COLUMN: A stronger, more visible presence

From Dhaval Shah's, "For Unlawful Common Knowledge," Fall '97 From Dhaval Shah's, "For Unlawful Common Knowledge," Fall '97Why does an institution that is richer than some small countries allow itself to be terrorized by petty, unorganized crime? It is a matter that requires a measure of introspection by University officials. Consulting the police records, one is faced with a glaring fact: for such a crime ridden area, this neighborhood is startlingly devoid of organized crime, drug peddling or any sort of gang activity. The majority of crime surrounding the University is predominately petty, with a few "transactions" gone sour representing the bulk of the homicidal aspect. Petty crime being all that there is, what must one do to stop it, and will the measures be too expensive or draconian to justify? The single largest concern of parents and prospective students when considering attending Penn is crime. We lose untold legions of promising candidates to the stark reality -- all else being equal -- Penn's crime will drive a candidate to another alma mater. To those of us who decided to brave the crime, it looms over us as a spectra, making us glance behind at every motion on a quiescent street. With this in mind, one can estimate, qualitatively if not quantitatively -- although the Admissions office may put a number on the cost of crime --the damage done to Penn by crime. I am loath to engage in cold economics as an argument, but as a Whartonite, and in the interest of elucidation, I must. The cost of crime to the University is in the high seven figures on the most conservative of milieus, and realistically much higher if you include lost future endowment. Thus Penn can expend up to that much money additionally and still be economical, while improving the quality of life here tremendously and improving the reputation of Penn significantly. Given this, why has the University not done anything worthwhile, save a few token gestures? That is a question for the head-shrinkers, not for me. In any event, given we have an additional ten million to play around with, what could be done? I believe a noticeable deterrent will have a significant effect on crime. And I don't mean overweight unarmed geriatrics waddling over campus. I mean armed police patrols, dusk to dawn, around the periphery of the University's residential area. A visible armed police force would deter even the most intrepid would-be mugger. Who would tangle with that risk for the sake of a few dollars'? But if I were a thief, I would certainly try to rob the Allied guards, talk about a paper tiger. Ten million could provide an overwhelming police presence that mugging would almost cease. Also, Penn should offer hefty rewards for information on all crimes, even as trivial as a simple mugging. Who would touch Penn students if the result was a ten thousand dollar price tag on his head? Too Draconian? I think not. For many years Penn has atttempted to co-exist with its immediate environs, and in most cases has done well enough. But crime has not responded to the friendly proffered hand, chiefly because the average Penn perpetrator has no stake in the community. It is time to admit this has failed to touch crime and attack on a new front. As Gen. George Patton would say, "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace." Clearly, something has to be done, and clearly it must be unconventional. Yet, it may be simple enough as a visible deterrent, financial rewards for information on perpetrators, an unfailing prosecution of criminals and a persecution of crime. In time, Penn will have the reputation among criminals and among students and parents to warrant an ease of mind. And as someone who has been held up at gun point by a couple of teenagers, I must say, "It's about time!" Tlois is an educated hypothesis, based on some creative extrapolation. I have contacted Public Safety, but they are unwilling or unable to provide a breakdown of perpetrators by race, age, etc., hence not permitting a confirmation of any theory.