Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Where’s the Police Report Justifying Pot Law?

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

Guest article by Michael Earl Patton.

At the Tuesday Law and Public Safety Committee meeting the police reported on how much crime had been reduced in Cincinnati, credit for which they said belonged to the enhanced penalties of the year-old marijuana ordinance.  Their facts and conclusion were challenged by several speakers, but in the end the committee members (except Tarbell) used this report as a basis for rushing the extension of the ordinance to the meeting of full council.  After the meeting I asked the clerk’s office for a copy of their report and was told it was not available.

And I have a problem with that.  The committee based its vote, at least in part, on a report that is not immediately available to the public.  The clerk’s office said that I could go to the basement CityCable office and they would make a copy on DVD of their recording of the police presentation.  They said there should be a video recording of the screen onto which their report was projected.  They also said that it is the common practice for the police, when they do such a report, to bring in their CD-ROM to make the presentation and leave with it, without giving the clerk a copy.  So I guess I could also go to the police directly and ask for a copy.

But why should it be so complicated?  It should be routine for such reports to be included on-line.  I and others struggled to figure out the basis for what the police were saying—that crime went down in the city.  I will give a brief review of that below.  After I started writing this a friend of mine came in with a video copy that someone had taped off of cable.

The police said Part 1 Crimes went down since the enhanced penalties went into effect.  Part 1 crimes, per the Cincinnanti Police website,* include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft.  Comparing 2005 with 2006 we see that in 2006 murders, robberies, and burglaries went up.  Rapes, aggravated assaults, larcenies, and auto thefts went down..

The police website also reports that in 2005 there were 291,468 calls for service.  In 2006 there were 313,129 calls for service, a 7% increase.  (By the way, assuming no overtime this works out to about 1.2 calls for service per officer per day.)

The police also reported verbally, while giving their report, that the fines levied against the offenders outweighed the city’s costs of prosecuting them by almost 5 to 1.  This, too, was used as a justification for making the increased penalties permanent

So it comes down to money and categories and which categories should count in determining the effect of the increased penalties for marijuana possession.  These should be items for serious discussion.  But instead the Law & Public Safety Committee (except Tarbell) rushed to approve a permanent extension of the increased penalties based on a report that disappeared with the police.

Editor’s Note:  We are having trouble linking to the page in question, which should be located here:  http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/pages/-4258-

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Quim says:
28 Mar 2007  at  03:40 pm | #

I saw some of the speakers comments part of the meeting.
The look on Thomas’ face seemed to be, “I don’t care.”
Well, they passed it today.
Mr Thomas plan to protect the citizens from themselves by developing a beauracratic police state is humming right along.

funnelcake says:
29 Mar 2007  at  03:10 am | #

If this is all about getting guns off the streets, Mexico is currently offering an Xbox for guns trade in deal.  Xboxes are currently running about $180.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/28/technology/xbox_mexico.reut/?postversion=2007032815

How much is this effort costing per gun removed?

Quim says:
29 Mar 2007  at  02:51 pm | #

From the various numbers I have seen from different posts by messrs Green & Patton, I think we’d be making out like rats trading XBoxes for guns.
The council said they would review the stats after one year before they decided if the law was worthwhile.
I remember, at the time thinking, what if they do sweeps exploiting the ordinance? It would skew the stats.
bingo
In the end the decision was based on emotion and ambition.

says:
30 Mar 2007  at  08:57 am | #

Getting guns off of the street isn’t what this is about, and besides several studies have confirmed that states that have a well armed populace often have the lowest rate of violent crime. Just look at Mexico if you want hard data. They have a very high rate of murder, and rape.... and yet the only people with guns down there are the police, the military, and the criminals.

What this is really about is the city making money off of your pain instead of your profit. Let me explain: if marijuana were legal, within a year or two, the state would save enough money on trying to bust you, and incarcerate you, to put you and your entire family through college till you’ve all gotten your PHDs! But seeing as no one has the balls to design and set up a legal mechanism for this to take place (in a way that actually prevents people from growing their own...ie not putting it at the ass-rape street prices users pay today) the city government is more than happy to keep busting you, stealing your property and imprisoning you for longer than a perpetrators of rape or other violent crime.

Think about it...what is so bad about smoking pot that we as a society place a higher priority on putting you in jail for using it, than to educate you to the point where your reality is good enough to not need a distraction from it?????

Go Patton! says:
30 Mar 2007  at  11:15 am | #

Michael Earl Patton, you got shout out from Kevin Osbourne at City Beat blog. He also refers to Christopher Smitherman calling for an audit. I’d like to congragulate all three of you for holding the CPD accountable. Nobody else does!

David E. Gallaher says:
31 Mar 2007  at  04:01 pm | #

Could anybody explain how Paul Green’s statistics, which he got from the police department, must have been 180 degrees off from the police department’s “secret” statistics?
How can that be?

marine engineers beneficial association says:
27 Sep 2007  at  05:26 pm | #

As the author of the article states, the permanent increase in penalties is not because of the benefits they bring to city safety but to the benefits they bring to the city treasury. This comes to no surprise since it is obvious that every public institution is starting to make decisions based on economical factors primarily.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: