评论
打印
You are a trauma surgeon, working in the midnight shift in an inner city emergency room.
你是一名创伤外科医生，正在市中心一间急救室值夜班。
A young man is wheeled in before you, lying unconscious on a gurney.
一个年轻的男子被推到你面前，躺在轮床上，已经失去了知觉。
He's been shot in the leg and is bleeding profusely.
他的腿部中枪，流血不止。
Judging from the entry and exit wounds, as well as the amount of hemorrhaging,
从穿透的子弹所造成的伤口大小以及出血量来看，
the bullet most likely clipped the femoral artery, one of the largest blood vessels in the body.
子弹极有可能穿破了股动脉，人体最大的血管之一。
As the young man's doctor, what should you do? Or more precisely, what should you do first?
作为这位年轻人的医生，你应该做什么？或更准确的说，你应该先做什么？
You look at the young man's clothes, which seem old and worn.
你观察了这名男子的穿着，他的衣服看起来非常破旧。
He may be jobless, homeless, lacking a decent education.
他也许没有工作，无家可归，从未接受过像样的教育。
Do you start treatment by finding him a job, getting him an apartment or helping him earn his GED?
要开始治疗，你是应该先帮他找到一份工作，帮他找到一间公寓，还是帮他从高中毕业？
On the other hand, this young man has been involved in some sort of conflict and may be dangerous.
另一方面，这位年轻人刚刚经历过冲突，也许很危险。
Before he wakes up, do you place him in restraints, alert hospital security or call 911?
在他醒来之前，你是否应该控制住他，叫来医院保安或拨打911？
Most of us wouldn't do any of these things.
我们大部分人都不会做这样做。
And instead, we would take the only sensible and humane course of action available at the time.
相反，我们会采取此情此景下唯一合理且人道的行动。
First, we would stop the bleeding. Because unless we stop the bleeding, nothing else matters.
首先，我们会止血，因为除非止住流血，否则之后的一切都毫无意义。
What's true in the emergency room is true for cities all around the country.
在急救室的理性选择，在国内各大城市也同样适用。
When it comes to urban violence, the first priority is to save lives.
涉及到城市暴力时，头等要事是救人。
Treating that violence with the same urgency that we would treat a gunshot wound in the ER.
要以在急救室处理枪伤的同等紧要性来治理城市暴力。
What are we talking about when we say "urban violence"?
我们谈及“城市暴力”时，到底是在说什么？
Urban violence is the lethal or potentially lethal violence that happens on the streets of our cities.
城市暴力是指那些在我们城市中街道上发生的致命或可能致命的暴力。
It goes by many names: street violence, youth violence, gang violence, gun violence.
它还有很多其他的名字：街头暴力、青年暴力、帮派暴力、枪支暴力。
Urban violence happens among the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised among us.
城市暴力发生在我们之中最弱势、且没有特权的人身上。
Mostly young men, without a lot of options or much hope.
他们通常是年轻男性，却几乎走投无路，濒临绝望。
I have spent hundreds of hours with these young men.
我跟这些年轻人相处过几百个小时。
I've taught them at a high school in Washington DC, where one of my students was murdered.
我在华盛顿特区教授他们高中课程，这个地区也同样是我的一个学生被杀害的地方。
I've stood across form them in courtrooms in New York City, where I worked as a prosecutor.
我曾作为一名检察官，在纽约的法庭上站在他们的对立面。
And finally, I've gone from city to city as a policymaker and as a researcher,
最后，我也曾以政策制定者和研究员的身份，从一座城市辗转至另一座城市，
meeting with these young men and exchanging ideas on how to make our communities safer.
与这里的年轻人交谈，并交换如何让我们的社区更加安全的意见。
Why should we care about these young men? Why does urban violence matter?
为什么我们应该关心这些年轻人？为什么城市暴力的影响举足轻重？
Urban violence matters, because it causes more deaths here in the United States than any other form of violence.
城市暴力问题至关重要，是因为在美国，城市暴力所导致的死亡人数高于其他任何一种形式的暴力。
Urban violence also matters because we can actually do something about it.
城市暴力问题非常重要，也因为我们其实可以采取针对性的措施。
Controlling it is not the impossible, intractable challenge that many believe it to be.
管控城市暴力并非像很多人认为的那样，是一个不可能且棘手的挑战。
In fact, there are a number of solutions available today that are proven to work.
事实上，现在就有一些现成的，并已被证明可行的解决方案。
And what these solutions have in common is one key ingredient.
这些方案都有一个共同的关键要素。
They all recognize that urban violence is sticky, meaning that it clusters together among a surprisingly small number of people and places.
它们都认识到，城市暴力有粘性，意味着它会集中于极少数的人群与地点。
In New Orleans, for instance, a network of fewer than 700 individuals accounts for the majority of the city's lethal violence.
比如说在新奥尔良，一个还不到700人的关系网络，就造成了这个城市大部分的致命暴力事件。
Some call these individuals "hot people."
有人叫这些群体“热点人”。
Here in Boston, 70 percent of shootings are concentrated on blocks and corners covering just five percent of the city.
在波士顿这里，70%的枪击事件集中发生在小巷与拐角处，只占这个城市5%的面积。
These locations are often known as "hot spots."
这些地点常被称为“热点地区”。
In city after city, a small number of hot people and hot spots account for the clear majority of lethal violence.
在一个又一个的城市中，一小群热点人和热点地区，导致了绝大部分的致命暴力行为。
In fact, this finding has been replicated so many times that researchers now call this phenomenon the law of crime concentration.
事实上，这个发现已出现多次，研究者们称其为“犯罪集中定律”。
When we look at the science, we see that sticky solutions work best.
研究了其中的科学原理之后，我们发现粘性解决方法的确行之有效。
To put it bluntly, you can't stop shootings if you won't deal with shooters.
简而言之，如果不妥善处理枪手问题，就无法杜绝枪击犯罪。
And you can't stop killings if you won't go where people get killed.
如果不亲临杀人现场，你就无法阻止杀戮。
Four years ago, my colleagues and I performed a systematic metareview of antiviolence strategies,
四年前，我和同事进行了一次针对反暴力策略的系统整合分析，
summarizing the results of over 1,400 individual impact evaluations.
总结了超过1400条个体影响评估结果。
What we found, again and again, was that the strategies that were the most focused, the most targeted, the stickiest strategies, were the most successful.
我们一次又一次发现，最集中、最精准、最具粘性的策略，成效最为显著。
We saw this in criminology, in studies of policing, gang prevention and reentry.
这一结论在犯罪学和对治安、帮派预防和累犯的研究中均有体现。
But we also saw this in public health, where targeted tertiary and secondary prevention performed better than more generalized primary prevention.
但我们也在公共健康领域观察到了，比如，目标明确的三级、二级预防效果比范围广泛的一级预防更好。
When policymakers focus on the most dangerous people and places, they get better results.
当政策制定者重点关注最危险的人群与地点时，收效会更好。
What about replacement and displacement, you might ask.
你可能会问：那更换和迁移情况如何呢？
Research shows that when drug dealers are locked up, new dealers step right in, replacing those that came before.
研究显示，当贩毒者被关押起来时，新的贩毒者就会立即进入，替补他们的前辈。
Some worry that when police focus on certain locations, crime will be displaced, moving down the street or around the corner.
有些人担心当警察的关注点集中在某些特定地区时，犯罪就会转移地点，转移到街边或拐角处。
Fortunately, we know now that because of the stickiness phenomenon,
幸运的是，我们现在知道由于有粘性现象存在，
the replacement and displacement effects associated with these sticky strategies are minimal.
与粘性策略相关的替换与转移效应则会最小化。
It takes a lifetime of trauma to create a shooter and decades of disinvestment to create a hot spot.
造就一个枪手需要一个永久的创伤，而形成一个犯罪热点区域，则需要数十年的疏于管理。
So these people and places don't move around easily. What about root causes?
所以这些人群与地点不会轻易转移。那么背后的根本原因呢？
Isn't addressing poverty or inequality or lack of opportunity the best way to prevent violence?
预防暴力的最好办法不是消除贫困、不平等，或缺乏机遇吗？
Well, according to the science, yes and no.
事实上，科学表明，是，也不是。
Yes, in that high rates of violence are clearly associated with various forms of social and economic disadvantage.
说是的意思是，高暴力犯罪率显然是与各种形式的社会与经济性不平等相关。
But no, in that changes in these factors do not necessarily result in changes in violence, especially not in the short run.
但是，这些因素的改变并不一定意味着暴力的改变，尤其从短期来看。
Take poverty, for instance. Meaningful progress on poverty will take decades to achieve,
以贫穷为例，在消除贫困上取得有意义的进步需要花上数十年的时间，
while poor people need and deserve relief from violence right now.
而穷人现在就需要而且值得被从暴力中解救出来。
Root causes also can't explain the stickiness phenomenon.
根本原因也不能解释粘性现象。
If poverty always drove violence, then we would expect to see violence among all poor people. But we don't see that.
如果贫穷总是导致暴力，那我们应该在所有穷人中都见到暴力。但事实并非如此。
Instead, we can empirically observe that poverty concentrates, crime concentrates further still and violence concentrates most of all.
相反，我们可以凭经验观察到，贫困现象集中的地方，犯罪集中更甚，而暴力的集中程度则是其中之最。
That is why sticky solutions work. They work, because they deal with first things first.
这也是粘性策略有效的原因，因为他们首先处理要事。
And this is important, because while poverty may lead to violence, strong evidence shows that violence actually perpetuates poverty.
这很重要，因为虽然贫穷可能导致暴力，有充分的证据显示，暴力其实也会延续贫穷。
Here's just one example of how.
举例说明一下。
As documented by Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist -- he showed that when poor children are exposed to violence, it traumatizes them.
一位社会学家帕崔克·夏科特有过这样一段记录--他指出，当贫困的孩子暴露在暴力中，就会给他们带来心理创伤。
It impacts their ability to sleep, to pay attention, to behave and to learn.
他们的睡眠、专注力、行为和学习能力都会受到影响。
And if poor children can't learn, then they can't do well in school.
如果贫困的孩子无法学习，那他们的学业表现通常都不佳。
And that ultimately impacts their ability to earn a paycheck later in life that is large enough to escape poverty.
这最终也会影响到他们以后工作挣钱、足够脱离贫困的能力。
And unfortunately, in a series of landmark studies by economist Raj Chetty, that is exactly what we've seen.
不幸的是，在一系列由经济学家拉吉·切提开展的里程碑式的研究中，这正是我们所看到的。
Poor children exposed to violence have lower income mobility than poor children who grow up peacefully.
暴露在暴力中的贫困孩子的收入，比在平稳环境中长大的穷孩子增长空间更小。
Violence literally traps poor kids in poverty.
暴力确实会让穷孩子深陷贫穷之中。
That is why it is so important to focus relentlessly on urban violence. Here are two examples of how.
这也是为何不遗余力解决城市暴力问题如此重要。以下是两个解决方法的例子。
Here in Boston, in the 1990s, a partnership between cops and community members achieved a stunning 63 percent reduction in youth homicide.
在19世纪90年代的波士顿，警察与社区成员的合作导致了青少年杀人案数量减少了惊人的63%。
In Oakland, that same strategy recently reduced nonfatal gun assaults by 55 percent.
在奥克兰，同样的策略最近减少了55%的枪袭事件。
In Cincinnati, Indianapolis and New Heaven, it cut gun violence by more than a third.
在辛辛那提，印第安纳波利斯，还有新海文，这个策略减少了超过三分之一的持枪暴力事件。
At its simplest, this strategy simply identifies those who are most likely to shoot or be shot,
简言之，这个策略仅仅识别了极可能开枪或者被枪击的个人，
and then confronts them with a double message of empathy and accountability.
然后向他们展示一条有关同理心与责任感的信息。
"We know it's you that's doing the shooting. It must stop. If you let us, we will help you. If you make us, we will stop you."
“我们知道是你开的枪，请即刻停止。向我们坦白，我们会帮你。要是一意孤行，我们会阻止你。”
Those willing to change are offered services and support.
愿意悔改的人会得到帮助和支持。
Those who persist in their violent behavior are brought to justice via targeted law enforcement action.
坚持暴力行为的人，将通过有针对性的执法行动得到公正的对待。
In Chicago, another program uses cognitive behavioral therapy
在芝加哥，另一项目组使用认知行为疗法，
to help teenage boys manage difficult thoughts and emotions, by teaching them how to avoid or mitigate conflicts.
通过教育青少年如何避免或者调和冲突，来帮助他们管理自己畏难的情绪和想法。
This program reduced violent crime arrests among participants by half.
这个项目将暴力犯罪参与者的逮捕次数降低了一半。
Similar strategies have reduced criminal reoffending by 25 to 50 percent.
类似的策略也减少了25%到50%的累犯率。
Now Chicago has launched a new effort, using these same techniques, but with those at the highest risk for gun violence.
现在芝加哥推行了一项新的举措，采用同样的方法，但针对的是持枪暴力风险最高的人群。
And the program is showing promising results.
这项举措的前景十分乐观。
What's more, because these strategies are so focused, so targeted, they tend not to cost much in absolute terms.
更值得一提的是，因为这些举措目标集中、针对性强，所以相应的费用并不高昂。
And they work with the laws already on the books today.
并且也符合现有的成文法规。
So that's the good news. We can have peace in our cities, right now, without big budgets and without new laws.
这是好消息。我们现在就可以拥有安宁的城市，无需高昂的预算，也无需颁布新的法律规章。
So why hasn't this happened yet?
那么为什么我们尚未取得任何进展？
Why are these solutions still limited to a small number of cities, and why do they struggle, even when successful, to maintain support?
为什么这些举措仍然局限于少数的城市，为什么即使取得了成效，他们依然为获得支持而苦苦挣扎？
Well, that's the bad news. The truth is, we have not been very good at organizing our efforts around this phenomenon of stickiness.
这就是坏消息。实际情况是，我们对于这个粘性现象组织开展行动的能力有限。
There are at least three reasons why we don't follow the evidence when it comes to urban violence reduction.
我们减少城市暴力的努力没有实证的原因至少有三个。
And the first, as you might expect, is politics. Most sticky solutions don't conform to one political platform or another.
首先，各位可能已经猜到了，是政治。大多数粘性方案不符合任何一个政党的政策。
Instead, they offer both carrots and sticks,
相反，他们实行胡萝卜加大棒政策，
balancing the promise of treatment with the threat of arrest, combining place-based investment with hot-spots policing.
让治疗的承诺和逮捕的威胁达到平衡，将地方投资与热点区域警务相结合。
In other words, these solutions are both soft and tough at the same time.
换言之，这些举措同时软硬兼施。
Because they don't line up neatly with the typical talking points of either the Left or the Right,
因为这些观点与左派或右派的典型观点都不完全一致，
politicians won't gravitate to these ideas without some education, and maybe even a little pressure.
政客们如果对此没有一定的了解，甚至没有一点压力，是不会被这些观点所吸引的。
It won't be easy, but we can change the politics around these issues
这并不容易，但我们可以改变围绕这些问题的政治环境，
by reframing violence as a problem to be solved, not an argument to be won.
将暴力重新定义为一个需要解决的问题，而不是一个需要赢得胜利的争论。
We should emphasize evidence over ideology and what works versus what sounds good.
我们应该强调证据而不是意识形态，以及什么是有效的，什么是听起来不错的。
The second reason why we don't always follow the evidence is the somewhat complicated nature of these solutions.
我们不总是遵循证据的第二个原因是这些方案本身的复杂性。
There is an irony here. What are the simplest ways to reduce violence?
有点讽刺的是，减少暴力最简单的办法是什么？
More cops. More jobs. Fewer guns. These are easy to spell out, but they tend not to work as well in practice.
更多的警力、更多的工作机会和更少的枪支。说起来简单，但是实际收效甚微。
While on the other hand, research-based solutions are harder to explain, but get better results.
而在另一方面，基于研究的办法虽然更难解释，但是更加行之有效。
Right now, we have a lot of professors writing about violence in academic journals.
现在，我们有很多教授在学术刊物上发表关于暴力的文章。
And we have a lot of people keeping us safe out on the street.
也有很多人在街道上维持治安。
But what we don't have is a lot of communication between these two groups.
但我们缺少的是这两个群体的充分沟通。
We don't have a strong bridge between research and practice.
研究和实践是彼此孤立的。
And when research actually does inform practice, that bridge is not built by accident.
当研究能够指导实践时，这种桥梁不是偶然搭建起来的。
It happens when someone takes the time to carefully explain what the research means,
它需要某个人花时间去详细的解释研究的意义、
why it's important and how it can actually make a difference in the field.
它的重要性以及它在领域内产生影响的方式。
We spend plenty of time creating research,
我们花大量时间开展研究，
but not enough breaking it down into bite-sized bits that a busy cop or social worker can easily digest.
但是并没有花足够的时间把信息分解为一名繁忙的警察或社会工作者容易理解的片段。
It may be difficult to acknowledge or accept, but race is the third and final reason why more has not been done to reduce violence.
我们也许很难承认或接受，但种族是没有采取更多措施减少暴力的第三个，也是最后一个原因。
Urban violence concentrates among poor communities of color.
城市暴力集中于有色人种的贫困社区。
That makes it easy for those of us who don't live in those communities to ignore the problem or pretend it's not ours to solve.
这让不住在这些社区之中的我们很容易无视这个问题，假装我们不需要去解决它。
That is wrong, of course. Urban violence is everyone's problem.
当然，这是错的。城市暴力与每个人都相关。
Directly or indirectly, we all pay a price for the shootings and killings that happen on the streets of our cities.
无论直接还是间接，我们都要为所有发生在我们城市街道上的射击和杀戮付出代价。
That is why we need to find new ways to motivate more people to cross class and color lines to join this struggle.
这就是我们需要找到更多的方式去激励人们跨越阶级与肤色一起斗争的原因。
Because these strategies are not resource-intensive, we don't need to motivate many new allies -- we just need a few.
因为这些策略不会耗费过多的资源，我们不需要动员大量的同盟--只需要一小群人。
And we just need them to be loud.
并且，我们只需要他们的声音被听到。
If we can overcome these challenges and spread these sticky solutions to the neighborhoods that need them, we could save thousands of lives.
如果我们可以克服这些困难，并且把这些粘性策略推广到需要它们的社区，我们就可以拯救成百上千条生命。
If the strategies I've discussed here today were implemented right now in the nation's 40 most violent cities,
如果我今天讨论的这些策略，现在就能够在我们国家暴乱频发的前40个城市施行，
we could save over 12,000 souls over the next eight years.
我们就可以在接下来的八年中挽救超过1.2万条生命。
How much would it cost? About 100 million per year.
那么代价是什么呢？大概每年1亿。
That might sound like a lot, but in fact, that figure represents less than one percent of one percent of the annual federal budget.
这也许听起来很多，但事实上，这个数字还不到国家年财政预算的1%。
The Defense Department spends about that much for a single F-35 fighter jet.
跟国防部购买一架F-35战斗机的花费相当。
Metaphorically, the treatment is the same, whether it's a young man suffering from a gunshot wound,
打个比方，治疗也类似，不论是一个身受枪伤的年轻人，
a community riddled with such wounds, or a nation filled with such communities.
满目苍夷的社区，还是拥有很多类似社区的国家。
In each case, the treatment, first and foremost, is to stop the bleeding.
无论在哪种情况下，治疗的第一步都是止血。
I know this can work. I know it, because I've seen it.
我知道这样做是有用的。我知道，因为我曾亲眼见过。
I've seen shooters put down their guns and devote their lives to getting others to do the same.
我曾见过枪手们放下他们的枪，并且冒着生命危险劝诫他人也这样做。
I've walked through housing projects that were notorious for gunfire and witnessed children playing outside.
我曾经过因枪击而臭名昭著的建筑区，看到孩子们在外面玩耍。
I've sat with cops and community members who used to hate one another, but now work together.
我与曾经彼此憎恶，现在却一起工作的警察和社区成员坐在一起。
And I've seen people from all walks of life, people like you, finally decide to get involved in this struggle.
我也曾看到各个阶层的人们，就像你我，最终决定加入这场斗争。
And that's why I know that together, we can and we will end this senseless slaughter. Thank you.
这也是我知道只要同心协力，我们就可以，而且一定会终结这种愚蠢杀戮的原因。谢谢。
