Thursday, June 17, 2010

The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce

"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district,
and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun
police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains
constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we
should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize
the declining neighborhoods in our city."

Amburg's Chamber-of-Commerce president has recommended high-intensity lighting
throughout Amburg as the best means of reducing crime and revitnliT, ing city neighbor hoods.
In support of this recommendation the president points out that when Belleville took similar
action vandalism declined there almost immediately. The president also points out that since
Amburg's police began patrolling on bicycles the incidence of vandalism has remained
unchanged. The president's argument is flawed in several critical respects.

First, the argument rests on the unsupported assumption that in BeUeviUe the immediate
decline in vandalism was attributable to the lighting--rather than to some other
phenomenon-and that the lighting has continued to serve as an effective deterrent there.
Perhaps around the same time the city added police units or more after-school youth programs.
Moreover, perhaps since the initial decline vandals have grown accustomed to the lighting and
are no longer deterred by it. Without ruling out other feasible explanations for the decline and
showing that the decline was a lasting one, the president cannot reasonably conclude on the
basis of BelleviUe's experience that the same course of action would serve Amburg's
objectives.

Secondly, the president assumes too hastily that Amburg's bicycle patrol has been
ineffective in deterring vandalism. Perhaps other factors--such as a demographic shift or
worsening economic conditions--have served to increase vandalism while the bicycle patrol
has offset that increase. Thus without showing that all other conditions affecting the incidence
of vandalism have remained unchanged since the police began its bicycle patrol the president
cannot convincingly condude that high-intensity lighting would be a more effective means of preventing vandalism.

Thirdly, the president falsely assumes that high-intensity lighting and bicycle patrolling are Amburg's only possible means of reducing crime. In all likelihood Amburg has a myriad of other choices--such as social programs and juvenile legal-system reforms, to name just a few. Moreover, undoubtedly vandalism is not the only type of crime in Amburg. Thus unless the president can show that high-intensity lighting will deter other types of crime as well I cannot take seriously the president's conclusion that installing high intensity lighting would be the best way for Amburg to reduce its overall crime rate.

Finally, even if high-intensity lighting would be Amburg's best means of reducing crime in its
central business district, the president's further assertion that reducing crime would result in a
revitalization of city neighborhoods is unwarranted. Perhaps the decline of Amburg's city
neighborhoods is attributable not to the crime rate in Amburg's central business district but
rather to other factors--such as the availability of more attractive housing in the suburbs. And if
the neighborhoods in decline are not located within the central business district the president's
argument is even weaker.

In sum, the recommendation is not well-supported. To bolster it the president must show that
BeUeville's decline in vandalism is lasting and is attributable to the lighting. The president must
also show that lighting would be more effective than any other means at Amburg's disposal to
reduce not just vandalism but other crimes as well. To better assess the recommendation I
would need to know whether Amburg's declining city neighbor-hoods are located within the
central business district, and whether any other factors might have contributed to the decline.

No comments:

Post a Comment