[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

In NYC, even murder rates were reduced when such crimes were prosecuted. Well documented even in a recent issue of Scientific American. The difference between an MBA trained law enforcement officer and one who comes from where the work gets done.

Thats not what I got out of the article. In fact, it appears they did just the opposite. Perhaps I misinterpreted something... Bold mine

The one aspect of crime policy wherein the municipal government enacted big changes—and the only obvious candidate to take credit for the city's crime decline—was policing. Beginning in 1990, the city added more than 7,000 new uniformed cops and made its police efforts much more aggressive and focused on high-crime settings.

Had the city followed through on its broken-windows policing, it would have concentrated precious resources in marginal neighborhoods rather than in those with the highest crime. In fact, the police did the opposite: they emphasized "hotspots," a strategy that had been proved effective in other cities and that almost certainly made a substantial contribution in New York. Starting in 1994, the city also adopted a management and data-mapping system called CompStat. At a central office in downtown Manhattan, analysts compile data on serious crimes, including their exact locations, and map them to identify significant concentrations of crime. Patrols then deploy in full force on-site—whether it is a sidewalk, a bar or any other public place—sometimes for weeks at a time, systematically stopping and frisking anyone who looks suspicious and staring down everyone else. Although one might expect that criminals would just move to another street and resume their business as usual, that is not what happened in New York. Thus, crimes prevented one day at a particular location do not ineluctably have to be committed somewhere else the day after.

Link