This argument is so seductive, but it bugs me that people assume that "crime rates" are based on how often people are committing crimes. It's how often crimes are reported / how often criminals are caught.
Given the greater prevalence of things like stop and frisk in neighborhoods with large minority populations, is it any surprise more people are caught for things like drug possession? That's going to further skew the stats, leading to more enforcement in those neighborhoods (since they are "high crime").
Drug use is actually higher in young white populations than it is among young black populations, but because of where law enforcement spends their time the incarceration rates differ wildly.
Possession is a red herring. The CompuStat statistics don't even count drug crimes and gun possession crimes--the incidence of which might be affected by the intensity of policing due to stop-and-frisk: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/....
Here is the NYC crime map: https://maps.nyc.gov/crime. Look at the maps for felony assault or rape. Stop-and-frisk isn't going to change the incidence rate of those crimes.
You obviously have a more sophisticated take on the question. Parent comment referenced "75% of crime," not "75% of violent crime" or "75% of rapes and aggravated assaults recorded in compustat."
The general point holds - there are corrective measures that need to be taken to avoid skewing crime data as a result of increased enforcement, and in the case of some jurisdictions those measures are being taken.
What's not obvious to me is whether police are increasing the severity of the charges based on where they are, even if the charges wouldn't necessarily hold up in court. There's a case to be made that that would be an efficient tactic - public defenders will encourage plea bargains and it gives the DA more leverage to settle the case quickly and efficiently. The opposite may be true when booking a drunk banker who gets in a fistfight, or a privileged college kid who rapes his date behind a dumpster.
Also, the discussion generally is not about CompuStat, it's about "quality of life" improvements prosecuted with the use of secret databases that are not publicly available. So, you know, there's that.
It seems like you're making an argument that crime statistics should not be used as a metric to focus law enforcement efforts.
What other metrics should we use? If you simply assign patrol routes based on population you are going to under-serve areas with higher crime and over-police areas that don't need it.
I'm arguing that it's a more complicated statistical problem than "we see more criminal 'events' in this neighborhood, so we should send more cops there."
Offering criticism without offering an alternative isn't helpful.
Of course it's complicated, and of course crime stats are a simplification. Most stats are. The point is, stats are much better than going by biased "gut feelings".
Yes there are underlying issues with stats such as underreporting, but the solution isn't to get rid of the stats. It's to improve the underlying cause of the bias in the data, such as improving police/public relations.
Given the greater prevalence of things like stop and frisk in neighborhoods with large minority populations, is it any surprise more people are caught for things like drug possession? That's going to further skew the stats, leading to more enforcement in those neighborhoods (since they are "high crime").
Drug use is actually higher in young white populations than it is among young black populations, but because of where law enforcement spends their time the incarceration rates differ wildly.