quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is clearly wrong because his theory does not explain the spike in crime in the 70s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
If memory serves, there has been a steady drop in crime since the 70s, not matched by any previous drop. In Norway, the rise in crime stopped in the 60s, when it became possible to apply for an abortion, and the drop in crime began in the 80s, when abortions became fully elective, leading to a marked increase in abortions among people with poor socioeconomic backgrounds (they were previously the primary applicant group, but also the primary group to have applications turned down). This matches with everything else we know about crime.

As such, the hypothesis seems to merit closer study.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ll refer you to the last sentence on my comment....

I ignored that part of your quote because it doesn't matter who you're accusing. Let's get back to the question you're evading: When was this alleged claim made? By who? With a link.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

So, one could argue that keeping criminals in prison might contribute to a lower crime rate.

quote:

At first it seemed preposterous. The hypothesis was so exotic that I laughed. The rise and fall of violent crime during the second half of the 20th century and first years of the 21st were caused, it proposed, not by changes in policing or imprisonment, single parenthood, recession, crack cocaine or the legalisation of abortion, but mainly by … lead.

I don't mean bullets. The crime waves that afflicted many parts of the world and then, against all predictions, collapsed, were ascribed, in an article published by Mother Jones last week, to the rise and fall in the use of lead-based paint and leaded petrol.

It's ridiculous – until you see the evidence. Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in crime follows, with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead. But all that gives us is correlation: an association that could be coincidental. The Mother Jones article, which is based on several scientific papers, claimed causation.

I began by reading the papers. Do they say what the article claims? They do. Then I looked up the citations: the discussion of those papers in the scientific literature. The three whose citations I checked have been mentioned, between them, 301 times. I went through all these papers (except the handful in foreign languages), as well as dozens of others. To my astonishment, I could find just one study attacking the thesis, and this was sponsored by the Ethyl Corporation, which happens to have been a major manufacturer of the petrol additive tetraethyl lead. I found many more supporting it. Crazy as this seems, it really does look as if lead poisoning could be the major cause of the rise and fall of violent crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

There is serious and peer=reviewed evidence that the prohibition of leaded additives to automobile fuel has lowered the violence rates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Dont you read the forums then ?

Oooo, another unsubstantiated drive-by claim. You had a link but you forgot to include it, right?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is clearly wrong because his theory does not explain the spike in crime in the 70s.

That's insufficient in itself to invalidate the hypothesis, as there's nothing to indicate babies are a significant source of crime in themselves.

Babies actually being born and growing up, however, can be a significant source of crime when the parents are unable to provide good socioeconomic conditions for the children and/or are unable to rear the children well, both of which tend to be common with unwanted pregnancies. These children end up being less constructive additions to society than the ones that were planned and wanted, by parents with the time, resources and network to give them a good start in life.

If memory serves, there has been a steady drop in crime since the 70s, not matched by any previous drop. In Norway, the rise in crime stopped in the 60s, when it became possible to apply for an abortion, and the drop in crime began in the 80s, when abortions became fully elective, leading to a marked increase in abortions among people with poor socioeconomic backgrounds (they were previously the primary applicant group, but also the primary group to have applications turned down). This matches with everything else we know about crime.

As such, the hypothesis seems to merit closer study.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

from what i have read, as men get older, they "calm down" and become less violent.. so I wonder if some of the drop has to do with boomers getting older and the fact that there are so many so have an effect on stats..

Could be a factor, I suppose. Theories abound. Here's another one.

Another hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

So, one could argue that keeping criminals in prison might contribute to a lower crime rate.

That graph is one of the most depressing things around that I've seen about the US, save for debt and credit statistics.

What's the average time to release for the folks you arrested back in '94?

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:


No more drive by than your normal drivel. Try this from the line about John Lotts book. Its the first line so even you should be able to spot it.

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. << Implicit enough

quote:

As I recall, the Three Strikes law was designed to keep habitual criminals in prison, as opposed to the "revolving door" of recidivism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

I am going to say no, Many countries have lower crime rates and a much lower rate of incarceration.

Our rate of incarceration for petty offenses is an assault on democracy and liberty... Notice how that spike coincides with the escalation of the war on drugs? it is total hogwash.

quote:

think criminals seek out easy targets, and if the easy targets are fewer and further between, then that may also lead to a lower crime rate.

With the eye in the sky and Big Brother's cameras all over the place (not to mention the prevalence of cellphone cameras nowadays - something we didn't have in the 1980s), a lot of crime is dealt with that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I think murderers are eligible for parole after 7 years, although I'm not entirely certain of that.

quote:

As I recall, the Three Strikes law was designed to keep habitual criminals in prison, as opposed to the "revolving door" of recidivism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:


No more drive by than your normal drivel. Try this from the line about John Lotts book. Its the first line so even you should be able to spot it.

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. << Implicit enough

Unfortunatly he then followes it up with facts.
He only claims a 2-5%% difference which in no way takes credit for the 50% crime reduction we have seen.
Saying somthing helps is not the same as claiming that it is the sole determining factor.