Wake up and smell the crime

Not too long ago, New York City reached a milestone concerning its public image: Changing conditions and the rise of a new generation broke people’s mental association between “New York” and words like “crime,” “dangerous,” and “ungovernable.” The New York Police Department reached an achievement more monumental than statistics can convey—people began to feel safe and comfortable in the city. While the NYPD and the past two mayors deserve the highest commendations for a dramatic reduction in crime, problems arise when attitudes of comfort give way to complacency, and feelings of security to ones of invincibility.

Historically low rates of violent crime have the unfortunate effect of encouraging a feeling of total safety. It has become easy to take public safety for granted and treat it as a fixture of most Manhattan neighborhoods. When crime does occur, it is treated as a singular exception to a reality free from danger. People use this reasoning to make the specter of crime seem excusable, non-threatening, and removed from their daily lives.

Today’s danger lies in believing that New York has become an invincible city, one that could never return to the murder rates of the ’90s, regardless of budget and personnel cuts to police forces. Budget constrictions in the past few years have driven politicians to lay off NYPD officers by the thousands without significant fear of rising crime rates. The coming year’s budget plans from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor David Paterson propose to bring the city’s police force to its lowest numbers in two decades, meaning that the force will have been slashed by 25 percent, or 10,000 officers, in the past 10 years alone.

Crime rates for 2010 thus far have been slightly higher than they were at this point in 2009, perhaps demonstrating the ramifications of such cuts. The number of reported murder, rape, felony assault, and burglary cases has risen across the city, and even more significantly in Upper Manhattan—a pattern that is reflected in Morningside Heights’ local precinct. The numbers are compelling—in Northern Manhattan, felony assaults have risen by 15.5 percent and burglaries by 13.3 percent, compared with the first three months of 2009. But, even if they are not statistically significant, the connection between police presence and crime reduction is obvious based on its correlation with bringing down crime rates in the past.

An expanded police department and zero-tolerance policies were responsible for the dramatic reductions in crime in the ’90s, meaning that continued personnel and salary cuts are sure to begin reversing the trend. Heightened law enforcement discouraged the culture of lawlessness that pervaded the crack epidemic of the late ’80s, improving public safety by strengthening the causal link between crime and punishment. A decreased police presence will have the opposite effect—it will nurture an assessment in the minds of would-be criminals that legal ramifications to violent offenses are unlikely.

This change in the mindset of potential offenders will be disastrous if it is not accompanied by a greater sensitivity on the part of law-abiding citizens. Columbia students, who often regard the likelihood of being a victim of a crime with implausibility, are especially vulnerable to the fallacy of invincibility. Even the worst tragedies, such as crime-related deaths, are excused by saying that the victim was walking alone, too late at night, or too far from campus.

Part of the problem is that Columbia students are not empowered to contribute to finding solutions for the security of our neighborhood. It is understandable that the University’s Department of Public Safety must keep its procedures and security measures secret, but the department operates with little to no interest in outside input. Even information about students’ habits and observations—for example, about security breaches that may be obvious in students’ everyday lives—would be valuable to Public Safety’s mission.

The lack of transparency in Public Safety is alarming, not only because it precludes accountability, but also because it encourages students to think of crime as unreal and alarmist. The current University policy is to leave it to Public Safety’s discretion whether to report a neighborhood crime, allowing the department to protect its reputation when necessary. If students are to have serious awareness of the safety—or lack thereof—of their neighborhood, the University must adopt a procedure whereby Public Safety is required, while respecting anonymity, to publish each reported incident, even if only on its website.

Students should be given a form of redress over local security conditions, beginning with forums for input on Public Safety measures and protocols. Creating town hall meetings, committees with student representatives, or student task forces on public safety would undoubtedly aid the Department in cracking down on crime. Any such reforms, however, must begin with fundamental interest from students and a heightened awareness of the reality of criminal victimization. We must stop taking personal safety for granted, before we can seriously take ownership over our neighborhood.

Daniel Amzallag is a Columbia College junior majoring in political science and English. Outside the Gates runs alternate Tuesdays.