3 ms·

> It's generally been declining since the trailing edge of the Baby Boomers got out of the prime criminality age range. Not sure if you are making a claim, but

by cat199 9y ago

> It's generally been declining since the trailing edge of the Baby Boomers got out of the prime criminality age range. Not sure if you are making a claim, but I don't really think this is generational other than a coincidence in technological timing - the time you are talking about is the 90's-2000s, which is when improved surveillance techniques, information sharing databases, and other deterrents became more possible and widely used. At that time most of the people on the ground would be gen-Xers (think 21 jumpstreet, colors, new jack city, boyz n the hood, etc, usa wise) Also, timing wise, the cold war ended and so along with it much of the foreign funny money on all sides for subversive activities, and police spending went up bigtime in most areas..

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Not sure if you are making a claim, but I don't really think this is generational other than a coincidence in technological timing - the time you are talking about is the 90's-2000s, which is when improved surveillance techniques, information sharing databases, and other deterrents became more possible and widely used. As you say, most of that became available in the (mid-to-late-) 1990s and into the 2000s, the crime peak happened in the early 1990s (violent crime specifically in 1991.) There's something of a demographic case to be made (not so much generational as the fact that the Baby Boom was a boom, and a big demographic bulge going through that age range has an impact), there's a plausible, and arguably stronger, lead exposure case to be made (the decline, and the preceding rise, closely tracks the drop off, and preceding rise, in use of leaded gasoline.) The variety of intended policy mitigations adopted well after the peak certainly didn't cause the drop, and probably have no-to-minimal impact.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Especially since most comparable nations displayed the same drop in crime over the same period, without the out-of-control enforcement increases we suffered in USA.
bitcurious 9y ago
I would hesitate to attribute the decline to Big Brother when there is already a widely accepted hypothesis explaining both the increase and the decline. tl;dr: Lead exposure has been shown to stunt intellectual development and increase aggression. With the 50s came the personal automobile, powered by leaded gasoline. Crime rose as that generation grew to adulthood. In the 70s use of lead in gasoline declined due to the clean air act. As that generation grew to adulthood crime rates fell. In the 90s the use of lead was banned. That generation is reaching adulthood now. Lead polution peaked in 1973, violent crime peaked in 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposur...

by cat199 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Not sure if you are making a claim, but I don't really think this is generational other than a coincidence in technological timing - the time you are talking about is the 90's-2000s, which is when improved surveillance techniques, information sharing databases, and other deterrents became more possible and widely used. As you say, most of that became available in the (mid-to-late-) 1990s and into the 2000s, the crime peak happened in the early 1990s (violent crime specifically in 1991.) There's something of a demographic case to be made (not so much generational as the fact that the Baby Boom was a boom, and a big demographic bulge going through that age range has an impact), there's a plausible, and arguably stronger, lead exposure case to be made (the decline, and the preceding rise, closely tracks the drop off, and preceding rise, in use of leaded gasoline.) The variety of intended policy mitigations adopted well after the peak certainly didn't cause the drop, and probably have no-to-minimal impact.

jessaustin 9y ago
Especially since most comparable nations displayed the same drop in crime over the same period, without the out-of-control enforcement increases we suffered in USA.

bitcurious 9y ago

I would hesitate to attribute the decline to Big Brother when there is already a widely accepted hypothesis explaining both the increase and the decline. tl;dr: Lead exposure has been shown to stunt intellectual development and increase aggression. With the 50s came the personal automobile, powered by leaded gasoline. Crime rose as that generation grew to adulthood. In the 70s use of lead in gasoline declined due to the clean air act. As that generation grew to adulthood crime rates fell. In the 90s the use of lead was banned. That generation is reaching adulthood now. Lead polution peaked in 1973, violent crime peaked in 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposur...