Sharpstown, TX-crime drops 61% after hiring private security, firing P.D.

[heavenlyboy34]

The private sector does it better and cheaper...who'd-a thunk it! ;)


Sharpstown, Texas, a mid-size city near Houston, decided not to renew its contract with the local police department (http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#) back in 2012. To replace them, the town hired (http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#) a private security firm, SEAL Security Solutions (http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#), to keep the area safe.

The results have been remarkable. “Since we’ve been in there, an independent crime study that they’ve had done [indicates] we’ve reduced the crime by 61% in just 20 months,” said James Alexander of SEAL. He attributes the success to a larger force of officers and more time spent on patrol.

The new contract also saves local taxpayers some $200,000 per year, as SEAL’s services are cheaper than the costs of maintaining the old constabulary. Another benefit, as The Free Thought Project points out (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-town-sees-61-drop-crime-firing-cops-hiring-private-firm/), is that private security (http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#) firms do not have government officers’ near immunity (http://theweek.com/articles/441463/want-cut-down-police-brutality-make-police-pay-misbehavior) from legal consequences (http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#) of misconduct and abuse, meaning they’re more likely to be respectful of people’s rights and property.

Read more at http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#6WmmL47PAeMyI16U.99

[Carlybee]

Unfortunately that area is still a cesspool of crime.

[green73]

You know what the statist reaction to this story is? Crime is only down because it's less reported now.

[green73]

Unfortunately that area is still a cesspool of crime.

Been there recently?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Privately owned areas are almost always safer. There's more "law and order" in every mall in the country than any urban area you can name. The leftist horror at the notion of "privatizing government" when it's the best thing we could possibly do...

[jbauer]

Wait till the executive in thief changes the Laws byexecutive order and this is illegal anymore

[Zippyjuan]

It only covers eight square miles but has over 60,000 mostly lower income residents. Some delivery services like pizza shops won't even go there.

[Tod]

The bad part of this is that the company has contracted with the government rather than individuals, and consequently presumably has some special protections and privileges that set up the people for abuses.

[Carlybee]

Been there recently?

I live within 5 miles of there. All it means is that the crime has gone from super bad to really bad. Not all of Sharpstown is created equal. There are pockets where crime is lower and pockets where you shouldn't drive through at night. I'm very familiar with the area.

[Tod]

What is the definition of fascism again?

[ClydeCoulter]

Will Xe/Blackwater/Monsanto buy up all of the "private" police?

[kcchiefs6465]

What is the definition of fascism again?
Why?

While I am unsure of the specifics of this particular case, the only issues would be if everyone is forcibly taken from to fund it, and if they are enforcing the laws as are 'on the book.' Simple private security contracts aren't necessarily fascist in nature.

I see more evidence of fascism through the police's attempts to gain 501c(3) status, their thirst for state glory through the adoption of military tactics and terminology, and the fact that quite literally people are robbed to pay for whatever services the police ultimately provide.

Any competition to that racket, especially one which shows that the sky isn't falling, should be welcomed.

[kcchiefs6465]

Will Xe/Blackwater/Monsanto buy up all of the "private" police?
No, but they'll train the regular police... not to mention pimp them to do their bidding.

[ClydeCoulter]

No, but they'll train the regular police... not to mention pimp them to do their bidding.

Why would they not buy them up? (We/you will be paying for it)

edit: And where's the competition since the Sheriff and PD will still exist, currently.

(and noticing your current Sig....I still play working class hero, one of the first songs that I learned to play and sing.)

[Athan]

Unfortunately that area is still a cesspool of crime.
61% less is still a great improvement.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I was told by an ex police chief that if there is ever an extremely sharp drop in crime the minute a new chief was elected, in almost every single case it's because he changed the way that crime statistics were measured. Crime is a vast social problem, it's rise and fall is measured in the timeline of generations.

The only real solution to crime, is for society to produce less criminals. This takes a LONG time, the statistics might only move a couple percentage points every decade. But for some enterprising individuals who want to claim they cut crime in half in only 2 years, I suppose that isn't convenient.

[TheTexan]

IMO, Crime is only down because it's less reported now.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What is the definition of fascism again?
In a nutshell:
A one-party state.
Nationalism based on worship of the nation-state instead of identification with the organic community.
A corporatist economy where the state regulates industry to "serve the interest of the nation".

I don't see too many parallels with this particular situation.

[TheTexan]

The only real solution to crime, is for society to take away their badgeproduce less criminals.

Fixed that for you. The largest % of crimes in this country, is done by people with badges.

[heavenlyboy34]

In a nutshell:
A one-party state.
Nationalism based on worship of the nation-state instead of identification with the organic community.
A corporatist economy where the state regulates industry to "serve the interest of the nation".

I don't see too many parallels with this particular situation.

Mussolini defined it as the perfect marriage of Corporation and State, FWIW. Nation-State worship just tends to naturally flow from that.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Mussolini defined it as the perfect marriage of Corporation and State, FWIW. Nation-State worship just tends to naturally flow from that.
That quote is actually disputed. I know a lot of libertarians like to fully focus on the corporatism of fascism, but that's missing a lot of what its actual history was.

Italian fascism had three stages: stage one when it was being developed and rising to power, stage two when Mussolini became a dictator and stage three when Italy became Germany's satellite state. The idea of a corporate state was defined and created firmly in the second stage. Fascism was originally born from the stew of post-Marxist theories in the early twentieth century. Mussolini was originally a Marxist heretic, and though fascism is seen a a rightist ideology, it can't be separated from that era of Marxian thought.

That said, fascism's first phase didn't have much in the way of an economic ideology; it was just a lot of flag waving and militarism. When Mussolini first got power, his economic policy could be described as pro-market: tax cut, privatization, etc. It was only when he had ultimate power over Italy that corporatism became the economic order of the day. Nation-state worship is the intrinsic part of fascism, the corporate state is what follows from that.

[paleocon1]

bottomline- how many pet dogs have been murdered and how many wrong front doors have been battered down since the change over?

[paleocon1]

............... Crime is a vast social problem, it's rise and fall is measured in the timeline of generations.

.................................

Hmmmmm, maybe not. Twenty years ago a rough area of my City with a population of around 25,000 had a sky high crime rate which after a year of intense 'broken windows' policing turned out to stem from no more than 50 urban youth thugs. As they over a short period of months killed each other or were disappeared by by the courts&police crime rate dropped by more than half.

[paleocon1]

The ideal policing agency would be an armed militia composed of local Citizens.

[Zippyjuan]

The ideal policing agency would be an armed militia composed of local Citizens.

Judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Who needs free trials?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Who needs free trials?


Free?

[kcchiefs6465]

Free?
Fair. Open.

Though Zippy might actually be talking the other way.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why would they not buy them up? (We/you will be paying for it)
I suppose simply educational efforts. Affecting political discourse. Certainly the company patrolling wouldn't be called "Blackwater." Many people might not be as familiar with Academi as they are with Blackwater (and they have operated before on American soil, I'm sure you are aware) but in [most] any case, a mercenary force (of any name) still would be unpopular at this present time. Academi already holds seminars for law enforcement. If they wanted ownership of the privatized police force, they would have to do it in a manner where it remained in the shadows. As such, nothing really changes. 'They' "own" the police force regardless.

Really, when I refer to a private security firm I am not speaking of a system where a majority comes together, says, "Well, let's get that security company to protect us," and then everyone is robbed. That probably is somewhat what is occurring in Sharpstown but regardless, people even considering that an "essential service" could be provided another way is a positive.



I]edit: And where's the competition since the Sheriff and PD will still exist, currently.[/I]

The competition would be within the private security force[s] themselves. The Sheriff and PD would be providing artificial 'competition' (if one considers their track record, I don't much see them as even being competition) as they are going to be there and financed regardless. Of course, until the town says, "You know what, these people aren't molesting, beating, raping, stealing from, robbing, extorting, impeding, and policing people. Let's have this liable, cheaper, and more competent company provide security."



(and noticing your current Sig....I still play working class hero, one of the first songs that I learned to play and sing.)
It's a good song. Never took up the guitar but should have.

[Carlybee]

A lot of neighborhoods here hire private security firms to patrol. This is nothing new. I highly doubt Sharpstown "fired" the police dept. Unless they were using them as security only in the first place as I'm pretty sure HPD does what they do wherever and wherever their jurisdiction is. Sharpstown is an area IN Houston. It's not it's own city within a city like Bellaire is. I suspect the somewhat affluent neighborhoods near Sharpstown Golf Club are probably the places where crime has gone down. I'm betting it's still the same in the less affluent places where there's a bunch of run down strip centers and apt complexes. Houston is a huge city..very few areas get regular "policing" unless it's no refusal weekend or something, although I think the PD does hire out. It's just funny they call it Sharpstown, TX. Sharpstown is part of Houston. :D

[Sam I am]

The private sector does it better and cheaper...who'd-a thunk it! ;)


Read more at http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/#6WmmL47PAeMyI16U.99

I honestly don't understand how SEAL doesn't still count as a public police department.


They're still funded by taxpayer money.
I'm assuming that they still use force to detain people suspected of committing crime.
I'm also assuming that they're still beholden to the City's laws


It sounds to me like they just fired the entire police department and replaced with a new one. If the previous police department was really bad, then of course you'll see improvements.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fair. Open.

Though Zippy might actually be talking the other way.

I doubt it. He usually talks out his ass.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Who needs free trials?
None of those things are implied by what he said.

[Pericles]

And now for the rest of the story.

Sharpstown is an area of Houston and is partolled by the Houston Police Department. The HOA for the area hired the county constable department for extra security (Constables have powers of arrest in Texas as they are licensed peace officers). The constable department has been fired and replaced with private security which can not arrest, and thus impacts the crime statistics. Whether crime has decreased is debatable, that the number of arrests is down is a fact.

[Carlybee]

And now for the rest of the story.

Sharpstown is an area of Houston and is partolled by the Houston Police Department. The HOA for the area hired the county constable department for extra security (Constables have powers of arrest in Texas as they are licensed peace officers). The constable department has been fired and replaced with private security which can not arrest, and thus impacts the crime statistics. Whether crime has decreased is debatable, that the number of arrests is down is a fact.

I'm not really sure how they could guage other than by analyzing arrests because criminals here go wherever the opportunities are which pretty much means everywhere. We had a Brinks driver killed in broad daylight blocks from me the other day in what's considered a generally nice area.

[squarepusher]

Article seems to be completely debunked right in the opening paragraph

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/no-sharpstown-texas-did-not-fire-its-police-force-and-bring-about-huge-drop-crime

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm not really sure how they could guage other than by analyzing arrests because criminals here go wherever the opportunities are which pretty much means everywhere. We had a Brinks driver killed in broad daylight blocks from me the other day in what's considered a generally nice area.
By the amount of violent crime being reported.

It is no secret that certain politicians, who run on a 'tough on crime' platform, benefit from turning a felonious assault into a simple battery, for example. Many a metropolitan police department actually discourage citizens from filing reports. They offer this, that, or the other, about why the perpetrator might not be caught, how they might not be believed, that they will have to testify, etc. Now while I am generally unaware of the specifics surrounding the HPD, I would pretty much guarantee that there is some manipulation of the crime statistics. In fact, in general, anything a government related entity reports needs to be taken with some scrutiny. Often times the incentive to lie is too large to ignore.

As to this particular private defense company, thank you for providing some background on the area and the specifics. Any large decline in crime, absent extraordinary circumstances, should be questioned. I have no illusions that a private defense company would eliminate crime (or even offer a ten point deduction), for instance. Logically speaking, I can assume that a company which is directly responsible to the client (and accountable under the law) would elicit certain things. One, being a superior product or service, two, being a cheaper product or service.

Until people as whole start considering protection their own personal responsibility, crime will never go down. Especially not when they continue policies which promote and fund gangs, cartels, etc. Still, if people look at this and say, "Well maybe there is another option with regards to the crime problem," it is good. Regardless of the validity of their statistics, or the hyperbole of the article.

[nobody's_hero]

I've always been wary of privatization simply for the sake of privatization—particularly when it is public/private partnerships, and especially when it involves law enforcement/prison systems.

Let me play devil's advocate here and ask:

What is the difference between this deal with SEAL Security and say, red-light camera contracts which are also agreements between private corporations and public government?

In Georgia, the 'private' (no agreement between a public government an private company can ever truly be considered 'privatization'; see: Obamacare and the insurance industry) prison system has an absolutely atrocious funding model in which they get paid more money based on how many inmates they have to house. ---Think about that for a moment. You're getting paid more if crime is on the rise. If crime goes down, you go broke. See the problem?

I know it pisses off a lot of libertarians/free-marketers, but there are some things you can't really outsource to private companies because they aren't supposed to be profitable. In fact, the criminal justice system should be so incredibly costly to the taxpayer that it becomes necessary to look at the laws and whether or not they are even appropriate laws/roles of government. If the war on drugs were not so costly, do you think anyone would be demanding reforms right now? If they somehow could privatize the 'war on drugs', the costs might be hidden or reduced, and it wouldn't be a particularly important campaign issue. You don't really want to find ways to reduce the cost of the War on Drugs if one of the arguments against it is how much it costs us. On the other hand, if the state comes up to you and says they need to triple your taxes because they plan to build 5 new prisons in your county/city, then you're much more likely to ask, 'WTF is going on?'

[56ktarget]

You know what the statist reaction to this story is? Crime is only down because it's less reported now.

Paulite thinking:

1. Unemployment numbers go down. Paulite says it's only because it's less reported/numbers fudged,
2. Crime rates go down. Paulite mocks those who say it's only because it's less reported/numbers fudged.

[PRB]

Unfortunately that area is still a cesspool of crime.

how do you know? Do you live there?

and what does $200,000 a year mean? how many people are paid and how many staff are saved?

[PRB]

Article seems to be completely debunked right in the opening paragraph

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/no-sharpstown-texas-did-not-fire-its-police-force-and-bring-about-huge-drop-crime

(mod edit) PRIVATE IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN PUBLIC. This is a LIBERTY FORUM not a fact checking forum.

[angelatc]

Article seems to be completely debunked right in the opening paragraph

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/no-sharpstown-texas-did-not-fire-its-police-force-and-bring-about-huge-drop-crime


This is a good comment:


How about addressing the fact that neighborhoods all across Houston spend millions paying for their own security? This is despite the fact that millions of their property tax dollars are going to fund the Houston Police Department. Obviously, HPD is doing an inadequate job since neighborhoods are being forced to spend additional money to help increase security and otherwise combat crime

[PRB]

This is a good comment:

LOL, PD doing an inadequate job? People begging for more government?

[Carlybee]

how do you know? Do you live there?

and what does $200,000 a year mean? how many people are paid and how many staff are saved?


I said I live within 5 miles of there. My son was born in Sharpstown Hospital back in the day. I am very familiar with the area. It's been in decline for 30 years as have a lot of older neighborhoods that haven't been torn down and gentrified. I'm just saying it's still a high crime area. I suspect the security company is patrolling certain streets only. Sharpstown is not a city..it's a neighborhood.

[edward222]

You know what the statist reaction to this story is? Crime is only down because it's less reported now.

Yeah right, in fact there are still many crimes out there, they just dont report about it.:(

[kcchiefs6465]

I've always been wary of privatization simply for the sake of privatization—particularly when it is public/private partnerships, and especially when it involves law enforcement/prison systems.
Herein lies your issue.

You are assuming that the role of private security in a free society would be comparable to the role policing plays in this society. That is, you are assuming that it would be a public/private 'partnership' or more specifically, that a majority of voters will elect which private security company they want and all will be taken from to fund it. This is fundamentally different from individuals being free to hire security as they need.

Most who are in favor of abolishing the police are not in favor of replacing it with a similarly fascist model.



Let me play devil's advocate here and ask:

What is the difference between this deal with SEAL Security and say, red-light camera contracts which are also agreements between private corporations and public government?
Without having seen the particulars of the contract, I would hope it is just a group of people coming together and funding extra security forces (with said security forces acting within the law). The difference ought be one is combating actual crime and the other is generating revenue through extortion.



In Georgia, the 'private' (no agreement between a public government an private company can ever truly be considered 'privatization'; see: Obamacare and the insurance industry) prison system has an absolutely atrocious funding model in which they get paid more money based on how many inmates they have to house. ---Think about that for a moment. You're getting paid more if crime is on the rise. If crime goes down, you go broke. See the problem?
It isn't necessarily that they are getting paid for crime being on the rise. Crime, especially violent crime, is on the decline. They are simply imprisoning people when it would otherwise be costly and burdensome to do so, as they have a contract with the governments of the states they operate in guaranteeing a given capacity as well as a contract guaranteeing a given payment, through the theft from all (which is an important aspect to note), for housing said inmates.

This is nothing comparable to a free market solution. For one, they have hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands, of laws and regulations prohibiting the buying and selling of a variety of goods and services. Punishments up to and including the imprisonment of various entrepreneurs. For two, it is funded through the theft from all and is only maintainable because the government uses force in order to ensure its monopolies are left untouched.


I know it pisses off a lot of libertarians/free-marketers, but there are some things you can't really outsource to private companies because they aren't supposed to be profitable.
It isn't a matter of them being profitable. Certainly no one should be expected to work for free and as well, certainly no one should be robbed at another's convenience. Things worthy of funding would be funded. If they weren't imprisoning people at the rate they are (partly because of the relationship between the prison industrial complex and 'law makers') then the issue would be relatively moot. For a free market to function or be considered a free market certain criterion must be met. I would say that arbitrarily imprisoning a given sector, while granting other actors within said sector sole responsibility and legality in trafficking said product or good, while making deals with a different sector guaranteeing that incarceration will remain at a given rate, while robbing everyone to pay for incompetent and criminal 'law' enforcers would necessarily preclude the scenario from being anything near what a free marketer would see as optimal. Nor is it the result of the free market. It is particularly the result of progressivism and collectivism, as well as legal positivism.



In fact, the criminal justice system should be so incredibly costly to the taxpayer that it becomes necessary to look at the laws and whether or not they are even appropriate laws/roles of government.
No, it shouldn't be. Even ignoring the little caveat of how we are to artificially make said sector 'incredibly costly' and who is going to be responsible to pay these incredible costs (and who are we paying these incredible costs to), the price simply should be a natural one.

If the people were ever to advocate for a free market approach versus a ridiculously expensive, poorly maintained, rights violating prison and taxation industry, then it is likely to assume that they would already be considering what role governments ought have in what people ingest (as a quick example).



If the war on drugs were not so costly, do you think anyone would be demanding reforms right now?
I would.


If they somehow could privatize the 'war on drugs', the costs might be hidden or reduced, and it wouldn't be a particularly important campaign issue.
The war on drugs is 'privatized'. Simply look at asset forfeiture and the SWAT team's incentive to maximize how many drug raids to conduct. That's what you are concerned about right?

The problem is not profit incentive but rather that they are acting criminally.



You don't really want to find ways to reduce the cost of the War on Drugs if one of the arguments against it is how much it costs us.
The argument is a lot of things but if the WOD costed a dollar, it would be a dollar too much. If agencies are funded through the theft from all even a nickel, it would be a nickel too much.



On the other hand, if the state comes up to you and says they need to triple your taxes because they plan to build 5 new prisons in your county/city, then you're much more likely to ask, 'WTF is going on?'
Well with this current system they don't even tell you they are going to triple your taxes. You realize you are three times poorer gradually (if you realize at all).

If they didn't have state granted authority to commit crimes then the issue would be a relatively moot one. Continuing to allow them to wield said authority is an irrational response any problem society faces.