people who may commit a crime are from hardened criminals, the better the prospect that any attempt at intervention will work.

The broad lesson that emerges from the huge drop in New York is the variability of most crime to modest changes in circumstances. That doesn’t guarantee that after-school tutoring will keep kids from failing in school or from being vandals. But it shows that much of the population at risk is malleable, their propensities prone to change with modest provocation. Anything that is prone to work at all can work well with a population not that difficult to change.

Epidemic levels of crime and violence are not hardwired into the structure of urban life and that is good news for cities all over the world.

11/05/2011

News

  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2025 Archive
    • 2024 Archive
    • 2023 Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Media Release Form
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
  • Law School Images »
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • TikTok
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Relay 711
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2025 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.