THE CHARLES RAMSEY EFFECTHello, and welcome to Part 2 of my discussion of the Crime Emergency and the Crime Emergency. Yesterday, I discussed the basic civil rights issues that I feel could be threatened by declaring a Code 10, and asked the question of how long this would last and if it was needed.
Today, we'll start the discussion on the new Police Commissioner, Charles H. Ramsey. But before we do, I want to mention a few things first that I forgot to mention yesterday.
A large amount of my problem with this is, of course, Civil Rights. In all of my writing yesterday, I neglected to mention something that has been bugging me about all of this. Back in May, when Nutter's "Stop-and-Frisk" program was being called to task for violating civil rights, supporters brought up a Court Case where it was declared constitutional.
It was Nutter himself who coined this phase: "It's a Civil Right not to be Shot."
This bumper-sticker phrase was done so well, it is next to impossible to argue against it. To do so seems to allow for the same type of argument used by Conservative Republicans when you disagree with them; "What, do you mean you WANT people to be shot? You don't think it's wrong to kill and murder people?! No wonder you didn't win the election, you cold hearted bastard!"
The fact of the matter is, you don't. You have a right to live, a right to the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to be free and happy, and to live in a safe environment.
You don't have a right to not have bad things happen to you.
Being shot is something that can be prevented. In terms of federal legislation, you could easily create tougher gun laws, make better living conditions, and do everything you can to make the world a better case. At the same time, it is up to society to make sure that we are all raised well and correctly, that we allow everyone to be safe and happy.
The pursuit of happiness. To me, this is the very basis of our democracy and the idea that this nation is built upon. "Do as you will, but harm none." Not just a good idea, but words to live by if you ask me.
And this brings us to Charles H. Ramsey.
While police chief in Washington D.C., "on September 27, 2002, the MPD made a mass arrest of a large group of demonstrators who had assembled in DC’s Pershing Park to protest the World Bank and IMF meetings. The police enclosed over 400 people in the park and arrested them without ever ordering them to disperse or allowing them to leave the park. Many of the arrested were not actually demonstrators, but were journalists, legal observers, and pedestrians. On January 13, 2006, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the arrests violated the Fourth Amendment and that Chief Ramsey could be held personally liable for the violations."
http://www.philebrity.com/2007/11/15/good-news-about-the-new-guy-he-loves-your-civil-liberties/
In his time as chief, he declared Crime Emergencies as well. Not just once, or twice, but at least 4 times. My answer is to focus on this using the proven method of community policing and cracking down on minor crimes (Broken Windows Theory). When it comes to the Community Policing aspect, Ramsey has been declared an innovator for using it. Nevertheless, we have a new commissioner that has used Crime Emergencies in the past to reduce crime as well. According to the last record I could find, the one he declared in 2006 lasted over 2 months and, during the last week of it, there were 3 teenagers shot and killed.
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/age...4/release/9745
At the same time, what was the result of civil liberties because of it? Admittedly, referring to the September 2002 protests where he was held accountable for the unlawful arrests of people there may be a bit much, it still need to be taken into account.
More than anything, we need to consider the effects this will have on the people on Philadelphia, and ask if there is no other way to combat crime here. There is massive personal rights we would eliminate in order for the proposed safety this could bring, and should not be done unless it must be.
I, personally, considered declaring a Crime Emergency the last result, the final straw when all else fails. In the eyes of some, this may be the case, but this is not a matter of organized crime, either. I feel this type of action should be reserved if the killings were more organized and done by a group of connected people. It has been proven that most murders are done, in fact, but random people.
Has this city as a whole really lost it's way so much that we must put everyone on lock down? Do you feel, personally, that you deserve it as well?
The questions I raised, about how long it would last and how it would be implemented, and valid questions and I simply wonder where the political discussion is on this. The elephant in the room of the Nutter election is that he wants to declare a Crime Emergency, but has not once explained how he would do it. Not once. The only parameter given has been that it would be in "targeted areas", and those areas were never explained.
While I may be asking for a hard answer from Mayor-elect Nutter, I am asking for an educated guess on your parts. I'm looking at what has happened in Washington D.C. and the fact that 4 Crime Emergencies were declared by this Chief by 2004. I'm also looking at the overall result in it which was a drop in murders on a whole.
But why did it take 4 of them? How long did each one last? Do they really work as well as it appears? Was the reduction in homicides there largely because of the fact that they declared a crime emergency or was it because of more community policing? Do you think it was a combination of the two?
Tomorrow, we'll probe a bit more and try to wrap this up.
No comments:
Post a Comment