Gov. Hochul’s militarization of NYC subway systems does more harm than good

Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

On March 6, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that 1,000 National Guard troops, state police and transit officers would be deployed into the New York City subways. This decision was made in response to an uptick in crimes reported in the city subway system.

Deployment of an increased police presence, including random bag checks, is to presumably limit the risk of weapons being brought in. Notably, subway-goers must consent to these searches, however, there are concerns that these searches can be sparked by racial profiling, as well as of the already large stigma surrounding the militarization of police forces in residential areas. Critics fear that such measures could unfairly target Black and Brown commuters, echoing the dark days of the city’s notorious “stop and frisk” era.

Police militarization is typically understood as making military equipment accessible to local law enforcement. Outside of the use of weaponry, the term also refers to the use of military tactics and excessive violence on civilians.

While the documented increase in subway crime is alarming at first glance, looking at the statistics closer shows that despite the rise at the start of 2024, crime rates have actually gone down in comparison to previous years. An article by the New York Times addresses that while crime has gone down post-pandemic, there has been an increase in the fear of such violence.

In 2022, Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams took a similar approach to combat crime rates in the subway system by paying more than 1,000 police officers overtime to patrol the systems, despite both agreeing that the issue is largely due to crises such as the mental health issues in the unhoused populations using the train systems as shelter.

The recent increase in police deployment has raised concerns about the overuse of police funding and how these policies are being formed from overreactions and overreaching on the part of the government. These concerns are not new; they echo past debates about the appropriate balance between security measures and civil liberties.

In this case, critics argue that the decision to flood the subway system with additional law enforcement personnel may be a knee-jerk reaction to recent events rather than a thoughtful, evidence-based response to underlying issues such as mental health and homelessness.

As a response to the decision made by Hochul, New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman emphasized the importance of sound policymaking in a USA Today article. Lieberman cautioned against overreactions to isolated incidents that, while deeply concerning and tragic, should not be exaggerated as indicative of a widespread crime surge. Specifically cautioning against reverting to ineffective “broken windows” policies from the past, which suggest that policing minor offenses can deter more serious crimes, including violence.

The addition of more police only creates an environment that forces residents to feel unsafe, and the inclusion of allowing random bag searches perpetuates that even further. Instead we need to be asking whether there are long-term benefits to justify this level of security, as even after police were flooded in the subway system, a shooting still took place on March 14 where the gun owner injured himself when threatening another passenger.

In recent years, Syracuse has grappled with its challenges related to crime and policing, prompting local leaders and activists to engage in conversations about the most appropriate and equitable approaches to maintaining public safety.

Similar to the concerns raised in New York City, there is a growing recognition in Syracuse that simply increasing police presence or resorting to traditional “tough on crime” strategies may not address the underlying issues driving criminal behavior.

In the summer of 2020, activist coalitions in Syracuse began demanding the demilitarization of police after the death of George Floyd. In September of the same year, Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh released a list of military equipment in the Syracuse Police Department’s inventory. The list, which was made public due to local activist demands, included equipment obtained from a military surplus program.

While Mayor Walsh has stated that these weapons are not in the possession or used by local police forces, the cost of maintenance of these items is paid through city funds.

Later, the Syracuse Police Accountability and Reform Coalition, or SPAARC, presented the “People’s Agenda,” that proposed policing reform to the Syracuse Police Department and Walsh’s administration. The demands presented resulted in the city Common Council passing the “Police Reform and Renovation Plan.”

However, the passed plan still does not address concerns previously presented by SPAARC, such as removing officers from school or redirecting a portion of police funding back into the community.

New York City and Syracuse are not unique in their conversations on policing. The topic of militarization and overuse of police in communities is also not new. Rather than addressing root issues such as mental health, vulnerable populations are overpoliced instead. Policymakers must heed the concerns of their community and prioritize community-centered approaches to address public safety issues, aiming specifically to foster an environment of trust, equity and justice.

Sarhia Rahim is a junior Policy Studies Major. Her Column appears bi-weekly. She can be reached at slrahim@syr.edu.