Do you think the problem is too much transparency? To use your example of the NYPD in the 90's (though I think you've probably got the wrong part of the decade if you're looking for the high water mark of crime), was it notably less corrupt than it is today, or was it just more opaque?

But how did the NYPD deal with crime in the 90's? Wasn't it by the kinds of privacy abuses called out in this report? By shaking down suspected criminals through stop and frisk?

Violent crime in NYC dropped precipitously with the “Broken Windows” style of law enforcement during Giuliani’s terms as mayor (1994-2002). The advertised theory was to enforce even small crimes like property owners leaving broken windows unrepaired. Hypothetically, the expectation that laws are being enforced makes people more likely to obey laws at all levels. (jokingly: or maybe people were so busy coming into compliance that they ran out of time for murder.)

There’s obviously debate, criticism, etc., regarding the cause but the theory has been applied to programming among other places with some success.

Actually, pretty much yes, or at least, that would have been a better strategy than some Giuliani BS.

Crime declined nation wide, and it had nothing to do with any local policies. My favorite theory is that leaded gasoline was causing crime spikes. But there are competing theories, and I think people have concluded that it isn't a single factor.

One coworker was mugged and beaten. Walked up to cops. They told him if he wasn’t gone in 30 seconds they’d take him in on a PI.

Crime doesn’t exist if it’s unreportable.