Research and Opinion Piece:
In just over 7 months, Toronto has seen an unprecedented spike in homicides, particularly gun related murders, more than double from last year’s crime statistics. With 47 cases of homicide as of July, Toronto’s crime rate has surpassed even that of New York City’s, with 1.67 victims out of 100,000, as opposed to New York’s 1.51 per 100,000. Even when keeping in mind the disparity of population size, density and social conditions compared to New York, which traditionally made Toronto one of the safest cities of its size in North America, there is an undeniable fact that Canada’s largest city has been shook up by such a spike in violent crime.
Along with the uptick of seemingly random acts of violence such as the van incident in April or the recent Danforth Street shooting, we’ve seen a rise of gang related violence spilling out and affecting the lives of innocent bystanders. Although we only see flashes of these incidents in our public consciousness, the discussion dies out soon after, but for many people in certain areas of Toronto, they continue to live in fear of these kinds of crossfire incidents every day much to the ignorance of the average resident. This is exactly the topic that a particular Globe and Mail editorial wishes to address, and bring to light the darker underbelly of the seemingly safe and progressive city of Toronto.
It seeks to answer how the city should handle and put a stop to gang violence, and how the methods that are currently being implemented have not solved the problem, but have only made it worse. The average public who are not affected by these spots are often ignorant of the incubated crime, only when sporadic gun violence breaks out do they get brief glimpses into this world, with a complete misunderstanding into why it happens in the first place. The usual response from politicians is to increase the police budget and target these neighborhoods that are crime hotbeds, dividing a disproportionate amount of resources in the hopes the deterrence alone is enough to keep deviance at bay. This idea of how hotspot policing may cause more harm than good is discussed in an academic article from the University of Chicago Legal Forum, which seeks to further research the usual narrative of crime control. A research study conducted by MIT researchers on the city of Portland cites that this may not be the case. They determined that crime dropped by an extra 16 percent because of the end of rent control, further driving economic gains. Keeping in mind the varied results of these two studies, it’s very well possible that the article in review is addressing a side of the coin that is ignored, which is affected negatively by the positive and optimistic effects of urban renaissance in Toronto, but unless the publication provided further research to these claims, it remains a solid talking point on these existing issues, but unlikely a catch all solution.
Based on the in depth review of the article and literature in relation, and the theories used to bring light to this issue, there are a few ways one might implement policy in dealing with this problem, in a way that is a win scenario for everyone involved. One of these is to foster a better connection with these segregated communities and the larger public, by creating as affordable housing, better community services and schools, and better transit options, this in general will not only distribute the economic growth of the core, but also improve the quality of life for people living in these neighborhoods, and give them better access to join the rest of the city in enjoying the benefits of these services. Another one would be to ensure police officers are policing fair and equally. Distributing resources proportional to crime rate is not out of the ordinary and not inherently problematic, but the police force must foster more trust and interaction with these communities, to be considered allies in the struggle of the majority of innocent youth trying to succeed, wrapped up in proximity of a subculture of violence and delinquency