This article could use some expansion. Preferably fewer newspapers and more actual studies. I think that the conclusions currently being drawn are largely correct, however;
- The very basic premise that Police would argue that "I can't go if somebody is looking!", a.k.a. that justice depends on not having transparency or checks and balances, is fail.
- Crime, violence, police budgets and organizational efficiency, the economy, election year... these are all super complex variables. There's no clear cut story on that part. We need to show that for what it is - a complex weave in which people make different points and where the research is in a process of constantly evolving (e.g. initial sceptic now arguing that they may be some sort of Ferguson effect).
- TOW has some good info. Including the criticisms of the very concept. Also including some of the most recent data, some of which lists the effect as one among several possible explanations for the recorded developments. And so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Two points I'd like to make:
- Police officers are people. If they are scared of losing promotions or their jobs while they lose nothing if they avoid the tough neighbourhoods, they will likely (in pure self-interest) not take that risk. Regardless of ethics or public opinion.
- It is noteworthy that cities in which crime has risen have a great deal of blacks (like Detroit).