Frisking Bob Herbert's Column on Frisking

Yesterday, Bob Herbert wrote his second column in one month on the aggressive frisking practices of the New York City Police Department. (First column here). Way to mix it up, Bob!

Bob writes that the 2.8 million stops over six-years represent "degradation" and "harrassment," and that the current policies represent a "gruesome, racist practice that should offend all New Yorkers, and it should cease." The undercurrent of the piece is that New York Police frisking practices are "out of control" and racist. Well, let's take a look at how out of control it is.

There are 8 million people in New York City and 20 million in the NY Metro area. Given that many millions of people from the metro area work in New York City on a daily basis, and millions more visit the city for vacation or a night out, let's conservatively adjust up the NYC population to 10 million to account for all these extra people. This means there are 60 million people-years in the period Herbert writes about. During this time, police made 2.8 million stops. Thus, if the stops were distributed evenly, the average person would be stopped by police only once every 21 years!! (60 million people years /2.8 million stops). Yet, Herbert makes it seem like everyone in the city is thrown against against a car hood on a daily basis. Of course, we are used to such rank exaggeration from Herbert.

Secondly, he writes: “While crime has been going down, the number of people getting stopped by the police is going up.”As one of the commenters wrote: I can’t say whether there is a causal correlation there, but the fact that you haven’t even acknowledged that as a possibility, or refuted it with verifiable evidence, is telling. Well said. In fact, the decrease in crime in New York City has been nothing short of remarkable. New York has a lower murder rate than St. Paul, Minnesota!

Of course, the most blatant problem with this column is that Herbert doesn't being to grapple with (or even acknowledge!) the fact that BY DEFAULT more minorities are going to be stopped, and that has everything to do with the socioeconomic makeup of the city. Minorities live in higher crime areas, and minorities commit more crimes. If that's the case, of course minorities will be frisked more. Could anyone tell me why this shouldn't be the case? Take a look at the New York murder map, published in Bob's own paper, and you'll see 89% of homicides were committed by blacks and Hispanics from 2003-2009. Blacks and Hispanics represent 82% of the police department's stops in the 2004-2009 period. Of course, this is crude analysis, but interesting nonetheless.

I acknowledge that there are deep complexities surrounding race and criminal procedure. I even hold the view that minorities likely end up in jail more often than whites, in part, due to racism. Herbert acknowledges no such complexities. To him, the racism is unequivocal!

The lack of intellectual rigor on display here is simply astounding. I bet David Brooks threw up in his mouth when he read this column.

One could argue there is a sad irony underpinning Herbert's entire argument: the people who have most benefited from the lower crime rates are poor minorities. Whether frisking has lead to a lower crime rate is a question I'll leave for a criminologist. My gut says it's a factor, but this is just a guess. I know one thing for certain: Bob Herbert is an embarrassment. Fire Bob Herbert!