Re: Violent crime rates - city comparisons correct
Poverty does not cause crime... Per
www.johnlocke.org
[ QUOTE ]
Incarceration alone will not solve North Carolina's crime crisis. We must also focus on preventing crime by addressing the conditions that give rise to it. That does not mean increasing government spending on jobs programs or social programs. There is no historical relationship between crime rates and either poverty, joblessness, or government social spending. Crime rates during the Great Depression were much lower than they are today. The real cause of crime is not a poverty of resources but a poverty of values. Research has clearly documented a relationship between out-of-wedlock births and the likelihood that those children will grow up to be criminals. That means that welfare reform and other measures to reduce government dependency and illegitimacy are irreplaceable elements of a successful crime prevention strategy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or, for a slightly contrary view to Locke there is
Heritige Foundation's Crime and the Economy: What Connection?
[ QUOTE ]
But on closer inspection, Grogger's argument falls apart. Crime rates fell in nearly all categories between 1982 and 1984, even though Grogger's own numbers show that wages fell for low-income workers during the same period. Likewise, Grogger's data show that wages rose for low-income workers between 1988 and 1990, despite being a period of higher crime rates.
...
So if the economy doesn't explain it, why have crime rates fallen so sharply in recent years? One can't say for sure, but the smart money is on three key factors. For one, America's prison capacity has roughly quadrupled since the mid-1970s and, starting in the early 1980s, the punishment a criminal could expect for a crime began to rise in most states after a 30-year decline. In short, many more crooks are behind bars.
Second, we have more police officers – and, for the most part, they're doing a better job. Of course, research shows that it is not the number of police on the street, but rather how they are managed and deployed that makes the biggest difference in controlling crime. And thanks to new ideas about cracking down on disorder, holding police commanders accountable, training officers and working with community groups, the police have become a lot smarter in fighting crime.
Third, the number of males aged 16 to 24 – the group that commits about half of all crime – declined a bit in the early 1990s.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is an interesting site. They have a bunch of information--Here is
US Homicide Rates back to 1900.. Huge, steady run-up in rates from 1903 (1 per 100,000) to 1933 (near 10 per 100,000). Then a drop to 1950-1965 (~4.5 per 100,000). Up again to 1981 and 1993 (10.5 per 100,000) and straight downward trend to 2000 (6 per 100,000).
I read in other places that using the Homicide Rates/Data as an analogy for overall crime data as homicides are reported/investigated without much influence wrt politics--and usually have the highest rate of solution (so perpetrators are well known).
John Lott will use "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. Looking for major changes in homicide rates (see 1900-2000 link above), Start of National Guard (regulating the militia--1902 1/100k). Prohibition (starting Prohibition 1919--~5/100k, ending 1933 10/100k) seems to be a big factor, and the war on drugs/war on poverty seemed to be another up-tick (1963 LBJ war on poverty 5/100k==Nixon's war on drugs/gun control act of 1968 gave 1969, 7.5/100k) through to a peak of 1981 (end of Carter 10.5/100k). Drop during Reagan (to 8.5/100k) and back up during Bush I (1992 10.5/100k) and a steady drop under Clinton (2000 rate of ~6.3/100k).
Without detailed multi-variable analysis (see John Lott), it sure looks like when the Federal Government increases law (National Guard/Prohibition) homicides go up by a factor of 10 or war on poverty/drugs/guns by a factor of 2.
While, reduction in government laws/programs such as end of prohibition coincide with homicide rates falling by 1/2... I am at a loss of what to attribute the falls during Reagan/Clinton years... The conservative in me wants to credit welfare reform and the availability of CCW in more and more states (and, unfortunately, the increase in jail cells).
The scared conservative in me worries that the welfare state (FDR's 1933 Great Society and massive increases in social spending from 1962-2000, a factor of >10x--per 2004 Whitehouse budget proposal listed in other thread--in constant dollars) perhaps should not be ignored. Although, the entire change in Homicide rates from 1962 to 2000 seem to be independent of government poverty/Social Security spending (i.e., spending is flat out going up, but homicide rates rise and fall during same period).
Locking up the criminals (AKA the 3 Strikes Law--started in California), longer prison terms and such, can provide short term/expensive help for the crime problem--after the criminals have already been trained and are out on the streets.
But, I would also like to look at what it takes to prevent criminals in the first place. My personal beliefs are that we must start with family values (including education and two parent families--and religion probably does not hurt either--although, I am a generic God kind of guy--not a church going one--for better or worse).
And I worry government programs, in general, are causing more problems then they fix. Welfare destroys families, cash aid--ala San Francisco--attracts criminals, 3 strikes laws drives them somewhere else, Federal/State programs remove local control and blur accountability, lots of "free" cash create new groups of people/lobbies that want their cut--from more government bureaucrats to people that want grants to those that receive the aid/cash. New laws that make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people (such as precursor laws from another thread would be a start).
Well, I will stop here for now. Your thoughts?
-Bill