A few weeks ago, Whitewater police cited one-hundred thirty-two underage drinkers at a house party in Whitewater. Thereafter, Whitewater’s police chief acknowledged that information about the party came from ‘undercover students,’ an acknowledgment that’s just foolish and tone-deaf. (Yes, Coan’s actually quoted calling them ‘undercover students,’ by the way.) I wrote about Coan’s remarks, in a post entitled, The Utter Foolishness of Jim Coan’s Prohibition.
One could guess that rather than think twice about any of this, Whitewater’s leadership would double-down. And, right on schedule they did, in remarks appearing in a story entitled, Whitewater police say homecoming week ‘tame.’
Here’s what Whitewater’s Lt. Otterbacher had to say about homecoming, as she’s quoted in WalworthCountyToday.com:
Whitewater police say homecoming weekend was ‘tame’ this year, drawing a typical number of drinking violations on and off campus.
Police Lt. Lisa Otterbacher said officers issued 65 citations last weekend – 31 of which were alcohol related.
A week earlier, 132 tickets were written at an underage drinking party off UW-Whitewater’s campus. Otterbacher believes that publicized the strong police presence and might have resulted in fewer violators.
Anyone reading this, even quickly, will intuit the error in her reasoning. Otterbacher conflates persons cited with violators. They’re not the same thing. Those issued citations (if identified properly) are a subset of all violators. All violators include not merely those cited, but anyone who might be drinking while underage, including drinking in places and circumstances not detected
There’s a significant difference between those punished for an offense and the incidence of the specific behavior that’s punishable. Incidence and punishment are not the same thing.
It’s erroneous to contend that if police ticket ten speeders one week, and five the next, then speeding has declined by 50%. Ticketing may have declined by 50%, but that says nothing about overall speeding. Perhaps, just perhaps, that’s why Otterbacher says ‘might’ have resulted.
It’s a tenuous ‘might,’ indeed.
I’m not sure what would be worse: if Otterbacher can’t see the distinction, or she hopes readers can’t see it.
Regrettably, the listing of a greater number of citations one week over the next is equally valid evidence for a conclusion that undermines a prohibitionist position — It’s just as likely, if not more so, that publicized sanctions one week drove the incidence of violations underground, the next week. Violations didn’t decline, since covert and surreptitious violations increased proportionately. Violators were simply craftier and more cautious.
The same behavior, though, likely took place all over town.
How do I know?
Because if Whitewater can reduce the incidence of underage drinking in an entire town by about over 75% in a few weeks (132 down to 31), then it has found the single greatest alcohol prevention program on earth.
No program in the history of all medicine has been able to reduce the incidence of consumption by that amount, in an entire town, that quickly. Not the finest physicians and therapists in America, Europe, or Asia — no one has done anything so grand.
Of course, Whitewater’s policies haven’t done so either, because Otterbacher’s not describing incidence, but only the tiny subset of incidence — those who are cited.
Rather than encourage treatment and education, policies like these only drive behavior — just as common — underground, into more dangerous and risky places.
The self-congratulatory pose merely ignores real harms, to real people, left untreated and hiding, despite a proud declaration of success.
Post script — Did a Whitewater official really say Whitewater’s homecoming was ‘tame,’ rather than ‘quiet?’ Were those someone’s words? No one committed to true community policing would speak like that. People and scenes — including those in a neighborhood, among residents — are quiet or bositerous, perhaps. They’re not ‘tame’ or wild. Animals are tame or wild. That’s revealing of a second, equally evident misunderstanding.