According to WBOC-TV, Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton has asked longtime Salisbury Police Department Chief Allan Webster to step down. Since Ireton was elected last spring, the issue of crime in Salisbury has been a contentious one, with statistics suggesting that Salisbury is one of the most dangerous cities per capita in the United States.
But whether Webster stays or goes, some of the seeds of the crime problem go back long before Webster’s tenure as chief began under former mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman. Like taking an aspirin for a toothache, a change at the top might bring temporary relief but the long-term remedy is going to have to be addressed by other experts.
It’s my belief that crime in Salisbury stems from three key problems, and Mayor Ireton would be wise to figure out ways to either allocate proper resources where possible or enlist the help of the appropriate state and federal agencies. For the most part, it’s not a question of money so much as a question of will and making decisions which may be politically unpopular with some.
Perhaps the most direct contribution comes from a ready supply of easy cash. With Salisbury’s high population of immigrants (illegal and otherwise), we have many on the streets who rarely have bank accounts but instead take advantage of inexpensive check cashing to convert their paychecks into cash for spending on their daily needs. By adding a new meaning to the term “walking-around money” they are easy targets for robbery. On the flip side, illegal immigrants are loathe to report being crime victims to police because they’re worried about detection and deportation. And that stolen cash more often than not goes to the drug dealers and prostitutes who inhabit large portions of Salisbury.
These immigrants can also contribute to the gang problem – not necessarily as members, but through their usage of loansharking and protection from the gangs already here.
The resolution to this aspect of the crime problem needs to come from state and federal authorities, although local law enforcement can assist with a crackdown on illegal immigration. There needs to be the will to adopt the existing regulations and training; in Maryland only Frederick County participates in the 287 (g) program.
A second factor leading to criminal activity comes from the culture at large. It’s no secret that American youth follows and embraces some elements of what can be called the “thug culture.” It’s the culture which embraces a criminal lifestyle by glorifying the usage of drugs and mistreatment of women as “ho’s.” Unfortunately, the youth who are most likely to become mixed up in the gang activity which is the real-life embodiment of thug culture are the at-risk youth who come from single parents and generally lack a father figure in their lives. Over the last few decades, the number of illegitimate births has skyrocketed, particularly in the black population, and it’s that pool of youth who usually grow up in poor, hardscrabble homes where criminal activity seems like the best way to get rich (or die tryin’).
Obviously this problem is beyond the scope of any police chief, and the answer seems to me to be that of returning to a day where out-of-wedlock births were stigmatized and fathers were encouraged to stick around. Perhaps that’s an extremely simplistic approach to a complex problem of relationships, but we’ve tried it the other way now for almost a half-century and it’s obvious that we have a significant number of youths who are wasting their lives in the pursuit of the family situation they crave but have never known – in many instances, the gang they join becomes the surrogate for the guidance they never had inside the home.
Problem number three is the lack of deterrence from the court system. Too many criminals walk in and out through the revolving door of justice only to repeat their offense weeks or months later. Yet the state only has so much prison space so judges have their hands tied as well.
I’d really not like to see a nation where a significant number of youth are getting three hots and a cot at taxpayer expense, but the times may dictate this happening. (Wasn’t there a time decades ago where wayward youth were given the choice of jail or the military? What happened to that?)
Some argue that the prisons are full because we penalize the low-level purveyors of the drug trade and there is a point to be made in their contention. Closer to home, we hear about the SPD’s reluctance to fight “real” crime in order to bust the college partiers at Salisbury University for drinking and loud parties. Obviously, that last accusation is relatively anecdotal but may not be all that far from the truth. It’s generally a problem which occurs whenever town and gown coexist and was present in the small college town I lived in when I attended school a quarter-century ago.
In short, the courts can only do so much, but help could come in the form of better investigative techniques in order to build a stronger case against criminals who need to be taken off the street. One charge against Webster is that he doesn’t accept the cooperation offered from other local police forces, and that can be a damning charge if true on a regular basis. SPD only has a certain amount of resources so when help is needed and available they should take advantage.
On the whole, whether Chief Webster is relieved of duty or not, crime in Salisbury is a problem that’s not going to go away very quickly. It’s a problem that’s been 10 or even 20 years in the making, so a change at the top may not bring the immediate results desired.
If help is indeed on the way from Jim Ireton, it could come in the form of talking to his Democrat allies in Annapolis and encouraging them to repeal Maryland’s repressive gun laws. It’s obvious criminals are getting guns so it’s only fair to allow the populace which chooses to do so to arm themselves for self-protection. Rarely do law-abiding citizens shoot the innocent – usually it’s those already committing crimes who do so.
And we have more than our share of that in Salisbury.
Bravo.Well said!
You make points in the first item that directly contradict each other.
As you note, immigrants, legal and illegal, tend to use check cashing services, which make them more appealing as targets for robbery.
Likewise you note that illegal immigrants are loathe to go to law enforcement when they are victims of such crimes for fear of deportation.
But then you go and imply Salisbury police forces should participate in the 287(g) program. How exactly is that going to reduce crime rates?
Studies have shown that a majority (and often supermajority) of the people turned over to ICE as a result of the 287(g) program had no criminal convictions and had engaged in no illegal activity other than illegal immigration (http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/07/criminal-alien-program-capturi).
And considering stories like this one, http://reason.com/brickbat/2009/10/19/you-dont-look-like-an-american it certainly seems likely that deputizing local officers to enforce immigration law will only lead to even fewer immigrants – legal and otherwise – coming forward when they have been the victims of criminal activity.
I fail to see how we can reasonably expect implementation of 287(g) to do anything other than create fiascos like Sherrif Arpaio routinely creates in AZ.