4 ms·
At the end of the day though, the people breaking into cars are usually doing so because they have no other reasonable means to sustain themselves, or they are
by anaisbetts 7y ago
At the end of the day though, the people breaking into cars are usually doing so because they have no other reasonable means to sustain themselves, or they are compelled to do so because of drug addiction. The long-term _solution_, is to remove these obstacles.
In other words, middle-class employed people who are safe in their environment don't really commit crimes - why would they? The best way to solve crime In General is to make more people like that.
Now granted, there are some people that would _still_ commit crimes even though they don't need to - this is the place where punitive solutions are appropriate, to make it not worth their while.
- 420codebro 7y agoPlease tell me some more deep nuggets of insight - they really are insightful.
- rayiner 7y agoIf economics were the main driver, you'd see a strong correlation between crime rates and the economy. But by and large you do not: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta.... > Based on these estimates, the observed 2 percentage point decline in the U.S unemployment rate between 1991 and 2001 can explain an estimated 2 percent decline in property crime (out of an observed drop of almost 30 percent), but no change in violent crime or homicide. The sharp increases in crime in the 1960s—a decade of strong economic growth—further corroborate the weak link between macroeconomics and crime. Violent crime rates started trending up in the 1960s, more than doubling by 1971: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-E1oi5vqbMX2nSIAvMVfGW-XDI9VOPjUOa9wKI7fnxsoWyv7kLrHKfJg7iMGIpDNvNC99uBoQXMbuTEqsqTzvYVcBkSKamYcIRn7E0bTHAFop3w https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-... Meanwhile, the economy was quite strong until 1969, with unemployment below 4%: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf (p. 5). Poverty rates went down about 40% from 1960-1970, and then were stable until about 1980. Over that same period, violent crime tripled. From 1982 to 1990, poverty went down by 15% and unemployment dropped in half, but violent crime increased 36% to historical peaks.
- Spivak 7y agoBut we’re basically talking about non-violent crimes like theft and drug trafficking where in your own statements the correlation exists. I wouldn’t expect homicide to meaningfully drop in an economic boom since the reasons for murder are so varied.
- rayiner 7y agoIt exists but is very weak, meaning it’s not the primary driving force.
- tkxxx7 7y ago> a decade of strong economic growth This seems impossible to solve without considering which people were actually experiencing this growth.
- rayiner 7y agoHence the statistics I presented below that, showing that the poverty rate went down dramatically over that period.
- tkxxx7 7y agoYou did - I should add that I didn't consider their breakdown sufficient enough: > In 2013, for example, the average poverty threshold for an individual living alone was $11,888; for a two-person family, $15,142; and for a family of four, $23,834.7 I wasn't alive in 1969, but for 2013, that threshold is quite low - it may make sense for poverty, but it is not a net wide enough to catch a significant portion of (relatively) poor people whose addictions have grown to far outweigh their paychecks.
- rtkwe 7y agoI'm not terribly surprised macro economic number don't show a strong correlation to crime. We're already talking about a group on the margins generally when we're looking at small property crimes and top line numbers like unemployment don't capture people who aren't even looking for work anymore (eg drug addicts).