Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
I guess the root cause for your belief in socialism, i.e. that socialism and wealth redistribution are needed to reduce crime rates and keep people in line has been debunked...

The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the "root causes" theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.

The notion that crime is an understandable reaction to poverty and racism took hold in the early 1960s. Sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin argued that juvenile delinquency was essentially a form of social criticism. Poor minority youth come to understand that the American promise of upward mobility is a sham, after a bigoted society denies them the opportunity to advance. These disillusioned teens then turn to crime out of thwarted expectations.

The theories put forward by Cloward, who spent his career at Columbia University, and Ohlin, who served presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, provided an intellectual foundation for many Great Society-era programs. From the Mobilization for Youth on Manhattan's Lower East Side in 1963 through the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and a host of welfare, counseling and job initiatives, their ideas were turned into policy.

If crime was a rational response to income inequality, the thinking went, government can best fight it through social services and wealth redistribution, not through arrests and incarceration. Even law enforcement officials came to embrace the root causes theory, which let them off the hook for rising lawlessness. Through the late 1980s, the FBI's annual national crime report included the disclaimer that "criminal homicide is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police." Policing, it was understood, can only respond to crime after the fact; preventing it is the domain of government welfare programs.

The 1960s themselves offered a challenge to the poverty-causes-crime thesis. Homicides rose 43%, despite an expanding economy and a surge in government jobs for inner-city residents. The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis. The academy's commitment to root causes apologetics nevertheless persisted. Andrew Karmen of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice echoed Cloward and Ohlin in 2000 in his book "New York Murder Mystery." Crime, he wrote, is "a distorted form of social protest." And as the current recession deepened, liberal media outlets called for more government social programs to fight the coming crime wave. In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. "The economic crisis," the paper's editorialists wrote, "has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities."

Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, homicide dropped 10% nationwide in the first six months of 2009; violent crime dropped 4.4% and property crime dropped 6.1%. Car thefts are down nearly 19%. The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse. Unemployment in California is 12.3%, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25% over the course of 2009. Car thefts there are down nearly 20%.

The recession crime free fall continues a trend of declining national crime rates that began in the 1990s, during a very different economy. The causes of that long-term drop are hotly disputed, but an increase in the number of people incarcerated had a large effect on crime in the last decade and continues to affect crime rates today, however much anti-incarceration activists deny it. The number of state and federal prisoners grew fivefold between 1977 and 2008, from 300,000 to 1.6 million.

***

The spread of data-driven policing has also contributed to the 2000s' crime drop. At the start of the recession, the two police chiefs who confidently announced that their cities' crime rates would remain recession-proof were Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. As New York Police Commissioner in the mid-1990s, Mr. Bratton pioneered the intensive use of crime data to determine policing strategies and to hold precinct commanders accountable—a process known as Compstat. Commissioner Kelly has continued Mr. Bratton's revolutionary policies, leading to New York's stunning 16-year 77% crime drop. The two police leaders were true to their word. In 2009, the city of L.A. saw a 17% drop in homicides, an 8% drop in property crimes, and a 10% drop in violent crimes. In New York, homicides fell 19%, to their lowest level since reliable records were first kept in 1963.

The Compstat mentality is the opposite of root causes excuse-making; it holds that policing can and must control crime for the sake of urban economic viability. More and more police chiefs have adopted the Compstat philosophy of crime-fighting and the information-based policing techniques that it spawned. Their success in lowering crime shows that the government can control antisocial behavior and provide public safety through enforcing the rule of law. Moreover, the state has the moral right and obligation to do so, regardless of economic conditions or income inequality.

The recession could still affect crime rates if cities cut their police forces and states start releasing prisoners early. Both forms of cost-saving would be self-defeating. Public safety is the precondition for thriving urban life. In 1990s New York, crime did not drop because the economy improved; rather, the city's economy revived because crime was cut in half. Keeping crime rates low now is the best guarantee that cities across the country will be able to exploit the inevitable economic recovery when it comes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 35590.html

As Will Hunting said, "How do you like dem apples?"

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-05 20:12:00)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Newsflash, the figures of falling crime rates in 2009 are great and all, but the GFC started well before then and 09 was more of a recovery year.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2010-01-05 20:23:55)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003
Most of the people who lost jobs aren't living in the projects as well...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
correlation does not imply causation
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

I think if anything the article illustrates that even though many are having to deal with a tough economy and unemployment the crime rate lowers because poor people don’t cheat, rob, rape and kill - criminals do.

It is also illustrative of the Marx­ists view on society. They don’t under­stand why oth­ers, espe­cially the poor, aren’t as angry about per­ceived injustices as they them­selves are. They tend to have a dim­mer view of the poor and less respect, than the wealthy. Marxists assume that the poor turn into criminals to right the perceived injustice of being poor. But pro­vided that their basic needs are met  in  food, shel­ter, cloth­ing the poor have no need to turn to crime. Especially not when there are social programs helping them meet these basic needs.

The article argues for longer prison terms, but I think we can agree that the author is focused more on punishment than rehabilitation, anyway.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

I think if anything the article illustrates that even though many are having to deal with a tough economy and unemployment the crime rate lowers because poor people don’t cheat, rob, rape and kill - criminals do.

It is also illustrative of the Marx­ists view on society. They don’t under­stand why oth­ers, espe­cially the poor, aren’t as angry about per­ceived injustices as they them­selves are. They tend to have a dim­mer view of the poor and less respect, than the wealthy. Marxists assume that the poor turn into criminals to right the perceived injustice of being poor. But pro­vided that their basic needs are met  in  food, shel­ter, cloth­ing the poor have no need to turn to crime. Especially not when there are social programs helping them meet these basic needs.

The article argues for longer prison terms, but I think we can agree that the author is focused more on punishment than rehabilitation, anyway.
He is, and I would strongly argue that the reason many of the people are imprisoned, drugs, is a complete waste and a drain on societal resources.

But yes, you summed up the article quite nicely.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-05 20:49:04)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
Interesting...  Apparently, the author of this article is suggesting that social programs don't singlehandedly stop crime.  Kudos to her for stating the obvious.   She's also stating that more thorough and aggressive usage of law enforcement lowers crime.  Again, another obvious observation....

Of course, I have to wonder if she's really thought this through.  We have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.  Yes, that's right...  the whole fucking world.  Now admittedly, there are probably a few countries that might have a higher rate than us that we haven't been able to properly measure (North Korea?), but aside from that handful of countries, we have an absurdly high prison population.

Let's see who shares this dubious tendency of heavy incarceration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … ation_rate

1. U.S. (760 people in prison per 100,000 people)
2. Saint Kitts and Nevis
3. Russia (626 per 100,000)
4. Rwanda (593)
5. Cuba (531)
6. U.S. Virgin Islands (We had to have a second entry in the top 10 just for kicks)
7. British Virgin Islands (a lot of "Virgins" in prison, quite counterintuitive)
8. Palau
9. Belarus
10. Belize

Now, let's compare that to countries with much more extensive social programs...

61. Czech Republic (201 per 100,000)
68. New Zealand (185)
76. Spain (162)
104. Australia (129)
117. Canada (116)
136. France (96)
145. Germany (88)
157. Ireland (81)
167. Norway (69)

Now, as Flaming mentioned, correlation does not automatically imply causation, but since this thread was going that route, if we accept that logic, then that author's assumptions seem a bit off...

John, I'm the first to admit that social programs aren't a solution to crime.  They help in dealing with certain aspects of it, but obviously policing plays a role as well.

However, when looking at where we stand with incarceration rates, I don't think more policing is the answer.  I don't think getting rid of welfare would help either.  I think what you actually mentioned in one of your posts hit on part of the solution, and that is decriminalizing certain drugs...
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
Incarcerating them is cheaper than feeding them social welfare. Either way they're not of much use to society so I say go the cheaper route.

Incarceration also acts as a deterrent. So, useful and cheap

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-06 16:20:25)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6918|949

JohnG@lt wrote:

Incarcerating them is cheaper than feeding them social welfare. Either way they're not of much use to society so I say go the cheaper route.

Incarceration also acts as a deterrent. So, useful and cheap
No.  Incarceration is something like $20K a year per inmate.  Welfare doesn't pay that much.  Not everyone in jail is worthless to society.  Stop being so stupid or stop acting so stupid; it doesn't suit you well.

Incarceration acts as a deterrent? Debatable.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Incarcerating them is cheaper than feeding them social welfare. Either way they're not of much use to society so I say go the cheaper route.

Incarceration also acts as a deterrent. So, useful and cheap
There's little reason to believe that incarceration acts as a deterrent.  Even the death penalty doesn't seem to accomplish this other than with the person being executed.

I say this because our crime rates are considerably higher than most other First World nations.  Our murder rate in particular is exceptionally high for a country with our level of prosperity.

You could look at how much we spend on welfare and compare it to what we spend per prisoner, but that leaves out the amount given back to the system by those who only temporarily use welfare.  Contrary to popular belief, most welfare users are only temporarily on the dole.  Most of them end up working without assistance later on.
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6509|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:

Incarcerating them is cheaper than feeding them social welfare.
LOL yeah right.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Incarcerating them is cheaper than feeding them social welfare. Either way they're not of much use to society so I say go the cheaper route.

Incarceration also acts as a deterrent. So, useful and cheap
No.  Incarceration is something like $20K a year per inmate.  Welfare doesn't pay that much.  Not everyone in jail is worthless to society.  Stop being so stupid or stop acting so stupid; it doesn't suit you well.

Incarceration acts as a deterrent? Debatable.
Criminals aren't really afraid of harsher laws... Well since they think they are Mr. I am so fucking intelligent I can get away from the popo yo, they do crimes thinking they won't get caught. Criminals do the crimes they think have the lowest risk of getting caught for the highest pay. Put more cops on the street, and put more LOYAL undercover agents and the shit will solve itself. In Taiwan however... The fucking undercover cops are selling fucking drugs.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6902|do not disturb

JohnG@lt wrote:

Incarcerating them is cheaper than feeding them social welfare. Either way they're not of much use to society so I say go the cheaper route.

Incarceration also acts as a deterrent. So, useful and cheap
Doesn't seem to be working very well. Either way, that was an incredibly cold and arrogant statement.
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6509|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:

Incarceration also acts as a deterrent. So, useful and cheap
errr....so the US has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world and one of the highest crime rates and most dangerous societies. Yeah, I'd say that's a real fuckin good deterrent. USA! USA!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard