Is a War on Policing Increasing Crime? Q&A With Rafael Mangual
In Criminal (In)Justice, the Manhattan Institute scholar argues that most reforms favored by social justice activists—and many libertarians—make life worse for communities of color.

The killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020 touched off a summer of protests over police brutality, especially with regard to African Americans and Hispanics.
To many, the killings cemented as fact a narrative that began with the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and found expression in highly charged slogans such as "all cops are bastards" and "defund the police." Reformers charge that cops, far from keeping the peace, are simply the most visible agents of white supremacy who systematically surveil and punish racial and ethnic minorities. Long-stalled reforms, such as abolishing qualified immunity and ending cash bail, made big gains as massive crowds marched under the banner of Black Lives Matter.
But what if the narrative that police are increasingly dangerous, violent, and unaccountable is wrong?
In Criminal (In)Justice, Rafael A. Mangual argues that police violence is in fact rare and declining. What's more, he says that the criminal justice reforms favored by social justice activists—and many libertarians—will make life worse for communities of color. "If we're going to have an honest conversation about where reform needs to happen," says Mangual, "we have to be realistic about what the real scope of the problem is because that's the best way that we're going to be able to assess what can actually fix that problem."
Mangual is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, the New York City think tank that played a foundational role in the shift in policing tactics that began in the early 1990s. It published the work of George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson on broken windows policing and championed the development of the crime-tracking program CompStat under New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton.
Mangual grew up in Brooklyn and Long Island, the half-Dominican, half-Puerto Rican son of a New York Police Department detective. He attended Baruch College in the City University of New York system and holds a law degree from Chicago's DePaul University.
I talked with him about the facts and rhetoric surrounding law enforcement, whether violent crime is actually rising, and what the best ways are to keep the peace without harassing and locking up innocent people.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Skin color is the most important thing
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link-------------------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-20] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://workopportunity23.blogspot.com
Only a racist, rich, idiot white person could think reducing police protection doesn't harm black communities.
just want them to stop shooting the dogs, who obviously aren't going for weapons.
Q: What are teeth and claws, chopped liver?
A: If they get lucky.
Coronavirus caused the rise in crime. It Is Known.
What is an acceptable level of police violence?
That depends on the provocation.
What is an acceptable level of criminal violence? Leftist clowns like you never consider that or give a shit about the victims of your virtue signaling. It is just poor and brown people who suffer from crime. Why should respectable white people like you care?
I don't know. The more I listen to experts talk about the subject, even one's sympathetic to many reforms, the more complicated it gets. My biggest fear is increasingly that the reason why crime dropped so much over the last 30 years is because of the incarceration of many criminals. The US has long had a global reputation for having a pretty wild citizenry, and I love that about us and think it is one of our great traits, I fear crime is the dark other side to that.
My biggest fear is increasingly that the reason why crime dropped so much over the last 30 years is because of the incarceration of many criminals.
I hate to break it to you but that is the truth. Reason was lying when they pretended everyone in prison is either innocent or a peaceful drug user.
Prison and jail space has become so dear these days that it's hard to get in. A strong majority of prison inmates these days are violent or sexual offenders. Those who are not willing to shorten incarceration for such offenders are not serious about reducing incarceration.
Policing is exactly the sort of tough issue that ideologues of any strip don’t handle well. The fact is there are no good choices. Cops suck. Police violence is terrible. But they also are asked to do a terrible job no one in their right mind would want to do.
So you want to hold police to really high standards, get rid of QI, hold them personally responsible for every mistake, throw them in jail every time they over react? Great. Now who is going to be cops? You have to have them. And there are going to be damn few people willing to be cops without QI and being held to the standards reason wants them held.
It isn't black and white. There are lots of truly bad cops, who frame people, beat them up while handcuffed, and otherwise act like thugs. There are a lot of so-called good cops who see this and do nothing because they have to back the blue. Throwing a flash-bang through a window into a baby's crib, shooting chihuahuas or dogs on a chain or locked in a bathroom, shooting through a door, lying about confidential informants. There are way too many bad cops, and not enough good cops willing to take any steps to get rid of the really bad cops.
It is not black and white. That is my point. You have to have some standards of behavior. You can’t just let them run wild. But you are never going to be able to hold them to the standards you would like to. And it is not so easy to determine how far you should go.
It's as simple and easy as civilian criminal trials. Other than arrest powers, cops should be held to the exact same standards as every civilian. If my snap judgment is faulty as to whether the guy had a knife or gun or cell phone, then so is the cop's. They get as much QI as I get. They get as much time with their union lawyers before questioning as I get with my lawyers, and mine is at the government's expense just as theirs is (we all know that union dues are paid by governments). And so on. That's all I want, end of special treatment.
That is a nice ideal but you can’t force people to be cops and no one is going to be willing to be one of you do that. And you have to have them. So your idea is not an option
Cops should have the same right of armed self defense as anyone else. The same, not more. If no one is willing to take the job under those terms, then we'll have to figure out how to do without cops. A force of armed government agents who are above the law is unacceptable.
In other words, you want to attract people who don't obey laws to be cops. No thanks!
What did we do before we let cops get away with literal murder? Let’s go back to that?
There was no such time. Cops have gotten away with literal murder for as long as there have been modern police forces.
Come on, there's tons of QI decisions where it isn't about a questionable judgment call, but actually protecting cops who behaved in criminal ways.
Immunity in general is a bad idea (prosecutors and judges shouldn't get it either). Let a jury decide how lenient to be on questionable judgment calls - they're the finders of fact, let the system work.
In general, our legal system could benefit from a lot less procedural bullshit, and a lot more juries hearing cases and rendering decisions on the facts. (And a lot more punishing of bad actors - whether they be cops or prosecutors or not).
Replacing unorganized crime with organized government sponsored crime is not an improvement.
"that ideologues of any strip"
Hmm, have you perhaps confused the performers at your local gentlemen's club for ideologues?
My guess is that it dropped mostly because the %/# of young males (16-30 or so) in the population dropped. That is the criminal demographic and everyone knows it. Attributing the main drop to incarceration makes the massive incarceration outlier unchallengable. There is simply no interest or concern whether we imprison a MUCH higher % of the population than anywhere else on Earth. Americans generally are NOT as criminally inclined as we (and others) mythologize ourselves to be. But if that is the only reason we imagine crime rates dropped, then we are holding a wolf by the tail and will never have any interest in a)wondering whether our prisons/jails are too full and b)figuring out alternatives to deal with those who are criminal.
Unfortunately attributing most of the crime drop to the drop in young males (and I haven't verified your statistics, so I'm taking them at face value) doesn't explain the sudden rise in crime in the 1960s/70s when... presumably the # of young males was relatively stable in the years before that, or even increasing. Simply tying crime rates to the % of young males in your society probably has little to no bearing without taking many other factors into account.
Americans generally are NOT as criminally inclined as we (and others) mythologize ourselves to be.
Compared to what? Compared to the people of Sao Paulo or South Africa? Probably not. Compared to the people of the Netherlands or Japan, probably so.
Sudden rise in crime in the 60's and 70's...
You are aware of the demographic phenomenon called the boomers (1946 to 1963 or so births with the birth peak in the 50's and early 60's) correct? Who entered and remained in their high crime years from the 60's through to the late 80's and early 90's.
Thomas Sowell on this very subject.
According to statistics at the time of Sowell's writing (based on extensive crime studies done) about 6% of young men are responsible for ~50% of the crime. That phenomenon has been observed in cities all over the world that track such statistics.
Strongly recommend people watch this video if you want some insight from a towering intellect on this subject.
Thanks -- always like Thomas Sowell, both from his pragmatic approach to Economics, his clear explanations, and his sonorous voice.
I've long thought the Progressives have caused high crime rates with their emphasis on white collar education and minimum wage laws, child labor laws, occupational licensing, and emphasis on more and more education for even the most marginal students. Eliminate all those, provide a clear transition for poor students to vocational training and paying jobs, and you'd cut crime in half or more. Then provide light jail time for rookie minor criminals, as a warning of what comes from a dishonest life, with guaranteed heavier followups, and you'd cut crime more. Better to sentence some rookie burglar to a weekend in the stocks, pelted with rotten eggs and tomatoes, than a year in jail where he learns how to not get caught next time.
I especially wonder how much better high school would be for marginal students if they could get vocational training right away and on-the-job apprentice-style training at the same time, half and half. Algebra, geometry, English lit -- they provide nothing useful to most students, and kids that are poor students there are wasting time better spent learning a trade, and if they can spend a couple of hours a day earning money as plumber's helper or construction gopher, they've got a lot less incentive to turn to crime.
Militia training from age 16 to 18 would also do something similar - with some emphasis on the behavioral changes that improve impulse control and maturity. Would only be part time -maybe 25%.
This obviously ain't a libertarian solution but then there is apparently never any actual libertarian solutions in the real world.
Algebra and geometry are incredibly useful, not just for the specifics of the subject, but for the ways of thinking they impart. Algebra, especially, is probably the most important class you've ever taken.
The killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020 touched off a summer of protests over police brutality, especially with regard to African Americans and Hispanics.
Try again. Hispanics weren't rioting in 2020 and generally don't side with thugs, Hispanic or otherwise.
Honestly having witnessed the riots, blacks were not rioting either. 2020 was a leftist white person riot. It was all Antifa and various woke losers burning down black neighborhoods and businesses in the name of racial justice.
Must be local variations. Blacks were definitely rioting alongside the white wokesters where I live.
Here too, it was a lootingpalooza. In fact the Mexicans here took up arms to protect their neighborhoods.
Around here is was mainly Indian and Arab people taking up arms in defense.
Somebody needs to spin a cage made of Spidey-Goop to hold this bunch of bitches:
‘Green Goblin Gang’ rampages through train beating and robbing teenager on her birthdayhttps://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1678326/new-york-attack-green-goblin-gang-subway-teenager/amp
Now do see why Southerners love having their own vehicles and their own guns? These Scaley, Slimy Cosplayers would have an accent of red added to their apparel if they tried that shit here!
Where’s Bernie Getz when you need him?
"Where’s Bernie Getz when you need him?"
Fleeing New York for the South.
I am so tired of podcasts. I don't have an hour or more to listen to every one of them for the tidbits of information I'm interested in. A transcript would be much easier to scan for stuff I actually care about. With voice recognition software, it should be easy to do. Until then, tldl.
The blithe apologetics and shocking temerity of presuming the current state of our police state is somehow OK is just plain nauseating. They freaking LAUGHED about the incarceration rate and recidivism: always blaming everyone else, as if the pigs’ hooves are tied. Why doesn’t the failure of corrections called into account?
More and more, “Reason” is populated with LIARs (Libertarian is Actually Republican)…
By all means let's consider the actual facts before considering police reform strategies. The problem here is that "many libertarians" don't agree with Mangual's premises. It is not my goal to "protect" the public in the first place. I assume that some laws are necessary and appropriate to the kind of society I wish to live within; and that some central authority to punish violations of those laws is also necessary and appropriate. Under those premises the first order of business for law enforcement reform is to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate laws. The second priority would then be to try to implement appropriate supervision of the law enforcers with real disciplinary systems up to and including punishment for crimes committed by law enforcers. Those two steps alone will take decades if they can be done at all and if there is any problem left with public safety at that point, we can reconsider the reforms.
Yes. Don't ask the police to enforce unnecessary and unconstitutional laws, and suddenly the excuse for much police excess disappears.
In Chicago v Morales the truth was stated : . It is simply not maintainable that the right to loiter would have been regarded as an essential attribute of liberty at the time of the framing or at the time of adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the plurality, however, the historical practices of our people are nothing more than a speed bump on the road to the "right" result.
Shouldn't we start with the logical bottom line, that war on policing does not ameliorate crime? Agreed? My brother was a libertarian bordering on an anarchist but just let an illegal unwanted bee buzz his face and he'd call out the National Guard.
The following statement is true in Chicago v. Morales. It is simply unsupportable that the freedom to loiter would have been seen as a crucial aspect of liberty when the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted or adopted. But for the majority, our people's ancient customs are just a roadblock in getting the "correct" outcome.Author:Dental Billing Company
It's also "a hard and bitter truth" that the debased condition of Afro-American culture is largely the result of government policy. It can reasonably be argued that that history creates an obligation for public action to improve their situation. Better law enforcement in Black communities could be part of that.
Just use the real one.
Never understood nihilism.