5 ms·

Your narrative is actually completely in reverse. Crime came at an absolute peak in the 90s, while growing exponentially in the two decades before that. This is

Your narrative is actually completely in reverse. Crime came at an absolute peak in the 90s, while growing exponentially in the two decades before that. This is why gradually all parents became helicopter parents: because the high-trust society they had grown up in just disappeared in front of their very eyes. Now, it's funny to see people like the author arguing that "Crimes against children have fallen since the early ’90s." when the 90s were the absolute crime peak and reason why this social change happened. But the crime levels are still nowhere near their base level (first half the 20th, 50s, 60s), that allowed people to trust each other enough to let their kids roam outside... In France the crime rate peaked in the 2000s, and all parents from the late 90s until now are helicopter parents.

dghlsakjg 6y ago
I would be willing to believe that crime rates in the 50s and 60s are a false baseline for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the statistics about what is reported are going to be off. It seems like culturally (or at least anecdotally), we were less likely to lay formal charges and collect statistics about crime, especially crime related to mental health (We used to have doctors lock people up instead of cops). Additionally there are a lot more crimes to commit in modern times
- gordian-mind 6y ago
  I'd say that of course you would be willing to ignore that data, since it explicitly runs counter to a few of your viewpoints... Those points you're making would anecdotally influence the global tendency that shows violent crime (the one that makes you take your kids off the streets, not illegal downloading, mind you!) peaked in the 90s, from very low (aggregated) levels throughout the century. (Also, I am currently being locked up by doctors so let's agree that this is not a good sign that society has improved since then alright. :-))
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    ? I agree that crime peaked in the 90s. I’m just saying that crime statistics from 70 years ago shouldn’t be compared to more modern numbers since the non-anecdotal part of my argument (policing is entirely different, violent crimes exist today that didn’t exist/weren’t enforced the same as back then) still stands.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

dghlsakjg 6y ago

I would be willing to believe that crime rates in the 50s and 60s are a false baseline for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the statistics about what is reported are going to be off. It seems like culturally (or at least anecdotally), we were less likely to lay formal charges and collect statistics about crime, especially crime related to mental health (We used to have doctors lock people up instead of cops). Additionally there are a lot more crimes to commit in modern times

gordian-mind 6y ago
I'd say that of course you would be willing to ignore that data, since it explicitly runs counter to a few of your viewpoints... Those points you're making would anecdotally influence the global tendency that shows violent crime (the one that makes you take your kids off the streets, not illegal downloading, mind you!) peaked in the 90s, from very low (aggregated) levels throughout the century. (Also, I am currently being locked up by doctors so let's agree that this is not a good sign that society has improved since then alright. :-))
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  ? I agree that crime peaked in the 90s. I’m just saying that crime statistics from 70 years ago shouldn’t be compared to more modern numbers since the non-anecdotal part of my argument (policing is entirely different, violent crimes exist today that didn’t exist/weren’t enforced the same as back then) still stands.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]