The Washington Post
How to decrease D.C. crime
The Post published articles on backto-back days concerning D.C.’S complicated relationship with the federal government. As discussed in the Feb. 26 front-page article “D.C. mayor lobbies Senate on home rule,” District officials are trying to keep Congress from interfering in local political matters.
The Feb. 25 Metro article “Rising homicide count concerns D.C. officials” quoted a local official who called on federal officers to help local police on patrol.
The District can’t have it both ways. Either it stands completely on its own, or it admits it needs federal help and suffers the consequences. But right now, it’s sending mixed signals.
Jeffrey M. Parnes, Oak Hill
According to the Feb. 25 Metro article “Rising homicide count concerns D.C. officials,” proponents of small police forces argue that having more officers doesn’t correlate to less crime. That might be the case with certain types of crime, but deterrence through the presence of officers is an effective tool that should be utilized.
We’re in a period where D.C. residents like me realize the mistakes of removing law enforcement presence. It appears that as police presence retreats, crime advances and spreads. There should be an extension of activities between police officers and youths to increase levels of comfort and trust in our community. What is limiting progress is the lack of social workers and mental health experts. This is where the redirection of funding could be effective.
Greg Raleigh, Washington