Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the adoption of innovative policing strategies. Focusing on the experience in New York City, what do the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing is not a good thing? Why or why not? freakonomics - chapter 4

umm i mean it depends on hwat they mean by smart policing becuase if its actually helping the people then good but if its just fighting the people back and killing the colors aint nothing going change itll get worse again.

Explanation:

non explanation

overtime, the civil rights movement changed in a way that not only it benefited african-americans, but benefited other ethnicity's such as latinos, asians, or women too! that's why the results of the movement be called mixed.

the civil rights movement brought about tremendous changes. no longer were blacks denied the right to vote, to eat, shop, and swim where they , and more importantly, to attend integrated schools. despite its many accomplishments, however, the civil rights movement had its shortcomings. for example, many people, both young and old, lost their lives, homes, jobs, and families. still other individuals were so damaged by psychological trauma that they ceased being productive members of the community. the movement left intact the economic inequities that had contributed to the maintenance of segregation. and finally, racism remained alive and well long after the movement's end. like most movements of its kind, the civil rights movement left behind a mixed legacy of triumph and tragedy.

i normally just use