Peela Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 i just wanted to share this as I think the news is too often full of sad and bad news- even with a recession, the crime rate in the U.S. is at its lowest in 40 years and no one knows why. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The authors of Freakonomics think they know the answer... abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabel Lee Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The authors of Freakonomics think they know the answer... abortion. Do they propose that the crime rate is lower due to abortion because of lower overall population, or is there something else completely that I'm missing? Peela, thank you. I've long wished they would tell some good news on the news as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 This isn't to start a debate and is the only post I will make on this thread. Gun and ammo sales have gone up in the US over the last few years. Concealed carry permits have increased as well. I along with many others believe there is a direct correlation between the number of people owning and carrying guns and the drop in crime rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckens Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Lead Paint. One of the theories is that we don't put lead in paint any longer. Lead makes children (who grow up to be adults) violent. If children are no longer eating lead paint chips, the violence level goes down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 This isn't to start a debate and is the only post I will make on this thread. Gun and ammo sales have gone up in the US over the last few years. Concealed carry permits have increased as well. I along with many others believe there is a direct correlation between the number of people owning and carrying guns and the drop in crime rate. I was just going to say this. Ammo is getting harder to find. When we see what we need in stock, we stockpile it. Often there will be only one or two boxes of the type we buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 The authors of Freakonomics think they know the answer... abortion. I thought the authors made a very compelling argument. Especially since they found that the drop in the crime rate occurred earlier in states that had legalized abortion earlier than Roe V. Wade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Smith Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Do they propose that the crime rate is lower due to abortion because of lower overall population, or is there something else completely that I'm missing? Peela, thank you. I've long wished they would tell some good news on the news as well. I know I will shorten his explanation to much. But it is basically that Mother's who want a abortion - but can't have one for various reasons are more likely to raise children to become criminals. This is because Mother's who want abortions don't want said child. Due to personal reasons, or living in poverty, bad circumstances that they feel are a good to raise a child in. And Children who aren't wanted, raised in poverty, or bad circumstances are more likely to grow up to be criminals then children raised in better circumstances. PLEASE notice that I didn't say all children or even most, just "more likely". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Personally, I think as the population ages the crime rate will go down naturally since less older folks commit crimes - esp violent ones. There's not much debate that the baby boomers are aging and they take a bulk of population with them. What would be a curiosity is if the rate among certain ages has changed. For example, is the rate of crimes committed by 16 - 25 year olds the same as before or not? (Do they even keep stats like that?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlugbill Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Of note is that the article refers to violent felonies, not crime overall. There is still plenty of crime, but much of it is misdemeanor. And it is hard to compare rates of misdemeanors because many are not reported, and also because there are new crimes that are on the books that weren't crimes 20 years ago. For example, here in New York, driving with a suspended driver's license wasn't even a crime, but a traffic violation, whereas now, it is the most charged crime. Criminal sentencing, like eduction, is a topic that everyone feels they know about and don't hesitate in offering you their opinion, despite the fact that they know little about the subject and haven't read widely on the topic. In the past 20 years, we have learned a lot from recent research about what sentences tend to reduce crime for certain offenders and what sentences tend to increase crime for certain groups of people. So, there are many more programs in place, however, still little of the research is being applied in practice, so not sure if this is a factor or not. Drug courts were not available 20 years ago, but now there are over 1600 drug treatment courts across the country, and this has been found to be effective in treating drug addicts who commit crimes (the majority of repeat offenders are drug addicts). Interestingly, incarceration has no real effect on recidivism, but for low-risk offenders, it increases the risk that they will commit a crime in the future. Mixing low-risk offenders with high risk offenders either in jail or in programs can result in increased risk for future criminal behavior for low-risk persons, who may be adversely influenced by the criminal culture they are immersed in. Incarceration does serve as incapacitation though- while in jail, it is unlikely that the inmate is committing crimes in the community. Researchers have identified certain criminogenic factors that are most predictive of the likelihood of criminal behavior. They are: -low self-control, i.e. impulsive behavior -anti-social personality, i.e., callousness, lack of empathy -anti-social values, i.e., disassociation from the law-abiding community -criminal peers -substance abuse -disfunctional family Programs that address a particular person's criminogenic needs will help lower the chances that the person will commit crimes in the future. For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy has been shown to be very effective for many individuals. If you combine cognitive-behavioral therapy with other interventions, such as conditions that he not have contact with anyone on probation or parole, and that he have drug screens and attend substance abuse treatment, the chances that the person will re-offend go way down. The typical high-risk offender costs taxpayers over $1,000,000 over a lifetime. If you can find a way to reduce the number of criminogenic factors in these individuals, you can easily cut crime rates way down. Just jail or just probation or just a fine (traditional sentencing options) do little to reduce the criminogenic factors of a criminal. However, effective and targeted programs do help in decreasing the odds that someone will commit another crime. All this research is new and much of it isn't even being implemented yet, so I'm not sure if this explains the reduction in crime. However, it is certain that if the research is really followed, both crime rates and costs will be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of money being wasted on ineffective programs, such as boot camps and wilderness programs that have proven to be ineffective. Ineffective programs and sentences sometimes actually increase crime. And some good effective programs are not being fully implemented. For example, judges rarely have information on the criminogenic needs of an individual at sentencing time. And judges rarely have information on what programs are effective for what types of individuals. So, much of this information obtained through research is not being applied. Much more remains to be done in the area of having research-based sentencing of criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.