L.A. Crime Fills a Power Vacuum
Explaining the ups and downs of crime rates is a precarious
business. It's a happy exercise when crime has dropped, as in the
eight-year decline that Los Angeles and the nation enjoyed through 1999.
The growth of the L.A. Police Department to nearly 10,000 officers was
among the reasons cited, along with the booming economy, an aging
criminal population and California's three-strikes law.
Now comes the opposite. Violent crime in Los Angeles rose sharply in
2000, up nearly 10% over 1999. The biggest jump was in homicides--a 27.6%
increase to 545, with most of the increase involving gang victims in
South and Central Los Angeles, even though, at least in the first half of
the year, much of the rest of the state experienced only small increases
or even decreases in murders.
Again, the experts lay out their explanations: crimes by newly
released parolees; the start of a long-predicted young-adult crime wave;
the 800-officer drop in the LAPD; low morale in the force related to the
Rampart scandal.
One other possibility also deserves airing--that Los Angeles is
suffering the results of a wrongheaded approach to fighting gangs that
dates back to at least the mid-1980s. In the current shift to a new and,
we hope, much better-controlled anti-gang effort, street gangs may have
taken temporary advantage of a vacuum in LAPD enforcement. If so, that
means the rise might be quelled before it spirals out of control.
Fourteen years ago, under Chief Daryl F. Gates, the LAPD's "total
suppression" policy included stopping, frisking and questioning just
about everyone who looked like a gang member. At the time, a much smaller
anti-gang effort by the Los Angeles County sheriff, targeting the most
criminally active gangs, was seeing noticeably larger drops in crime. The
LAPD's response was to make a bad situation worse. Having already placed
the lion's share of gang suppression in the hands of just 145 anti-gang
officers, the LAPD brass moved the gang units into separate station
houses around the city, isolating them from the rest of the force.
Regular LAPD patrol officers were largely not involved with the gang
suppression business, and the so-called CRASH (Community Resources
Against Street Hoodlums) units operated with too much freedom and too
little supervision.
One painful result was the Rampart Division matter. Another was the
sudden disbanding of the gang units in the wake of the corruption
scandal, even though the rest of the force had little experience with
controlling gangs. The LAPD had to begin, in March of last year,
recruiting and training for a new anti-gang effort, with better screening
of officers and sharper supervision. This was a necessary step, but
understandably it caused something of a power vacuum on the streets,
where young felons aged 14 to 24 have fueled the rise in gang homicides.
At least there is still an opportunity for the department to get its
new units up to speed before Los Angeles sees a further increase in
murderous violence.