Does a "Police State" Reduce Crime?

This past week I heard a news story about a remarkable crime statistic. Chicago, which has been the murder capital of the United States for quite some time now, is reporting a drop of around 40% in its murder rate from this time last year. Given last year's 800+ murders in Chicago, this means more than 50 fewer murders than this time last year. This startling statistic ought to make criminologists perk up in interest to discover the cause of such a swift drop in murders. Unfortunately, the news outlet was quick to attribute the cause of the decline to increased police presence and changes in police tactics. While it is entirely possible that increases in police presence or changes in tactics may contribute to a drop in crime, such a significant drop undoubtedly means other weighty factors are also at play. 

I find it remarkable that in a country that is increasingly progressive, we are still jumping to the foolhardy conclusion that a strong police state reduces crime. Less than a year ago, Chicago's murder epidemic had the President of the United States threatening to send in federal troops to "solve the problem." Now, local law enforcement is being credited with causing this drastic change. Unfortunately, this leap to conclusions fails to consider all of the many people and organizations tirelessly working hard to mediate the violent gang conflicts in Chicago. Instead, it perpetuates a belief in the power of a police state. 

Local and federal law enforcement serve an important purpose in protecting the safety of American citizens. I am not diminishing the importance of their roles. But concluding that increasing police presence causes a reduction in violence, to this degree, is insulting to many other hard-working people who also serve peace-keeping ends. Crime prevention starts long before the police are involved, and it extends long afterward. Preventing crime often starts in the very communities affected by crime. It also involves the community members who are suffering the harms and who have an invested interest in a solution. Police presence only serves a limited role in deterring crime. In some cases, it may actually increase the anxiety and fear of community members, leading to an increase in crime rates. 

Perhaps most disturbing to the claim that law enforcement presence is responsible for a drop in crime rates is the assumption that Chicago's citizens are irresponsible moral agents. In other words, without the intervention of the police state, Chicago's citizens would be incapable of maintaining peace. This demoralizing notion fails to recognize the important role a community's own citizens have in maintaining peace. Instead, it looks to government intervention as the "savior" of an embattled community. Given the historical over-reach of law enforcement, especially in communities of color, crediting a drop in crime exclusively to law enforcement serves only to disempower Chicago's residents. 

As a country, we must be careful to avoid justifying the use of a greater police force to solve social problems. Social ills, like a high murder rate, do not happen because of a lack of police presence, so addressing these problems with more policing avoids the problems entirely. Let's hope that criminologists discover the real reason for Chicago's dropping crime rates, that way we can focus on supporting those efforts rather than throwing more power at the problem.