Replies

“But they are not disarming them, they are just warning them; and I’m not at all sure if their letters even have any real weight. I don’t think anybody can be charged with some greater offense just because they got a warning letter in advance of some crime which they might at some later date be accused of committing.

If there is any real value in what they are doing, it is not conveyed in this piece.”

I think you have hit on it. The article does little to convey the meat of the program.

First, you go to the community and tell them:

We want to stop the really bad guys. All this killing is stupid and pointless. Work with us to put the really bad guys in jail. You know who they are.

When you have identified the really violent, dangerous people, who are just a small number, then you put them on notice that they do not get any more “free rides”. Any infraction will be dealt with severely, and the police and citizens will be actively watching them for infractions. Even some of the really bad ones can see that their actions have no future and just lead to an early grave.

Last, you do what you said. Watch the really bad ones and lock them up for as long as possible. The murder rate usually falls by about a third.

The only problem is that you have to keep on doing it. Once you stop, the murder rates start to creep back up.

The article does a poor job of explaining this process and the fact that it has been done before with very good results.

One of the things this approach does is focus on enforcing the ban on firearms possession by convicted felons. This interview does a better job of explaining the program:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-vognar/chicago-homicides_b_1616607.html

This older article has a line at the bottom:

"He said the traditional answers to gun violence, such as improved schools, job programs and gun control, have not worked."

http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2011-11-28/cpd-puts-authors-dont-shoot-strategy-work-94388