8 ms·
The curious case of the fall in crime
- blerp 13y agoI suspect this is due to the wide availability of very inexpensive entertainment: game consoles, cheap flatpanels, internet, and smartphones. Who wants to cause mischief whenever you can sit on the couch, surf the web, play call of duty on a 50" screen, and eat a pizza that cost $5? The US should have dropped xboxes on Iraq instead of bombs, and infiltrated the country with Walmarts, Starbucks, and McDonalds. The youth would have come around quick, our capitalist overlords would have made $$$ while saving lives and expanded their loving grip on humanity. Just saying.
- abecedarius 13y agoThere might be something to that. See "Violence In The Media Prevents Violent Crime" at http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/22/social-psychology-is-a-flamethrower/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/22/social-psychology-is-a-...
- marcosdumay 13y ago> The US should have dropped xboxes on Iraq instead of bombs If the US intention on that war was avoiding terrorism, there wouldn't be a war at all.
- gnosis 13y agoThere was a very interesting article[1] recently about the epidemiological link between leaded gasoline and crime. [1] - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
- Vivtek 13y agoI honestly find it dismaying that the Economist could publish a story specifically on the recent drop in crime and never have heard of this study.
- swordswinger12 13y agoI just read this story and its longer follow-up in the print edition. They do mention the lead study.
- Vivtek 13y agoThen I find it dismaying that they know of it but intentionally refrained from mentioning it in the online edition. More dismaying, honestly, as they are specifically championing a panopticon solution to crime here and saying that increased police expenditure and profiling has resulted in lower crime rates.
- YokoZar 13y agoThe economist generally has 1 page "summary" articles at the front of the newspaper, and more in depth articles in the dedicated sections. Both are available online. Trying to put every point into the summary would defeat the entire purpose.
- SeanLuke 13y agoExcept that the link between the drop in crime and the elimination of lead has very strong evidence, and the various social theories bandied about by the Economist have almost no support. They didn't just not put "every point" into the summary -- they completely ignored the biggest, best supported reason.
- YokoZar 13y agoHere's the longer article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s... The economist clearly doesn't agree with you, here's what they said about lead: Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an American researcher, has argued that the cognitive effects of exposure to lead were a primary determinant of violent crime, and unleaded petrol is to thank for the improvement. But the causal link is far from proven.
- zeckalpha 13y agoCorrelation != Causation?
- dllthomas 13y agoCorrelation isn't causation, but there are methods you can use to get at the question of whether there is a causal link somewhere, and these methods involve looking at some correlations.
- revelation 13y agoOf course, at the same time, prisons are overcrowded, the media tells us the world is becoming more dangerous every second and local police need SWAT teams and assault rifles to protect them from the rise in crime.
- shardling 13y agoComments like this are basically predicated upon the idea that anyone reading it will agree. That is, there's nothing persuasive put forth if I disagree, and no real information offered. They're not very good as conversation starters either. So why the heck do people post them? e: I care not for your downvote! Posts like the parent kind of ruin HN for me, so if my opinion is so out of the new norm here I'll know to just stop reading it. :)
- GuiA 13y agoSo, I agree with you that more effort could have been put in the comment. That being said, poster 'revelation' is not really wrong either. Some links to dig deeper into his points: >prisons are overcrowded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... >the media tells us the world is becoming more dangerous every second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome >local police need SWAT teams and assault rifles http://www.businessinsider.com/the-militarization-of-americas-police-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-militarization-of-america...
- derefr 13y agoPerhaps they're bait. Which is to say: 1. You want to make sure everyone in a community is persuaded of some fact. 2. But you don't want to expend unneeded effort in producing evidence to convince them if nobody needs convincing. 3. So you assert your conclusion as a bald statement. 4a. If anyone denies it, then you know there's a point in expending effort. 4b. ...or, maybe you'll just wait and hope that someone else gets annoyed with the denial and expends that effort for you. Either way, you've increased the probability that your point will be made. The second strategy (#4b) is likely pursued more often than the first (#4a), because given a saturated community of "vigilant believers", the likelihood of the denial being fought will be nearly the same with or without you--and the cost will be much lower without you. I imagine these people write these as "drive-by" comments, not looking at the results, but feeling smug knowing that they've sicced their in-group on any vocal proponents of their associated out-group.
- temphn 13y agoAn alternate hypothesis by Stephen Thomas of Harvard Medical School is that medicine has been getting so good that many crimes that would have been murders in a previous era are becoming attempted murders. http://people.wku.edu/james.kanan/Murder%20and%20Medicine.pdf http://people.wku.edu/james.kanan/Murder%20and%20Medicine.pd... Despite the proliferation of increasingly dangerous weapons and the very large increase in rates of serious criminal assault, since 1960, the lethality of such assault in the United States has dropped dramatically. This paradox has barely been studied and needs to be examined using national time-series data. Starting from the basic view that homicides are aggravated assaults with the outcome of the victim’s death, we assembled evidence from national data sources to show that the principal explanation of the downward trend in lethality involves parallel developments in medical technology and related medical support services that have suppressed the homicide rate compared to what it would be had such progress not been made. We argue that research into the causes and deterrability of homicide would benefit from a “lethality perspective” that focuses on serious assaults, only a small proportion of which end in death. As for whether governments should focus on prevention rather than punishment, it can also be argued that incarceration does indeed prevent recidivism during the period of incarceration.
- shardling 13y agoErr, did you read the article? It was about all types of crime, not just murders.
- brentm 13y agoIt is an interesting thought though. With the (assumed) improvements in life saving medical procedures coupled with the fact that due to cell phones you're likely going to get help faster than you would have 20 years ago more murders are probably turning into attempted murder. Although I believe all violent crime is way down and if murder was just shifting to attempted murder violent crime would of course remain steady.
- dark_void 13y agoLet's not forget about the legalization and destigmatization of birth control and abortion. Unwanted children born to poor and desperate mothers led equally desperate liveas and often ended up in prison. Also the awareness of the hazards of lead, such as in lead paint and gasoline. A study showed the stunningly high lead levels in the blood of the prison population.
- rayiner 13y agoWhile crime rates are at their lowest since the 1970's, it should be noted that most cities are a lot smaller than they were in 1970. Chicago is down 650,000, Philadelphia is down 400,000, etc.
- weeksie 13y agoWhy should cities have more crime than suburban and rural areas, per capita? I know we take it as a given, but I've not heard a particularly good explanation for it (other than the Mother Jones lead article).
- gizmo686 13y agoPurely speculation, but I suspect the reason is that it is easier to be poor in the cities, so cities would tend to have more poor people, and poor people are more willing to commit crimes because they are more desperate.
- ameister14 13y agoThat's not accurate. [edit] I know I should link studies and such but even on the face of it you can see inaccuracy; where are people more impoverished: rural Alabama, or San Francisco? There are larger populations of homeless in cities, but you can get a roof over your head for less money outside. That said, why would it be easier to be poor in a city?
- dpeck 13y agofor one reason mobility is much easier in larger cities. you are usually able to be around without a car, albeit at the cost of time/convenience, or with a car using less gas than if you're commuting from the suburbs. also housing, while nicer housing in city centers tends to be very expensive, cheap high density housing is nearly non existent outside of it.
- ameister14 13y ago
- ChuckMcM 13y agoIn the area of bank robberies, one wonders if it has become so easy to rob a bank using re-created ATM cards or stolen credit cards that its simply not worth driving up and taking money out of them. Besides you can rob a bank in New York from Lithuania, talk about your easy getaway!
- beagle3 13y agoI used to believe and repeat this rhetoric 10 years ago. But then I went into finance and started noticing that BLS data resembles a work of fiction at least as much as it models reality; That CPI has been redefined through the years, and is basically not reproducibly measurable (hedonic adjustment and owner equivalent rent are both measured in a non-verifiable non reproducible way) and numbers are constantly revised in the least favorable direction when markets aren't looking (that is, numbers look better than they are when originally published, and then revised after most have already stopped looking at them) And this got me wondering - did crime rate indeed go down? Or is it just that numbers are measured differently and thus look better?
- moocowduckquack 13y agoStuff like a tenfold drop in stolen cars in new york is hard to explain away with changes in recording.
- beagle3 13y agoWhile I generally agree, the devil is always in the details, and having no specific knowledge I do not reject the reported drop in crime, but I certainly do not accept it as gospel. Tangentially related anecdote: 15 years ago, a friend of mine bought a house on the (wrong side of an) edge of a crime reporting district in Philadelphia for $80k. Across the road (which wasn't a highway or anything, just another inner neighborhood road), an exact copy of the same house (same developer, same year, same project, same layout, same everything) went for $200k at the time. Three years later, the crime reporting districts changed, and his house (and a few others) were reported in te better district. His house value changed, practically overnight, from $100k to $240k. Ergo, report methodology can effectively affect related value significantly. Quantum measurement effects on a macroeconomic scale.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoIf it was one set of figures from one country then you might have a point, but you are effectively describing noise and for such a wide range of crimes across such a wide range of countries you would expect the noise from reporting changes between different jurisdictions to more or less cancel out.
- tudorconstantin 13y agoNothing related to religion in the article though. I'd love to find out if there's any correlation/causation between the decrease in crime rates and the increase or decrease of active church goers
- isaacn 13y agoPersonally, I blame the internet for the fall in crime. The rise of internet usage during the late 90's and early 00's certainly coincides with the fall in crime. I'm actually being serious, I can think of nothing else that has had such a widespread impact on society as a whole. Our ability to be connected with others, research information, etc. Misfits now have an outlet where they can find likeminded individuals like never before. Think about it.
- brentm 13y agoIt's certainly not the only reason but I 100% agree with you and have been preaching this for a while and no one takes it seriously. There is just a lot more to entertain everyone than there was 20 years ago. The internet & technology as a whole has just increased the options of things to do. Kid's aren't just sitting around and literally staring at a wall. Boredom forces people to go out and find something not boring which can in some cases lead to criminal activity.
- geden 13y agowell it's not just about boredom, it's about the feeling of connectedness to others.
- Zigurd 13y agoI think you are pointing in the right direction re the internet. Crime is cultural. The internet has spread cultural influence farther and faster than broadcasting, even if internet culture is more diverse.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- cryofan 13y agothe police and the cities have been falsifying their stats for many years now in order to lure more people and businesses to their cities. Obvious, much?