Readings Application of theories
,Levitt & Dubner (2006)
Chapter 4: Where have all the criminals gone?
In Romania, abortion got illegal when Ceausescu was the dictator. His incentives produced
the desired effect. Within one year of the abortion ban, the Romanian birth rate had doubled.
These children would turn out to have particularly miserable lives.
His demise was precipitated in large measure by the youth of Romania, a great
number of whom, were it not for his abortion ban, would never have been born at all.
When the crime rate began falling in the early 1990’s, it did so with such speed and
suddenness that is surprised everyone. But after the relief had settles in, the question that
arose was; where did all those criminals go?
1. Innovative policing strategies.
The belief that smart policing stops crime. Bratton introduced technological solutions like
CompStat and the new idea: broken window theory. It argues that minor nuisances, if left
unchecked, turn into major nuisances.
A careful analysis of the facts shows that the innovative policing strategies probably
had little effect on this huge decline.
In 1993, the rate of property crime and violent crime had already fallen nearly 20
percent. Guilliani did only become mayor in 1994.
The new police strategies were accompanied by a much more significant change
within the police force: a hiring binge. An increase in the number of police has been
proven to reduce crime.
Also: crime went down everywhere during the 1990s, not only in New York.
2. Increased reliance on prisons.
In the 1960’s violent crime began to climb. One of the major factors pushing this trend was a
more lenient justice system. Politicians were growing increasingly softer on crime (for fear of
sounding racist). So, if you were the kind of person who might want to commit a crime, the
incentives were lining up in your favor.
These incentives were eventually curtailed. Criminals who would have previously
been set free, were instead locked-up.
But crime rates tend to be high when imprisonment rates are high. Crime would fall if
imprisonment rates could only be lowered.
3. Changes in crack and other drug markets.
Many of the dealers were willing to kill their rivals. The result was a huge increasing in violent
crime. But the huge profits for selling crack went away, profits vanished. Younger dealers
decided that the smaller profits didn’t justify the risk.
The crash of the crack market accounted for roughly 15 percent of the crime drop of
the 1990s. The net effect of crack is still being felt in the form of violent crime.
4. Aging of the population.
The teenage share of the population wasn’t getting much bigger. The real population growth
in the 1990s was among the elderly. Elderly people are not very criminally intent.
Demographic change is too slow and subtle a process.
There was another demographic change that did drastically reduce crime in the 1990s. The
children born in the wake of the abortion ban were much more likely to become criminals.
The mother failed to provide the baby with a good home. In 1960s, several states began to
allow abortion under extreme circumstances, later five states made it entirely legal.
Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness, unwantedness leads to high crime,
legalized abortion led to less crime. The states with the highest abortion rates in the
1970s, experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s.
, When the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about
abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in a position to raise the baby
well.
5. Tougher gun-control laws.
The introduction of a gun may well lead to more violence. There are many guns in the US
and their homicide rate is also much higher. Homicide rate is so high because guns are
easily available.
But guns are not the whole story. In Switzerland every adult male is issued a gun for
military duty and keeps it at home. Yet it is one of the safest places in the world. Guns
do not cause crime.
The most famous gun control law is the Brady Act criminal check and a waiting
period before a person can purchase a handgun. Bur regulation of a legal market is
bound to fail when a healthy black market exists for the same product. Impotent in
lowering crime. Various local gun-control laws have also failed.
We need more guns on the street, but in the hands of the right people. Violent crime
has decreased in areas where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed
weapons. If a criminal thinks his potential victim may be armed, he may be deterred
from committing the crime.
But right-to-carry laws simply don’t bring down crime.
6. Strong economy.
The decline in crime was accompanied by a blistering national economy and a significant
drop in unemployment. It is true that a stronger job market may make certain crimes
relatively less attractive, but that is only the case for crimes with a direct financial motivation.
But homicide fell a greater rate than any other sort of crime, and a number of reliable
studies have shown virtually no link between the economy and violent crime.
In the 1960’s then the economy went on a wild growth spurt, as did violent crime.
7. Increased number of police.
When crime is rising, people clamor for protection, and invariably more money is found for
cops. When there are more police, there tends to be more crime.
In the months leading up to Election Day, they try to lock up the law-and-order vote
by hiring more police. So, when comparing a set of cities with an Election recently
with cities that had no Election, it’s possible to tease out the effect of the extra police
on crime.
Yes, indeed, additional police substantially lower the crime rate. The number of police
officers fell more than 50 percent from 1960 to 1985. The decrease in policing
created a strong positive incentive for criminals.
The hiring of additional police accounted for roughly 10 percent of the 1990s crime
drop.
8. All other explanations
Increased use of capital punishment.
Concealed- weapons laws.
Gun buybacks, and others.
The increased use of capital punishment. The number of executions in the US quadrupled
between 1980s and 1990s.
1st. Given the rarity with which executions are carried out and the long delays in doing
so, no reasonable criminal should be deterred by the threat of execution. There were
still only 478 executions in the entire US during the 1990s.
Among prisoners on death row, the annual execution rate is 2 percent, compared with
the 7 percent annual change of dying faced by a member of the crack gang. This is
not a driving force.
