We read in ‘The Week’: ‘Criminologists identified a ‘Minneapolis effect’, whereby protests led to both a reduction in police brutality, as police trod more softly, and a clear spike in crime and homicides (often badly affecting black communities).’ ( The Week 21 June 2025 p.9)
https://african-century.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Blmblm_cropped.svg_.png
This is a comment of the most vicious and inhumane kind. The author is implying that as the police ‘trod more softly’ that led to ‘a clear spike in crime’ including homicides. First of all in all the most regular cases the victim of police brutality, highlighted by BLM, had not committed any crime at all. Why would the police stopping beating up innocent people lead to an increase in crime including homicides? Nobody was asking the police to ‘tread more softly’. They were being asked to obey the law!!!
There is no proof of any causal relationship between the two effects. It is hard to see how the police behaving in accord with the law and avoiding brutalising innocent people can be said to cause an increase in crime. But lets take the implied case as stated. Would the author recommend an increase in police brutality in middle class white communities because it would decrease crime? It is generally accepted that good policing is not associated with brutality. Lawful policing gains community trust and community cooperation. Allowing the police to torture suspects is not associated with a better rate of crime resolution. If good policing is about evidence, where is the requirement for brutality?
Lets take this even more seriously. Can anyone come up with a case to explain how brutalising innocent people will lead to a drop in crime? Given that brutalising innocent people is itself a crime, this could be difficult even to quantify.
Let us next consider the ‘guilty’ suspect. How does ’brutalising’ the suspect help solve the crime? It may very well increase the rate of false confessions but how is that reducing crime? If we accept that obtaining false confessions by brutalising suspects is itself a crime it is difficult to see how this behaviour is reducing crime?
Let us address a ‘hidden’ argument that terrorising the population will decrease the rates for crime. If this is true why should this not be applied to white middle class areas? It is widely known that the rules of police conduct occasionally allow criminals to avoid justice. The requirement to obtain warrants before entering property will occasionally provide sufficient delay for a criminal to depart. It is widely accepted that the vast majority of citizens prefer a criminal to go free rather than the police to become criminals.
Additionally, it is a well known dictum that it is preferable for procedures to prevent an innocent person from being convicted even if it means that some guilty will go free.
Finally, the author avoids the most obvious explanation for the rise in crime rates: in revenge for being asked to obey the law, the police began a ‘go-slow’ deliberately to provoke backlash as crime rates soared.
Am I suggesting the author did not know anything mentioned above? No. It is merely suggested that the author might be dripping in venom, racism and anti-Black sentiment.