SLACO Conference
Wednesday Night, SLACO (The St. Louis Association of Community Organizations) had a St. Louis Neighborhood Leaders Roundtable Conference at Forest Park Community College.
The topic was crime prevention and the results were somewhat predictable, though the experience was hardly useless. There were five "experts" seated at different tables, and these tables came up with general crimes, crime prevention strategies, and implementation strategies for, of course, the crime prevention strategies.
Along with the experts, there were a good number of NSO's, an Alderman (Craig Schmidt-20th Ward), and a smattering of neighborhood association leaders and community activists. There was an even mix of black and white representation, even from the same neighborhoods, so any unintentional cultural bias was not a factor. (at least at the tables)
From left to right, we have Joe Thele, Program Manager of the Neighborhood Stabilization Office, Jennifer Joyce, Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis, Lt. Col. Roy J Joachimstaler of the SLMPD, and Robert (Bob) Kraiberg, Commissioner of Excise for the city. Also on the panel and not in the picture was Victoria Green of the Family Court.
The general crimes that the group focused on were: drug dealing, theft, auto tampering, prostitution, intimidation, loitering, and child abuse/neglect.
The crime prevention strateg(ies) centered around diligent crime reporting, landlord accountability, block phone trees, and information sharing.
The strateg(ies) for implementing the crime prevention initiatives revolved around patience, education, landlord pressure, putting "heat" on politicians and NSO's, involving more neighborhoods in the "weed and seed" program, and opening more police substations.
Interstingly enough, violent crimes like rape and homicide did not seem to be as much of a concern as the lesser crimes mentioned, what that means is up for interpretation.
Tidbits:
Lt. Col. Joachimstaler let it be known that the number of active police officers in the city was at its lowest point since the mid 60's, and pointed to the Graduated Business License Tax on the ballot as a way to fund more officers.
Jennifer Joyce also touted the proposed tax as a way to fund her "Career Criminals Unit". According to her, 10 percent of the worse offenders create 80 percent of the crime, so if the proposed tax passes, her new unit will dedicate themselves to locking up this untalented tenth to more lengthy prison terms.
To Jennifer Joyce:
Kudos for identifying the 80/10 paradigm.
Why aren't they locking up those criminals now? What does it take to take the criminals off the streets for a long time? This really seems odd. The problem has been identified, and there is a solution. I realize that the solution takes money, but does it take more money or just re-aligning the priorities/money to reflect the solution? As a taxpayer, I am wary of just giving more money away without knowing where it is going, the measures of success and the duration of such a tax increase.
Posted by Optimisticbutwary on Mon., Jul 31, 2006 at 12:09 PMWhile the business license tax isn't the best source of revenue to use for problem properties, we all need to be out there on August 8th to pass the funding for our officers, prosecutors, and others to deal with the pervasive problem properties in our City.
Posted by travis reems on Mon., Jul 31, 2006 at 12:37 PMDepends upon what you thought lowered crime the most in the 1990s. Overall job growth, expanded incarceration, or funding for a few more officers? My personal bias is the economy first and foremost, criminal justice a distant but measurable second, followed lastly by added police making hardly any difference.
Taxing businesses more could nullify the minimal anti-crime effect of a few more police, just by causing the loss of even more jobs than officers added to a city with high crime and unemployment. Besides, if we do need more officers, then maybe SLMPD could cut some of their highly paid white shirts like Roy, in order to pay for more men and women in blue shirts actually working neighborhood streets.
Posted by Brian on Mon., Jul 31, 2006 at 2:57 PMA few more police are not going to solve this problem. By the time you account for in service training, vacation, and sick days spread across three shifts, across the entire city you dont have much of an increase.
Jennifer:
If you know 10% of criminals committ 80% of the crime why haven't these people been targeted already? You could take a prosecutor out of Traffic Court or other area not as essential. Cut an invesigator and pay an attorney if this is true.
Policing is about feeling safe. The police can not and will not be able to prevent all crime. We can toss as much money at this as we want and unless we change jobs and education we are going to have status quo.
We need jobs! Jobs that create housing demand. Jobs that pay into City taxes. Jobs that fill lofts downtown.
I agree with Jennifer Joyce, but sometimes those repeat offenders are taken off the street by the police, brought to trial by the prosecutors, and then let go by city juries. Sure, we need more officers on the street as well as tough prosecutors, but we also need citizens who are willing to serve on juries, ones who will stick it out until there is a just verdict, not the kind who cave in to the demands of one or two jurors so they can get home in time for dinner.
Our system of justice has many links in the chain, and the police are just one. Sometimes we forget that we are a link in that chain, too. I am sure that most of you who read this blog have served as jurors, but I can also tell you that I personally know of many who call judges and beg to be let out of jury duty because they are "too busy" to serve. Those who want a fair judicial system better be ready to invest some time in it.
Posted by Corolla on Mon., Jul 31, 2006 at 8:24 PMThe comments in this thread puzzle and amuse me.
First, the general public may not be aware that so-called "persistent" felony and drug offenders already serve greatly enhanced sentences. This is the existing law.
So I'm not sure how JJ plans to "target" this nefarious 10% and make them subject to "more lengthly prison terms" than they already routinely serve. The prison terms they are eligible to serve is set by statute. For these hardened criminals, I'm sure the CA's office is already recommending the maximum.
Unless JJ plans to go out and frame these members of the 10% for rape and murder and lock them up for life, it's really unclear how targeting these so-called career criminals is going to make any difference. You could tamper with a car 1000 times and it's still only going to be a B felony if you're a persistent felony offender. There is really nothing a prosecutor can do about that. You're still going to get out in 6 or 7 years.
I don't get it. Good luck, though.
And oh yeah: this myth about "city juries" is the part that really makes me laugh. I guess there's the odd case where some people believe that the cops acted improperly and acquit. But I wonder why it is that they believe that it's plausible that, say, cops planted drugs on the guy with the longest record? It's because the St. Louis police have a rotten relationship with the public. My pet theory is that the way to make headway with the crime problem is not the tired, tired old standby of locking people up for a few more years--it's to FINALLY address the bad apples in the St. Louis Police Dept.
Posted by Jessica on Mon., Jul 31, 2006 at 9:56 PM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.