What London should learn from New York
Andrew Neil 2:00pm
New York's famed zero-tolerance approach to crime continues to work its magic. This year murders are on track to fall below 500 for the first time since reliable records began 44 years ago.
As of Boxing Day, 484 murders had been recorded in the city during 2007, by far the lowest number since 1963, when there were 548. Before zero tolerance was implemented, New York City murders peaked at an incredible 2,245 in 1990. In other words tough and targeted policing has cut the murder rate by almost 80%.
I appreciate you are still more likely to be murdered in New York than London; but New York's trend is moving distinctly in the right direction. Perhaps some British crime historian might like to give us London's murder rate in 1963 versus 2007; I have a feeling it will NOT be down 80%.
Crime continues to fall dramatically in New York across all categories so that, other than murder, London is now a more dangerous, crime-ridden place than New York. Who would have thought, say 30 years ago, that by the start of the 21st century, you would be much more likely to be mugged or burgled in Britain's capital than in New York (which 30 years ago seemed to be the crime capital of the world).
It isn't just the statistics which tell you New York is safer. Just walking around midtown Manhattan, even late at night last week, there was none of the threatening, drunken, yobbish behaviour which regularly scars the heart of London's West End most nights. And there were police everywhere in New York -- real police, not plastic plods.
Having lived in New York during its worst crime years, I never thought I could write these words: the Big Apple is safer than London.
All of which should raise some interesting questions for the coming London mayoral election, such as: Why has Mayor Ken Livingstone never pursued a proper zero-tolerance approach to crime, unlike New York's last two mayors?
London voters should be demanding answers to all three questions in the months ahead.
Though Tory challenger Boris Johnson nominally supports such an approach, does he have a clue what it really entails?
And, though Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick is a former cop, is his touchy-feely approach to crime not the exact antitheses of zero-tolerance?
Previous
Comments
Jack
December 27th, 2007 6:36pmRe your query on UK homicide rates the Home Office publish their historic annual data at (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/recordedcrime1.html). This shows total homicides in 1963 (England & Wales) were 307 increasing to 891 by 2001/2 (same data collection methodology). The Home Office data collection methodology changed in 2002/3 (wonder why?) but their data shows a total of 755 recorded homicided in 2006/7. Homicides peaked at over a 1000 in 2002/3 but this year included an estimated 150 homicides by Harold Shipman GP. Hope this helps
PSJ
December 27th, 2007 9:15pmNobody who advocates such a move in Britain has any idea what it would entail. We'd have to change the nature of our police force completely. They'd go from approachable people from whom you can ask directions to anal officers of the law whose sole purpose is to give out tickets and arrest people, even for things you've no idea were illegal. New York's situation in 1990 was desperate enough for the middle classes to support that - London is nowhere near that situation yet. Anti-social alcoholism is much better dealt with by increasing the price of alcohol and banning shipments from the continent and burglary can be dramatically reduced by giving householders the unrestricted right to defend themselves like in Texas.
John R Clegg
December 27th, 2007 11:22pmWe will never get the kind of policing that we need or deserve until we have directly elected Chief Constables. In other words, Chief Constables who are solely answerable to their electorate and instead of the present batch of pseudo liberal and politicaly correct yesmen.
maria
December 28th, 2007 6:56pmPart of the problem must lie in the completely different lifestyles that Londoners and New Yorkers enjoy. In the BigApple there is an active 24 hour approach to living in a big city. In London if you fall out of a club in the early hours of the morning - you may if you are rich/beautiful/famous be met by a flash camera (or mobile, later to be downloaded to Youtube) - but you are not likely to find many shops open selling bread, milk or the other necessities of life. No shops, shoppers, few passers by and infrequent night buses makes the dark streets of London (sadly) a dangerous mugger friendly place to be.
Remington
January 4th, 2008 1:50pm"New York City murders peaked at an incredible 2,245 in 1990"
It's high, but the same year Medellin recorded 5,424 with less than a quarter of NY's population.
"Crime continues to fall dramatically in New York across all categories so that, other than murder, London is now a more dangerous, crime-ridden place than New York."
How can London be more dangerous than New York apart from murder? lol that makes no sense. How was the South Bronx? Proof in the old adage that crime data, aside from murder, is worthless.