The implication from the juxtaposed stories in the article seems to be that allowing criminals to gentrify themselves is a better outcome than rigorously polici

The implication from the juxtaposed stories in the article seems to be that allowing criminals to gentrify themselves is a better outcome than rigorously policing them. But just because the mafiosi had happier outcomes than the crack dealers, it doesn't follow that the crime outcomes are better, which is surely what the rest of us are concerned about. It seems quite plausible that corrupt and criminal businesses practices continue to exist (or evolve based on other pressures) despite criminals not inducting their own children. The shocking state of inner cities with widespread crack cocaine addiction is a tragedy, and the policing methods described in the article seem to be about containment rather than a solution. But taking a laissez-faire approach in order to allow criminals to gentrify themselves would be quite a stretch.