Rise in murders linked to rise in number of drug dealers
By adamg - 11/11/10 - 10:53 am
The Globe interviews Police Commissioner Ed Davis on why Boston's murder rate is up almost 47% over last year's.
Hey, there! Log in / Register
Comments
I suppose this puts a dent in
I suppose this puts a dent in the argument that letting drug offenders out of prison would free up resources to pursue real criminals and reduce serious crime. Although the equation is a little more complicated than that.
nice Strawman
And than a nice little qualification at the end.
No one has ever argued that letting drug offenders out of prison frees up resources to pursue real criminals.
I'm not arguing in favor or against this, but the theory put forward is that legalizing drug use and legitimatizing OTC sales removes the violence from the equation.
You really did just pull that out of your ass and I don't care if you can find one obscure person in the wilderness making that claim. Show us it being used as the mainstream reasoning behind a public policy initiative and I'll eat my hat.
Commish gets around to studying homicide spike
I think Davis is saying that the BPD gang srtategy is working, and that the rise in homicides is not gang violence but drug violence, more specifically attributable to older people (not younger people who would be more likely gang members.) But I'm not sure the BPDs own data bears this out.
Homicide victim age 21-25 = +15
Homicide victim age 26-99 = +4
SEE GRAPHIC
“It’s very unusual," Davis said of the trend ... by which he means: We didn't understand what was driving homicides up until we re-evaluated the context of the homicides as to whether gang activity and/or drug user activity and/or drug dealer activity and/or ex-cons were implicated and/or some other factor was implicated.
That's really too bad that he wouldn't substantiate his conclusions and rationale by using summary characterizations of the homicides without naming names. For example, 5 of the victims were selling drugs to finance their own habits and were murdered by a known dealer in the area or 6 of the alleged perpetrators had been paroled from convictions of dealing and were back dealing.
What I want to know is how many people not connected to drugs or gangs have ended up dead and what can the BPD do to make that happen less often.
The problem with that anonymous....
Is that it is very hard to prove who is connected and who isn't connected. Often times when a drug dealer goes out to kill someone, they will go after a family member, or a low level dealer just to prove a point. That low level drug dealer (and of course the family member) will not have any connection to crime. Then there is the issue of the dead victims criminal background. What would constitute a criminal to you? Someone with 5 previous arrests/convictions for drug/gang crimes? 10? 25? 50?
Then there is issue that people like you would never be satisified with anything the police say anyway so it won't matter.
I'd be more worried about street robbery crime stats than I would homicide rates though if you are worried about your own safety and you aren't a criminal (or live with them). Those are the crimes where innocent people end up getting hurt more.
And criminology 101 will tell you that the police aren't going to bring the crime rate down. Although I'm not suprised you didn't know that.
What he said
Everyone's connected in some way. A person doesn't deserve to be targeted just because a relative of theirs joined a gang. Or because they witnessed gang activity. Or even because they're part of a gang. People clearly know that being in a gang is a high-risk activity, but there are a lot of complicated reasons why people end up in them.
Because then by the same logic, we should say that it's OK soldiers when soldiers die. I mean, they joined the damned armed services, for Christ's sake, where people shoot at each other and a lot of people get killed.
(And no, I'm absolutely not equating the two, and BTW, happy veterans day to all the vets, and thank you for your service. I'm just being slightly obnoxious in order to point out that a lot of people find the armed services as unnecessary and distasteful as the gangs, and find the war overseas as illegal and immoral as the wars in our cities.)
thanks for the feedback Pete
Consider turning your analytical skills on the issue rather than your obsession (me.)
Notice all the thoughtful people down (comment)stream who put their thinking caps on, thought it through, and offered insights into the commissioners problem statement and their own opinion about cause and effect. That's where the interesting conversation lies.
The only problem anon
is that you always have an agenda, and try to hide that agenda with hypothetical questions or questions that you have already formed your own opinion on and think you have the answer to. I just don't buy it.
But I did give you some intelligent thought out answers to some of your questions. I just don't think you will accept them. Maybe if Eeka says them you will believe it?
My math says
Police also believe the age of homicide victims is an indicator of the role drugs play, because, they say, older offenders are more likely to become involved in the drug trade than join gangs. So far this year, 20 victims have been at least 30 years old, compared with 13 people in the same age group during the same time period last year.
20=about 31% in 2010 (63 murders)
13=about 30% in 2009 (43 murders)
So if the age factor of 30+ is indicative of drugs vs. gangs (or, indeed other factors that might lead to homicides) the Commissioner is lacking persuasive data. It seems drug trade, by his indicators, has not shifted substantially. Maybe he could reassign some of those cops from the nice, peaceful neighborhoods over to C-11 an B-3...start employing "quality of life" intervention tactics like they do in West Roxbury and other neighborhoods where officers have enough time to notice activity before it becomes criminal. Analysis of a dramatic shift in operations might glean some meaningful data to discuss.
Globe follow-up
I wonder if the Globe would follow-up and talk to next of kin to find which if any of the homicides were innocent bystanders.
One problem with laying the spike in homicides at the feet of drug dealers is the assumption that its only drug dealers who are being murdered and the assumption that we're be better off without them anyway.
Crime is tied to economic
Crime is tied to economic prosperity?
Well color me damned. who woulda thunk!
Somehow I doubt those
Somehow I doubt those involved in the drug trade would be working in legitimate jobs if the economy was booming.
Yes and No
Some would because they could support themselves.
More important, drug use and therefore drug markets expand with recessions. They might work a real job if that was more available - drug opportunity is just bigger right now.
Consider as well the employment (as it were) of lesser thuglings to transport and vend the wares. Those people might be more likely to have a "real" legitimate job in a better economy because it might pay better or just pay enough to be less hassle.
Not everyone involved in the drug trade is a kingpin - some are just opportunists.
How is drug opportunity bigger right now?
You mean because it is legal?
Pete Pete Pete!
I think you know what happens during recessions: demand for drugs goes up. http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/newsletter.asp?ContainerID=hard_times_and_substance_use
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/feb2009/bw20090226_526384.htm
Including legal drugs like alcohol, mild illegal drugs like pot, illegal use of prescriptions and others that are far more dangerous.
This has a resulting effect on the magnitude of drug trade employment, like any other market size change.
People with time on their hands do drugs. A subset of those people will deal them. A market will grow to supply that demand.
Pretty simple.
Now that you mention it
People with time on their hands do drugs. A subset of those people will deal them. A market will grow to supply that demand.
I guess I know a lot of middle-class educated people who technically engage in dealing of drugs. Not as a profession or anything, and not large amounts, but people who obtain personal-use-type amounts and mark it up when supplying family and friends. Many seem to do more of this when they're working less.
Yea I know that.
but from what I have seen, the drug market hasn't gone up that much. The homicide rate has gone up this year, but I think in general drug use and the drug trade hasn't seen that much of an increase. Not a significant one anyway. I think the influx of new drugs at certain times (crack, oxy, c-meth) has more of an impact on the level of the drug trade.
.
duplicate
Well clearly
You need to lay off the coke so you aren't clicking on the button like a mofo! ;-)
Its teh Oxy
to be certain.
a good friend of mine ruined his life with Oxy
He had a great job as an attorney making 1/4 million a year and spending it all on dope and scratch tickets. He crashed and burned, lost his job, his wife, his daughter and his friends. He started over in a new part of the country and may have been able to kick the narcotics. He's had some success in his new career too. I'm glad for him. As a user, when he couldn't get Oxy he'd use heroin because it'd scratch the itch and it was cheep. When he kicked the Oxy habit, he'd still get blitzed on whiskey and cocaine insisting that he wasn't "using" because it wasn't his drug of choice - when he told me that, it was the first time in my life I realized the person I was talking with was delusional. I hope he's been able to live clean.
Opportunists
Not everyone involved in the drug trade is a kingpin - some are just opportunists.
Seriously. It's a way to make some serious money without needing any specialized skills. A lot of people who end up doing small-time drug running have no job skills or connections and need some way to pay rent and feed families and stuff. I can see how it's tempting.