Air Marshal program costing $200m per arrest

[Kevin_Lowe]

According to this story the US Air Marshal program costs over US$800m per years and makes, on average, slightly over four arrests per year.

http://duncan.house.gov/2009/06/22062009.shtml

I think the fact that more Marshals get arrested than make arrests is not in itself significant, except to emphasize just how small the benefits of the program are.

Of course you could argue that they act like a magical rock that keeps tigers away, and that their mere existence prevents hijackings from even being attempted. That strikes me as an unfalsifiable proposition and an unlikely one to boot.

 

[Thunder]

well, maybe some day, an Air Marshall will actually stop a terrorist act.

 

[Denver]

I didn't read the article. But are there any stats on the number of incidents that are estimated to be prevented because of their known presence, beyond arrests?

 

[Accidental Martyr]

I didn't read the article. But are there any stats on the number of incidents that are estimated to be prevented because of their known presence, beyond arrests?

How would you determine that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I didn't read the article. But are there any stats on the number of incidents that are estimated to be prevented because of their known presence, beyond arrests?

I totally called it in the OP.

 

[INRM]

Their very presence prevents terrorist attacks from even occurring by in large. Secondly, their job is predominantly to kill attempted hijackers, not arrest people.

As for the claim that they barely arrest anybody is not a good argument. First of all, would you rather they arrest innocent people so they can say "Look we arrested X number of people?", or would you rather they arrest people who actually do something?

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Their very presence prevents terrorist attacks from even occurring by in large.

How do they know this? Do they interview would-be terrorists?

 

[dakotajudo]

It's your choice to take a congressional speech that references USA Today at face value, but a quick search turns up a GAO report, from 2003, that summarizes over 2000 incidents reported by the Federal Air Marshals, including 444 reports of "Suspicious person", 394 of "Suspicious activities by person", 73 of "Disruptive/disorderly person", 35 of "Medical problems", 28 of "Arrest/detainment by or at request of air marshal", 20 of "Interference with flight crew by passenger" and 19 of "Verbal threats or threatening behavior".

This, over a 2 year period starting in Sept 2001. Perhaps they've done nothing since then.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's your choice to take a congressional speech that references USA Today at face value, but a quick search turns up a GAO report, from 2003, that summarizes over 2000 incidents reported by the Federal Air Marshals, including 444 reports of "Suspicious person", 394 of "Suspicious activities by person", 73 of "Disruptive/disorderly person", 35 of "Medical problems", 28 of "Arrest/detainment by or at request of air marshal", 20 of "Interference with flight crew by passenger" and 19 of "Verbal threats or threatening behavior".

This, over a 2 year period starting in Sept 2001. Perhaps they've done nothing since then.

How many incidents of "preventing an actual terrorist attack, thus justifying their presence"? Zero?

 

[daredelvis]

Of course you could argue that they act like a magical rock that keeps tigers away, and that their mere existence prevents hijackings from even being attempted. That strikes me as an unfalsifiable proposition and an unlikely one to boot.

I didn't read the article. But are there any stats on the number of incidents that are estimated to be prevented because of their known presence, beyond arrests?

I totally called it in the OP.

According to wiki, the U.S. air marshal program started in 1968 AND also according to the wiki "List of aircraft hijackings^WP" there were two commercial air related terrorist incidents prior to 1968. Clearly it is the presence of the air marshals that causes terrorist attacks on airplanes.

Daredelvis

 

[dakotajudo]

How many incidents of "preventing an actual terrorist attack, thus justifying their presence"? Zero?

If you'd intended to argue that point, perhaps you shouldn't have included in the title "$200m per arrest"; since that number is obviously suspect, one might think you were attempting to move the goalposts with this comment about terrorist attacks.

Had you bothered to double check your reference, you might have found that air marshals were first added to international flights in response to a rash of hijackings from US to Cuba, peaking at about 30 in 1969.

If it's the prevention of terrorist attacks associated with airplanes, you can certainly find better sources (sources, perhaps, that compare the decline in terrorist hijackings over the past 50 years, or that compare rates among international flights with different prevention strategies - these exist); certainly there are better sources than your link to in the OP.

I'm not going to do your homework for you; your question is simple laziness.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you'd intended to argue that point, perhaps you shouldn't have included in the title "$200m per arrest"; since that number is obviously suspect, one might think you were attempting to move the goalposts with this comment about terrorist attacks.

Had you bothered to double check your reference, you might have found that air marshals were first added to international flights in response to a rash of hijackings from US to Cuba, peaking at about 30 in 1969.

If it's the prevention of terrorist attacks associated with airplanes, you can certainly find better sources (sources, perhaps, that compare the decline in terrorist hijackings over the past 50 years, or that compare rates among international flights with different prevention strategies - these exist); certainly there are better sources than your link to in the OP.

I'm not going to do your homework for you; your question is simple laziness.

So what point are you making exactly? Are you asserting that the Air Marshal program has prevented terrorist attacks, and if so what's your evidence?

 

[theprestige]

Personally, I'd expect a program that puts armed people on planes, acting at their own discretion and answering to nothing but their own judgement in moments of crisis... I'd expect a program like that to be expensive. I'd expect people like that to be worth a lot of money.

I certainly wouldn't want it done on the cheap.

I also would expect such people to justify their existence with more than just arrests--the same thing I expect of every law enforcement officer. And the actual numbers show that this is exactly the case.

Along with the Navy SEALS and the Secret Service Presidential Security Detail, I'd expect the Air Marshals to be among the most expensive security operations per capita in the country.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Personally, I'd expect a program that puts armed people on planes, acting at their own discretion and answering to nothing but their own judgement in moments of crisis... I'd expect a program like that to be expensive. I'd expect people like that to be worth a lot of money.

I certainly wouldn't want it done on the cheap.

I also would expect such people to justify their existence with more than just arrests--the same thing I expect of every law enforcement officer. And the actual numbers show that this is exactly the case.

I am unclear on what you are claiming. Which actual numbers do you refer to, and what do you claim that they show?

 

[theprestige]

I am unclear on what you are claiming. Which actual numbers do you refer to, and what do you claim that they show?

I'm referring to these numbers showing that the Air Marshals are involved in a much broader spectrum of law enforcement activities than just arrests.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm referring to [URLhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5806920#post5806920]these numbers[/URL] showing that the Air Marshals are involved in a much broader spectrum of law enforcement activities than just arrests.

Okay... and what does this prove?

Those "activities" don't seem to be worth eight hundred million dollars a year. You don't need people with guns on board a plane to deal with a disruptive passenger or "suspicious activities" that turn out to be nothing but someone's overactive imagination.

 

[Skeptic]

That's a bit like saying that, say, so far, civil defense measures had cost an infinite amount of money per nuclear explosion on US soil, or that earthquake codes in California have cost billions per serious earthquake, and for that reason it's all a waste of money.

This isn't statistics; it's headline-grabbing junk "statistical" factoids. As the old joke says, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[Leif Roar]

According to this story the US Air Marshal program costs over US$800m per years and makes, on average, slightly over four arrests per year.

How often are the air-raid shelters near you used to protect against air raids? Or ICBMs used to enforce MAD? The "useage per dollar of cost" is often a good measure of efficiency, but not always.

Of course you could argue that they act like a magical rock that keeps tigers away, and that their mere existence prevents hijackings from even being attempted. That strikes me as an unfalsifiable proposition and an unlikely one to boot.

Not really -- you can collect statistical data about the number of hijackings before and after the air marshal program was introduced, or between countries with air marshal (or equivalent) programs and those without.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm okay with the money spent. It's easy to take pot shots, making worthwhile contribution, alternative ideas...not so much.

 

[RossFW]

well, maybe some day, an Air Marshall will actually stop a terrorist act.

Perhaps, but is it more or less likely that a terrorist will take and use the Air Marshall's weapon to Carry out a terrorist attack, or that an Air Marshal HIM/HERSELF will carry out a terrorist act?

The original concept of Air Marshall's was that they would stay anonymous and ONLY reveal themselves to stop a serious terrorist action.

The reality is they are often called upon by the crew to deal with relatively minor incidents (such as the recent one involving the Qatari diplomat), thus let EVERYONE know where the gun is located!!