Government Police Fail to Make Arrests In Nearly Half of Murder Cases

Police departments in a number of U.S. cities — Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans — are receiving increased attention for their failure to clear even half of the homicides that occur in their jurisdiction. And note that to “clear” a case doesn’t even necessarily require that someone be convicted of the crime, but only that either an arrest was made or that the case was “cleared by exceptional means,” meaning that the police identified a suspect, had sufficient evidence to arrest, and knew their location, but encountered a circumstance that prevented them from making the arrest.

Of all the crimes classified as Index I crimes by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter typically have the highest clearance rate by far.

Source: FBI: UCR 2017 Clearance

What should be realized is just how much lower current homicide clearance rates are compared to the 1960s and 1970s, even though the number of killings in recent years is roughly on par with the early 70s. As can be seen in the following graph, the number of homicides have gone down since its peak in the 90s, but so has the clearance rate.

Source: Murder Accountability Project

An explanation offered for why this is the case is that a growing proportion of these unsolved homicides are gangland killings where witnesses refuse to talk to the police due to anti-snitching norms, low trust in the police, or fear of reprisal. Indeed, the city of Indianapolis has created a witness protection fund in an effort to get more witnesses to cooperate with police.

Police Aren't Your Friend — Even If You Want to Report a Crime

The hesitancy to cooperate with the police should not be surprising. For one thing, unless you have a personal relationship with police officers, you will always be a potential criminal suspect. At worst, calling the police for help can result in the arrest or death of you or a loved one. With the high potential costs of interacting with the police, individuals on the margin will seek substitutes for ensuring their safety.

[RELATED: "Too Many Laws: Why Police Encounters Escalate" by Ryan McMaken]

Furthermore, consider the incentives facing witnesses of crimes. It’s not like they can just leave an anonymous tip to the police and be done with it; rather, they will have to endure multiple interviews with police officers and prosecutors and will be expected to testify in court if the necessity arises. This will be a long, drawn-out process during which (and possibly after) one could be a target for reprisal. Government police have no duty to protect individuals (see Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)). The assassination of a witness may even be beneficial from the perspective of increasing clearance rates, as the police would already have a likely suspect.

Government Police Lack Accountability and Incentives

Yet for some reason this state of affairs is tolerated. We have become conditioned to expect such service from government bureaucracies and see it as routine. But imagine if murders happened so frequently on the premises of any private business. We would fully expect that that business would make it their top priority to prevent any further slayings and ensure the public that their place of business is a safe place to be. We wouldn’t even consider the possibility that they would be able to remain in business while being unable to identify the killer in less than half of the cases.

Thus, at issue is not only the ineffectiveness of government policing but the intertwined issue of “public” property. Unlike the common areas provided by the proprietors of private business (such as hotel lobbies, parking lots, and the common areas within shopping malls), there is no residual claimant to the value of common areas in the public domain. They cannot be sold and therefore have no market prices. A private owner seeks to maintain or increase the market value of their property, an aspect of which is the safety of its common areas, because they are the residual claimant of that value. However, this is not the case for areas that are in the public domain. Just like the other aspects of quality, such as the presence of graffiti, trash, atmosphere, and maintenance, tend to deteriorate in areas in the public domain, so does safety.

Entrepreneurs who might have better ideas than the Chicago police on how to increase the safety of public areas are unable to acquire the property, test their ideas, and determine whether those ideas work based on whether they result in profits or losses. Public officials have little incentive to invest in improving the safety of the common areas under their control, as they suffer no losses from letting them deteriorate and reap no profits from improving them. Since the homicides in question are of individuals who have little political influence, they are of little relevance to the immediate concerns of public officials.

In light of this, we should more deeply appreciate what is at stake in slogans like “Privatize Everything.” It is not simply about the nominal transfer of physical objects or land from government control to favored individuals, but transferring them from the realm of non-calculation and fiat to the realm of economic calculation and consumer sovereignty. As a practical matter, it could save many lives.

“...a growing proportion of these unsolved homicides are gangland killings where witnesses refuse to talk to the police due to anti-snitching norms, low trust in the police, or fear of reprisal.
…[witnesses] will have to endure multiple interviews with police officers and prosecutors and will be expected to testify in court if the necessity arises. This will be a long, drawn-out process during which (and possibly after) one could be a target for reprisal. Government police have no duty to protect individuals (see Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)).”

Indeed, the responsibility for self-defense lies with the citizenry themselves -- as specified in the Second Amendment. The police are not security guards; allowing that would require law enforcement militarizing the streets.

Gangs should be regarded as illegal paramilitary forces that are intent upon establishing zones in which they forcibly replace our laws with theirs. They should therefore be treated as invasive enemy bent upon conquest.

Displaying the insignia of gangs that attempt to establish no-go zones for police should be treated the same way as invaders in enemy uniform. Only those who renounce their gang affiliation -- in word and deed -- should be permitted freedom. The rest should be incarcerated indefinitely -- and gang members should not be permitted contact with each other while in custody. All non-citizens who perpetrate crime should be summarily expelled after serving their sentences.

Further not mentioned as causes is the increasing sympathy Leftist judges and politicians have shown toward criminals. They are seen as victims of society who lash out due to desperation or righteous indignation. Hence, to have even violent criminals suffer consequences from the Courts -- or for them to be harmed by their targets in self-defense -- is seen as perpetuating the injustice.

Also not discussed in this essay is the political profit some gain from fraudulently fomenting distrust of law enforcement -- particularly in a black community that the Party of Jim Crow hopes to keep ignorant, defenseless and dependent. The fact is, for every black killed by the police -- due in no small part to being over-represented in perpetrating violent crime -- forty are murdered by each other.

There is no encouragement for introspection within the community; it’s so much easier to blame others for destructive behaviors toward self and others. Since LBJ’s Great Society, all too many black children have been raised to believe that they are Born Victims and thus they needn’t make the effort to be decent, law-abiding, productive members of society. Instead they are told that they are entitled to run from and/or fight the police if faced with the prospect of being subject to laws enacted by our elected representatives. If anyone is harmed, it’s law enforcement’s fault.

Criminals are lionized in a culture that stigmatizes making an honest living, fidelity, chastity, consideration for others and obeying the law. And the War on Poverty has created a perverse financial disincentive for the man and woman who made the children to raise them in the commitment of wedlock in an intact home. It is all too common for women to be bearing children sired by multiple males -- none of whom are around to help. In some cases, the mothers also are absent due to incarceration and/or substance abuse. Hence, many children find themselves under the care of grandparents who have considerable disadvantage in providing adequate vigilance -- and consequences/limitations for anti-social behaviors.

Furthermore, the real-life evidence is clear that single parenting increases the odds that children will experience crime victimization, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, incarceration, truancy, under-aged pregnancy, poverty, etc. These also should be considered when regarding the increase in crime in concert with a decrease in solving criminal violence.

“...imagine if murders happened so frequently on the premises of any private business. We would fully expect that that business would make it their top priority to prevent any further slayings and ensure the public that their place of business is a safe place to be.”

It doesn’t matter whether the place in which violent crime takes place is on government or private property if the authorities refuse to enforce the law. Let us remember how the Ferguson PD were ordered to stand by while riots ensued in the main commercial/retail area. The only action they took was to force a group of armed shop-keepers standing in front of their store to abandon their hard-earned inventory and structures to the looters. And then there was the Mayor of Baltimore who also ordered BPD to merely watch as the rioters needed “room to destroy” the property of those whose provocation was only being in proximity and without defense.

Would private security have prevented this crime taking place on private property?

The author is advocating privatizing more government-owned spaces as a means to militate against crime, but that would only be effective if there are armies of mercenaries policing them. What sort of legal authority they may have is a question. If anyone gets hurt in conflicts between law-abiding citizens, criminals, terrorists, nut-jobs and private security forces, it is hard to imagine the outcomes being any different if the laws continue to be nullified by the Courts. This is especially so in jurisdiction that considers the purpose of police to be targets and take blame, while law-abiding citizens are expected to be passive victims -- depending upon demographics.

The solutions, therefore, must come from the culture as expressed in terms of social norms and government policy.

All legal impediments to self-empowerment with respect to economic and personal security must be removed. Chronic poverty should not be subsidized. Aid should be given with the purpose of facilitating self-sufficiency. Law-abiding citizens must not be unilaterally disarmed. Society must be protected from violent criminals when they perpetrate by incarcerating them until and unless they prove themselves to be safe to be at large again.

And yes, that does mean the first violent offense could result in a life sentence for an identified incorrigible sociopath/psychopath, gang member or terrorist.

Finally, there must be introspection within the community as to whether it is in their interests to dismiss pursuing the American Dream in favor of emulating those who gain success by robbing, raping, pushing dope, murdering rivals or otherwise preying upon their neighbors.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.