scientific american, back in 2004 I believe?, had a really great overview of the 5 reasons why criminologists think the crime rate decreased. I can't at all remember the details, but it would be really, really worth getting our hands on it because they look at each of the pet theories, where the theory excels and explains, where it fails, basically concluding that no one theory does the trick. There are five basic suspects:
-- demographics (basically, the rise had to do with baby boom [> adult males in society --> crime)
-- getting tough crime
-- more guns less crime thesis
-- changing economic conditions
-- cracking down on drug-related crimes put most of the violent types in jail meaning they couldn't commit crimes since they, and most of their associates, were jailed. (claim that there is now a rise in crime b/c they are getting out of jail). Basically, the rise in crime had to do with small subset of the population that was source of most of rise in violent crime.
hhmm. now to decide if I want to blow 8 bucks on this, only to get one of those fooking images that will mean i will *still* have to transcribe the fookin thing.....
Here's one summary: In his Scientific American magazine article entitled, "The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline," criminologist Richard Rosenfeld examines why U.S. crime rates dropped more than 40% in the 1990's and what lessons current policy-makers can learn from this decline. Rosenfeld provides an overview and evaluation of previous research showing a link in the crime rate decline and factors such as changes in demographics, law-enforcement practices, economic conditions, incarceration rates, domestic violence and firearm policies, and the use of guns by young drug dealers. He concludes that while each of these may have contributed toward the decline in serious violent and property crime rates, some of the policies also produced unintended policy effects that could have been avoided if research-based policy experiments had been conducted. For example, stiffer sentences for adult drug offenders, a policy designed to deter crime, may actually facilitate the criminal careers and shorten the lives of the youthful drug sellers who take their place. Based on his research, Rosenfeld provides three lessons that he believes society can draw that may help anticipate and even head off the next crime rate rise. These lessons include dividing crime trends into their component parts, looking for unintended policy effects and engaging in research-based policy experiments before new programs are implemented. (Scientific American, February 2004)
The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline; February 2004; Scientific American Magazine; by Richard Rosenfeld; 8 Page(s)
For a short period during the closing decade of the last century, U.S. crime rates dropped precipitously. Homicide, burglary and robbery rates fell more than 40 percent, to levels not seen since the 1960s. The reduction in serious felonies per capita stunned criminologists, who have struggled to provide a satisfying explanation for such an unexpected and complex phenomenon. The research community has reached a consensus on the basic contours of the 1990s crime decline - the who, what, when and where - but still argues about the why.
Today, as crime rates are again creeping upward, it seems appropriate to examine the evidence associated with the 1990s drop and the theories put forth to account for it. Such an analysis could help society to better understand the causes underlying shifts in national crime statistics and may even be used to forestall future increases in serious offenses. In this article, I will weigh the relative merits of the leading explanations and present some suggestions for policies and experiments that could help prevent the next rise in criminal activity.
"let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."
-- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws