Hello everyone,
I'd like to address the following from the 7\24
post:
"We are going to get 60 cops back, but we lost 145
cops. The MPD is still 85 cops short of the number we
had when SSB was mayor. That's an unmanageable loss,
particularly from the third and fourth precincts. So
if McLaughlin had said that, "we're going to take it
back," he may have been talking about taking the city
back from the miscreants and the poor management we
now have."
The City of Minneapolis could hire 500 new cops
and it would have little impact on livability crime.
People should be asking, "What sort of cops are we
hiring; anti-gang strike force personnel, narcotics,
street cops, undercover detectives...". And, where
will the additional officers be deployed? What sort
of goals are to be targeted by additional police
officers on the street?
I hate to keep harping on the issue, but well over
half of the crimes committed in the City occur under
the "Part II" category...many other the "Part II,
other". When someone is arrested for a felony (Part
I) crime, they are going to--in many cases--be
incarcerated for a significant period of time. Many
of those arrested for a Gross misdemeanor will also
be removed from the street for longer periods of
time. On the other hand, many of those arrested or
cited for petty misdemeanors or misdemeanors will
either never go to jail at all (receiving citations)
or go to jail for short periods of time (2-5 days).
Under Minnesota Law, the maximum sentence for
a misdemeanor offense (without any sort of extenuating
circumstances) is 90 days and a $1,000 ($700?) fine.
The Statutory guidelines will allow sentences to
be "Stacked" up to a one-year maximum. In other words,
if someone is arrested multiple times for an offense
like loitering (could be as much as 20-25 times in
one year), the maximum sentence such a person could
receive would be 364 days...anything over that would
result in a prison term (you can only do 364 days in
a County Jail facility...anything over is a prison
term). In praxis, no one ever gets anywhere near the
Statutory maximum of 364 days for multiple offenses.
In most cases, multiple counts will be processed
as one case or a plea-bargain arrangement will be
reached wherein the counts are run together. A typical
situation would be-in such a case-that a person would
receive 15-20 days in jail with the additional 65-70
days suspended barring another offense. If the person
is arrested again during a specified period (usually
one year) the rest of the suspended sentence is
imposed. Do people understand how long it takes for
this to occur? For a 90 day sentence to finally be
imposed, it could take multiple offenses over the
course of many months for such a scenario to
transpire.
Furthermore, once such a 90 day sentence is served,
the person will be back on the street. Indeed, this
is more the norm than the exception.
The City Attorney, along with the MPD, has argued
that the Statutory maximum should be invoked more
frequently to remove livability crime perpetrators
from the streets for significant periods of time.
They've been advocating this for years and you
can reference the fact in their business plan(s) (link
previously provided in my other posts-available on
line). However, the 82 (I believe this is the correct
number) magistrates in the District are not going
to depart significantly in their sentencing methods...
this is not something the City of Minneapolis can
control to any great degree.
The records show, again and again and again, that
if you wish to combat livability crime-to reduce it-
the number of police officers on the street will make
little difference. You could hire a 1,000 cops and
how will that make any difference? Instead of
arresting people once over 2 weeks, you might arrest
them twice a week...but if the Statutory limits
remain the same and the courts operate in the same
manner, without any significant revisions to
guidelines...well, how the heck will you have any
real impact? Answer: You won't. Everyone involved
in the system realizes how this works...the public
doesn't. This is the essence of the chimerical
argument over more police officers having an impact
on specific categories of criminal activity.
This goes back a long way...I'm not, by any means,
the first to note the systemic problems. In 1995
the NRPC, in conjunction with researchers at the
U of MN, completed a paper on systemic flaws in
the criminal justice system. Many of the things
I've been pointing out were noted in that study...
but little has changed: Notification requirements
to defendents remain the same (2-25 day periods
must elapse between notices of appearance to
defs before a bench warrant can be issued, for
example). The Mental Health and Drug Set courts
are newer innovations...but, as Mental Health
Court participation is voluntary, many opt not
to participate--you get out of jail quicker...
For those who do participate in Mental Health Court,
significant success is experienced...but this is
a minority of the livability crime offenders.
People need to make the connections...you
can issue citations for lesser crimes all you want.
How much impact do you think it has on someone
who is homeless, mentally ill, chemically dependent
on receipt of a $200.00 fine? Most of the people
who are homeless on the street don't really care...
they can't pay the fines, have no intention of
paying them...and the courts and police know this.
A $200 fine would, in fact, be somewhat high for
the category of crime I'm referring to...most end
up with $50.00-$100.00. It costs more to impose
and try to collect the fines than is recouped in
the end. It is a circular, ludicrous system.
Once again, people need to follow the cash.
Look at what is REALLY taking place. If you hire
60 more police officers make sure you can articulate
what their role will be...how will this significantly
alter the Public Safety of the community? Will it?
In a previous post, someone pointed out that
if you are the victim of an assault there has been
one assault too many (switching to Part I crime here).
This is all too true. However, a very high
percentage of assaults-for example-involve people
who know eachother, where the perpetrator and victim
are acquainted. Many such crimes will occur in a
private residence...no number of squad cars on the
street will impact these types of crime, though the
response time would be quicker.
If you're going to spend $75,000-100,000 per new
officer (just so we're clear, we're talking millions
of dollars here)...don't you want to know how the
new officers will be deployed, how the additions
will impact crime? Remember, crime rates are dropping,
by all measures...the trend began when we had 900+
police officers...don't you want to know all the
facts, first? Ask the questions?
Later in the post:
"I think Reinhardt said it costs about $100,000 per
cop? Does that include the increase in overhead, I
wonder? After all, to add 200 cops on the street,
you'll need more supervisors, clerks to process the
paperwork, and personnel at the jails and courts to
handle the expected increase in arrests."
Here you're talking apples and oranges again. Yes,
there will be overhead. However, the 60 additional
officers is an expense relating to the City Budget,
the Jail is a County expense...District Court...
also not under the City's purview. The Specialty
courts would be a different matter, though I don't
know the numbers off-hand.
If you are going to ameliorate the problem of
livability crime at all, you need to look at the
problem systemically. What sort of relation is
there between the current housing and employment
situation and the rise or fall of livability crime
rates? How does education fall into the equation?
How does an offense under the category of "livability
crime" pan out throught the criminal justice system?
In what percentage of the cases is a lasting
resolution
achieved? And, now that we're on the topic, what
is a lasting solution to a string of offenses
involving
public consumption, disorderly conduct, littering,
graffiti, loitering, lurking, trespass? Can someone
define this for me? If it's a ten year prison
sentence...guess what? It ain't gonna happen, period.
Does anyone remember the film featuring Sandra
Bullock where she goes for in-patient treatment of
her alcoholism? In one scene the counselor has
her character attempt to force a horse to lift its
hoof repeatedly. Try as she might, she cannot obtain
the cooperation of the horse. This is a snap-shot
of the futility of the meaningless repetition of
an action the conclusion of which is foregone.
We can throw an additional 3-5 million into
more police officers...doesn't anyone want to know
if it will make a significant difference...and how?
The short-sightedness of the whole rationale
is beyond me, really. Let's read the the tale of
the, "Emperor's New Clothes" with fresh eyes...
and point out the bloody obvious.
Again, many cities have demonstrated how the
careful co-ordination of law enforcement efforts
with social service personnel can provide long-term
solutions to livability crimes deriving from out
of a backdrop of mental illness, homelessness,
and addiction. Why can't we try it out here...it
would be cheaper. You can't build a seemingly
endless array of jail facilities, can you? You can't
lock up everyone with an income under $20,000.
I also pointed out in a previous post some stats
on the demographics of homelessness;
24% of all single adults are veterans.
(34% of these had combat experience).
54% of all homeless people have a serious and
persistent mental illness.
Doesn't anyone find these numbers extremely
disturbing?
Once again, I pulled the SIP files of the top
100 offenders and have looked over the files of
hundreds of other livability crime offenders in
our city\county. Believe me, if the criminal justice
system were going to provide a lasting solution
for the vast majority of these people...don't you
think it would have happened by now?
Time to look at other solutions...and they are
out there.
On the issue of Rybak vs. Mclaughlin: RT seems
like the little Dutch Boy trying to stop the flood
with his fingers plugged into the dike. I just plain
believe Peter Mclaughlin has a more comprehensive
vision of the systemic nature of the problem. You
cannot look at just Education, just Public Safety,
just Housing...you have to look at social problems
in a broader context, see how they impact eachother
across systems. This is the difference between
governance and the employment of a stop-gap, crisis-
oriented approach. I just plain think Peter Mclaughlin
has a wider understanding of the issues, of the
systems involved, and will provide a fuller response
to the problems facing the city at present and in
the future.
Guy
misdemeanors or petty misdemeanors will be back on
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
