3 ms·

Here are some better explanations for the drop in crime in the 90s: Innovative policing strategies, Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in crack/other dru

Here are some better explanations for the drop in crime in the 90s: Innovative policing strategies, Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in crack/other drug markets, Aging of the population, Tougher gun control laws, Strong economy, Increased number of police, http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta...

JamesBarney 6y ago
The research is by no means conclusive but a lot of the factors you mentions are primarily U.S. ones but Europe saw an even larger drop in crime.
- wahern 6y ago
  Also, at least one of the leading papers propounding the lead hypothesis also tried to account for those confounders within the U.S. The onset of harsher policing and criminal punishment varied between states while the removal of environmental lead was more uniform, and the resulting analysis supported the lead hypothesis. Conversely, where the time of lead removal varied while policy reforms didn't vary, the same lead relationship was still found. Indeed, even outside the lead context there's a ton of research that suggests the increase and subsequent decrease of violent crime preceded policy changes. That overwhelming evidence is why there was bipartisan support at the Federal level for criminal justice reform. And that research is why progressives in California are adamant that reductions in criminal penalties aren't responsible for the huge increase in property crime in the state, even though most of that research was concerned with violent crime (and indeed violent crime hasn't substantially increased).
  - Google234 6y ago
    https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_comments_on_lead_removal_and_declining_crime_0.pdf https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_comments_... Steven pinker makes some good points in this short essay why there should be more skepticism towards this hypothesis: “ Also, the parallelism in curves for lead and time-shifted crime seem too good to be true, since the lead hypothesis assumes that the effects of lead exposure are greatest in childhood. But 23 years after the first lower-lead cohort, only a small fraction of the crime-prone cohort should be lead-free; there are still all those lead-laden young adults who have many years of crime ahead of them. Only gradually should the crime-prone demographic sector be increasingly populated by lead-free kids. The time-shifted curve for crime should be an attenuated, smeared version of the curve for lead, not a perfect copy of it. Also, the effects of age on crime are not sharply peaked, with a spike around the 23rd birthday, and a sharp falloff—it’s a very gentle bulge spread out over the 15-30 age range. So you would not expect such a perfect time-shifted overlap as you might, for example, for first-grade reading performance, where the measurement is so restricted in time.” I’m also not convinced on your point about crime in California. The police have essentially ceased prosecuting many of those petty crimes. It makes sense that they would go up with no deterrence.
    - wahern 6y ago
      Criticisms of the lead hypothesis are definitely noteworthy. Evidence for the lead hypothesis does seem too good to be true, and maybe is, especially as a single factor. > I’m also not convinced on your point about crime in California. The police have essentially ceased prosecuting many of those petty crimes. It makes sense that they would go up with no deterrence. Yes, of course. Progressives blame rising inequality for an increase in property crimes, but it seems quite obvious the immediate cause is a lack of prosecution as I'm fairly sure not many people are supporting families by ripping off stores and smashing car windows. And while municipalities could and should prosecute, both the police and district attorney offices have the habit of only vigorously pursuing felonies--increasingly only violent felonies.
- Google234 6y ago
  It seems like homicides in Europe actually went up by a lot in the 90s
stevenhuang 6y ago
Better? There's no reason to say so. The author even says: > Reyes (2002) offers an additional intriguing explanation for the decline in crime: the reduction in levels of lead in the blood due to the elimination of leaded gasoline and lead-based paints. Because of the highly speculative nature of the Reyes conjecture at the present time, I do not discuss this hypothesis at greater length, although it is clearly an area worthy of continued future
- Google234 6y ago
  The lead hypothesis offers no explanation for the huge surge in crime in the late 60s and 70s. However the fact is that criminal justice system was handicap during that time. Crime just wasn’t prosecuted or punished in that period. I would also say that they are far more likely. correlation is not causation. Lead exposure and crime are very widely separated variables.

JamesBarney 6y ago

The research is by no means conclusive but a lot of the factors you mentions are primarily U.S. ones but Europe saw an even larger drop in crime.

wahern 6y ago
Also, at least one of the leading papers propounding the lead hypothesis also tried to account for those confounders within the U.S. The onset of harsher policing and criminal punishment varied between states while the removal of environmental lead was more uniform, and the resulting analysis supported the lead hypothesis. Conversely, where the time of lead removal varied while policy reforms didn't vary, the same lead relationship was still found. Indeed, even outside the lead context there's a ton of research that suggests the increase and subsequent decrease of violent crime preceded policy changes. That overwhelming evidence is why there was bipartisan support at the Federal level for criminal justice reform. And that research is why progressives in California are adamant that reductions in criminal penalties aren't responsible for the huge increase in property crime in the state, even though most of that research was concerned with violent crime (and indeed violent crime hasn't substantially increased).
- Google234 6y ago
  https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_comments_on_lead_removal_and_declining_crime_0.pdf https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_comments_... Steven pinker makes some good points in this short essay why there should be more skepticism towards this hypothesis: “ Also, the parallelism in curves for lead and time-shifted crime seem too good to be true, since the lead hypothesis assumes that the effects of lead exposure are greatest in childhood. But 23 years after the first lower-lead cohort, only a small fraction of the crime-prone cohort should be lead-free; there are still all those lead-laden young adults who have many years of crime ahead of them. Only gradually should the crime-prone demographic sector be increasingly populated by lead-free kids. The time-shifted curve for crime should be an attenuated, smeared version of the curve for lead, not a perfect copy of it. Also, the effects of age on crime are not sharply peaked, with a spike around the 23rd birthday, and a sharp falloff—it’s a very gentle bulge spread out over the 15-30 age range. So you would not expect such a perfect time-shifted overlap as you might, for example, for first-grade reading performance, where the measurement is so restricted in time.” I’m also not convinced on your point about crime in California. The police have essentially ceased prosecuting many of those petty crimes. It makes sense that they would go up with no deterrence.
  - wahern 6y ago
    Criticisms of the lead hypothesis are definitely noteworthy. Evidence for the lead hypothesis does seem too good to be true, and maybe is, especially as a single factor. > I’m also not convinced on your point about crime in California. The police have essentially ceased prosecuting many of those petty crimes. It makes sense that they would go up with no deterrence. Yes, of course. Progressives blame rising inequality for an increase in property crimes, but it seems quite obvious the immediate cause is a lack of prosecution as I'm fairly sure not many people are supporting families by ripping off stores and smashing car windows. And while municipalities could and should prosecute, both the police and district attorney offices have the habit of only vigorously pursuing felonies--increasingly only violent felonies.
Google234 6y ago
It seems like homicides in Europe actually went up by a lot in the 90s

stevenhuang 6y ago

Better? There's no reason to say so. The author even says: > Reyes (2002) offers an additional intriguing explanation for the decline in crime: the reduction in levels of lead in the blood due to the elimination of leaded gasoline and lead-based paints. Because of the highly speculative nature of the Reyes conjecture at the present time, I do not discuss this hypothesis at greater length, although it is clearly an area worthy of continued future

Google234 6y ago
The lead hypothesis offers no explanation for the huge surge in crime in the late 60s and 70s. However the fact is that criminal justice system was handicap during that time. Crime just wasn’t prosecuted or punished in that period. I would also say that they are far more likely. correlation is not causation. Lead exposure and crime are very widely separated variables.