3 ms·

> By the time incarceration started ticking up in the early 1970s Don't just bury the lede. What changed in the early 70s that would have caused such a thing.

by yardie 7y ago

> By the time incarceration started ticking up in the early 1970s Don't just bury the lede. What changed in the early 70s that would have caused such a thing. > We don’t know why that happened. But it seems pretty clear that our incarceration rate was a lagging response to that phenomenon. Yes, we do know what happened. The 70s saw Vietnam Vets coming back from a pointless war with PTSD and heroin addictions. Nixon signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Act in 1970. Reagan threw gas on the smouldering fire with the Comprehensive Crime Act and bang, everything is illegal and now with the mandatory minimum sentencing. At every opportunity the federal government, rather than evaluating to see if these laws were effective, chose to make more things criminal. This didn't dissuage gangs from engaging in illegal activity. It actually made them more paranoid and more violent. Anynone that might have been remotely considered a snitch or narc was killed. If you're staring down a life sentence if you got caught might as well remove any doubt.

rayiner 7y ago
I didn’t mention the drug war because it doesn’t explain the increase in crime rate—it’s about a decade too late. The increase in violent crime actually began in the 1960s. By the time the DEA was created in 1973, violent crime had more than doubled since 1963. It then actually slowed down a bit—it increased only another 50% from 1973-1983. By the start of Reagan’s term in office, violent crime was already near peak levels. (It would increase about another 1/3 before peaking in the early 1990s.) Vietnam is one possible explanation, having started in 1955. I have never seen any analysis of that. But unlike the drug war, at least the timing works out.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Is the Baby Boom sufficient explanation? Just having a lot more young adults rattling around, not fully attached and at loose ends tends to spike violence. I half suspect that long-term declining fertility rates is one reason we currently have such historically low rates of violence.

by yardie 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

I didn’t mention the drug war because it doesn’t explain the increase in crime rate—it’s about a decade too late. The increase in violent crime actually began in the 1960s. By the time the DEA was created in 1973, violent crime had more than doubled since 1963. It then actually slowed down a bit—it increased only another 50% from 1973-1983. By the start of Reagan’s term in office, violent crime was already near peak levels. (It would increase about another 1/3 before peaking in the early 1990s.) Vietnam is one possible explanation, having started in 1955. I have never seen any analysis of that. But unlike the drug war, at least the timing works out.

thrower123 7y ago
Is the Baby Boom sufficient explanation? Just having a lot more young adults rattling around, not fully attached and at loose ends tends to spike violence. I half suspect that long-term declining fertility rates is one reason we currently have such historically low rates of violence.