I didn't even see the debate last night. But, I hope that with this post, and the one from Robert Nix below, we can talk about all of this in a little more relaxed tone. I know with a week to go, that is not really possible, but let's try.

First, on the reason why the Nutter crime program is problematic, I am going to quote very liberally from Jennifer:

Yes, the Sherman study and the discussion of targeted enforcement zones involves stop and frisk (the study is deployed to show that stop and frisk is effective in reducing crime).

Both Nutter and Fattah cited the same study in their crime plans, which had overlapping elements.

The big difference between the two men's plans--and why my earlier writing on this gravitated towards emphasis on Nutter--is that Nutter situated his support for stop and frisk within a plan to declare a crime-based state of emergency in violence-plagued Philadelphia areas. In the debates, the two get conflated: discussion and criticism of stop and frisk is really discussion and criticism of the state of emergency thing.

Why this is has to do with the weird double-bind Nutter has put himself in (evident in his defense of stop and frisk last night): to not freak people out, he has to emphasis constitutionality and "probable cause" (which isn't the legal standard, which is actually lower, but whatever). But now he is just saying, under me we will do what we already can--and to a certain extent are--doing. When Nutter described the circumstances under which police could stop people to search for illegal weapons (he went into detail about the specific suspicious qualities that would support a search), he was talking about circumstances where police are already going to stop and search.

I think he is (somewhat irresponsibly) grasping onto rhetoric that he thinks differentiates himself as tough on crime, but I don't think he has the stomach to actually be that tough. I am heartened by the fact that all the other candidates think that it is a problem to rely more heavily on police discretion.

One of the problems with Nutter's plan and why Evans is right to talk about the risk of racial profiling is that I think Nutter departs too far from Sherman's study when he describes the "targeted enforcement zones" where a state of emergency would be declared. Nutter references whole neighborhoods like Strawberry Mansion. Sherman's study is based on the fact that we have specific data about past violent crime, and have the ability to pinpoint pretty narrowly where it is likely to recur. That's block-by-block data. Following it, you would declare a state of emergency on corner X.

If you do it across a whole neighborhood, everyone who lives there or has to pass through (as opposed to choosing to remain on corner X) is subject to lowered privacy rights. Nutter's plan as written referenced the mayor's ability under the state of emergency to outlaw movement (walking, driving) through the area. Anyone then who has to walk or drive through can be stopped.

Fattah doesn't say any of this, so he gets less heat.

I will do some more research, but I also think it is unfortunate that the conversation on crime prevention devolved fighting over stop and frisk and the number of new officers (500? 1000?) after the initial plans were promising. The mayoral candidates must determine what has been demonstrably effective elsewhere in reducing violent crime. Nutter claims that stop and frisk was effective in New York; Evans points out the recent studies that show the rise in racial profiling and minority complaints against the police in that period. People aren't talking about the shift in institutional culture in the NYC police also during that time.

I agree with just about everything she says. Below this post, is one from Robert Nix, talking about the police advisory commission, which Nutter had a role in creating. Nutter has every right to be proud of that. But, his plan, as Jennifer says, is very problematic, and so are his defenses of it.

The Nutter rhetoric is incredibly problematic. His line that civil rights mean the 'right not to get shot' is ridiculous. His goading of Knox during the WHYY debate was ridiculous. And saying that a program that will potentially put entire neighborhoods under curfews, restrict activity, give police a lot of discretion is OK because you are black, is also incredibly ridiculous, and Nutter is smart enough to know that. (Tom Knox uses that same reasoning to justify payday loans; Clarence Thomas uses it in every decision where he attacks affirmative action, etc.) And, considering that he thought the Police Advisory Commission was necessary, even without giving police all kinds of additional powers, I really think Nutter supporters need to push him a lot on this.

I don't presume to know the support for a state of emergency being declared in entire neighborhoods. But, take away his skin color, and it is clear that Nutter is talking about a policy that impacts African-Americans, especially working class to poor African-Americans, and doing it in a campaign where African-Americans, especially working class to poor African-Americans don't support him. That is somewhat problematic, right?

So, that is the baseline I start at.

Then we get to Fattah. What Fattah should have said is that Nutter being black does not mean he cannot institute policies that hurt black people- because there is a very real concern about stop and frisk, state of emergencies, etc, and Nutter being black does not change that in anyway whatsoever. Or something like that. Instead he made the snarky comment, and it was a dumb thing to do, and irresponsible in a City always sitting on top of fragile racial divisions. And, frankly, it just comes across as mean.

But, although he said it stupidly, there are some serious, deep concerns with Nutter's program, and with his defenses of it. I wish Fattah had done it a much better way- but- let's not feed the loop here. I suspect that most people have their minds made up, and there are very real circumstances to an election that is 7 days away. If this makes you less likely to vote for Fattah, I think that is perfectly reasonable. If Nutter's crime program, and his unwillingness to get past rhetoric when talking about it, makes you less like to vote for him, I also think that is perfectly reasonable.

Either way, go out, knock on doors for your candidate (anyone who wants to come help Irv get elected, let me know), and make change happen.