3 ms·
I'd say that's actually a good evidence that shows the age range where criminals are most active. As they get older, they mostly burn out. The fact that crime r
by brilliantcode 10y ago
I'd say that's actually a good evidence that shows the age range where criminals are most active. As they get older, they mostly burn out. The fact that crime rate began falling in the 90s overall is directly attributed to babies that never grew up to be criminals, because they simply did not exist.
Please read the original paper, it makes a very good case for linking less babies being born into troubled demographics and growing up to commit crimes. There's strong evidence that suggests that babies born into poverty stricken demographics overwhelmingly commit more crimes than babies brought up in safe environment.
The fall of African American birth during the early 80s as a result of crack cocaine epidemic gripping the African American demographic, purposefully and full wittingly sanctioned and distributed by the world's favorite 3 letter agency and the Reagan administration. It's widely known that the war on drugs and marijuana was to crack down on the black community to target their leaders. Don't forget that the State directly played a hand in oppressing Blacks. This is indisputable evidence.
In contrast, the USSR, did not have systematic racism towards blacks. In fact, the oppression of African Americans is well documented in USSR media. Obviously, for their own propaganda reasons, but the USSR at the core imposed socialist ideas of racial equality and the KGB made sure it was followed.
Part of why the study was so controversial was attributing the fall of crime to less African American babies being born. Considering that 1 out of 3 African American male will be in jail (regardless of actual crime or institutional racism), it makes perfect sense to see less babies being born from this demographic caught in a inter-generational poverty cycle under the backdrop of racist and non inclusive white population.
- TheCowboy 10y agoArguing that people should read this one study as the case-closed conclusion on this subject is off the mark. If anything, it's just one study and more work should be done before it's assumed a fact. Additionally, the original study has seen a lot of criticism, along with other alternative explanations being presented. The Wikipedia page for their study has a decent summary of various criticisms that remain valid concerns. It's fine discussing these things, but too frequently do people mention Freakonomics as the final authority on this matter without question.