U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2012, 06:26 AM
 
Location: The heart of Cascadia
1,328 posts, read 2,542,918 times
Reputation: 812

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
The first problem with this supposition is that the curve, at least the one I posted is based on the "crime rate", meaning crimes per 100k Americans. Therefore it is already controlled for in terms of population, so peaks and valleys in population don't matter.

The next problem then is explaining why it is continuing to decrease during the "echo boom" of the Millenials, born ~1980-2000.

If your supposition holds correct, the crime rate rose on the shoulders of the "Boomers" being born approximately from 1945-1965. That means during the increase and then peak of the curve, the oldest Boomers were 20 at the beginning of the upswing and the youngest were 30 when it peaked out.

The oldest Millenials are currently in their 30's and the youngest are closing in on their teen years, with the majority of the group currently being 18+. However, there is no corresponding increase in the crime rates.

In terms of total population, which as I pointed out doesn't really have an impact on the "crime rate" since it is controlled for population, there are about 68 million Millenials versus 76 million Boomers, so only about a 10% difference and certainly a large enough "boom/peak" to have skewed things if that actually had anything to do with it.
It's per 100 Americans but there's still a higher proportion of young male Americans.

I think with the Echo Boom, you can't see it in terms of gross numbers either, but rather the percentage of the population, which is why like you said the crime rate is per 100K Americans. (Generation Y is actually the largest generation in history on a global scale. Half the people alive today were born in 1983 or later believe it or not, so if we're saying Gen Y is 1980-2000 (personally I would say it's more like 1980-1994) that is something like 2 to 2.5 billion people. But in America, it's a smaller generation than the Boomers were, though larger than Generation X.)

Back in 1960, America only had about half the population it does today - 170 million then, 320 million or so now. Out of those 170 million, ~67 million were baby boomers (not counting those born in 1961-64). That's more than a third that were less than 15 years old!

Now today, in America, you have 68/330 million Yers vs. total Americans. That's only like 1 in 5 vs the 1 in 3 or so of the 1960s. It's a significantly smaller bump.

Of course, it wasn't JUST the baby boom that made crime rise, crack cocaine was another element that took it to even greater heights, peaking in 1991.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2012, 06:38 AM
 
1,464 posts, read 2,633,459 times
Reputation: 2809
Quote:
Originally Posted by questioner2 View Post
I think I read somewhere that 1965 was the start of America's crime wave. That was the start of the hippie movement and crime started to go up with the breakdown in society connected with drugs, rock music and a lack of respect for authority. It has been downhill since then.
My parents said that before that year life was more peaceful, the crime rate was very low, families were stronger, illegal drug use was limited and kids behaved in school.
Historians: was 1965 the start of the downward spiral in American society?
There has been crime, drugs, alcohol, wild women, bank robberies, killings as far back as the 1920's. Do some research on mobs and you will read all about Al Capone and his crew. Times were pretty wild back then; it was just that they were careful and had most of the law enforcement folks in their back pockets. Prohibition..read about that. My Grandmother gave me a picture of her back in the 20's all decked out like a "flapper"..she was a looker back then but loved to drink and dance, oh and play cards. They called her "Frankie".

I graduated from High School in 1966 so am super familiar with those times and it wasn't as peaceful prior to that as your parents have indicated. I can recall being a small kid in the 50's and hearing my Dad talk about Joe Dimaggio who was married to Marilyn Monroe and how he beat the crap out of her. Also another informative read...find the life story of Marilyn Monroe if you want to learn what that timeframe was all about. We as children were in the throes of a new nuclear age coming, and we were scared to death of it. I remember all to well how Fidel Castro had weapons pointed at us from Cuba and how very frightened we all were. Not so calm. Shortly after that, Viet Nam war took over our lives. Young men were DRAFTED to go fight a war we had no business being in. They smoked a lot of marijuana, did harder drugs, opiates...how else could they have survived what went on there? They came home and were called BABY KILLERS...more fiasco.

Please, understand that the bad stuff here in America has always been around just various degrees of it based on the "times" and what was available.

Now?? I do think the kids see more, say more and do less. They don't do a whole lot beyond the computers they sit at at home and the ones they carry around with them. People are driving and are on their phones creating car wrecks, kids walk down the street either playing on their blackberries or talking on their phones. We have a bunch of kids out there who are obese and we can't figure out why and don't care why. Again, this is because of the times and what we have, don't have and don't do. Can it be fixed?? I don't know. I think the more appropriate questions is are there enough of us out there who care if its fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,050,871 times
Reputation: 7707
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post



Meth started flourishing right as crack was declining. The meth crackdown happened several years later. And it didn't work. But that's another topic.

The meth epidemic began as a result of us outlawing the manufacture and sale of amphetamines. When they were no longer legally available, home-made uppers took their place. The crime rate "bump" was self-inflicted.

Which leads to an important point when discussing crime and crime rates: Crime is simply what we deem to be illegal. In other words, the amount of crime is dependent upon how we define crime. The crime rate can be raised or lowered simply by changing the definition of what's legal and what isn't.

For instance, since the 1950's, the number of drugs we decided should be illegal has grown and penalties for possession, use and sale have been piled up, layer upon layer. With increased enforcement based upon those expanded illegalities, we created a crime wave just by redefining what drugs we thought should be illegal.

If you take the time to examine the genesis of a crime wave, you'll often find that it was an artificial creation, a response to a changing definition of what constitutes a crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 10:14 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,552,424 times
Reputation: 14279
Quote:
Originally Posted by callmemaybe View Post
It's per 100 Americans but there's still a higher proportion of young male Americans.

I think with the Echo Boom, you can't see it in terms of gross numbers either, but rather the percentage of the population, which is why like you said the crime rate is per 100K Americans. (Generation Y is actually the largest generation in history on a global scale. Half the people alive today were born in 1983 or later believe it or not, so if we're saying Gen Y is 1980-2000 (personally I would say it's more like 1980-1994) that is something like 2 to 2.5 billion people. But in America, it's a smaller generation than the Boomers were, though larger than Generation X.)

Back in 1960, America only had about half the population it does today - 170 million then, 320 million or so now. Out of those 170 million, ~67 million were baby boomers (not counting those born in 1961-64). That's more than a third that were less than 15 years old!

Now today, in America, you have 68/330 million Yers vs. total Americans. That's only like 1 in 5 vs the 1 in 3 or so of the 1960s. It's a significantly smaller bump.

Of course, it wasn't JUST the baby boom that made crime rise, crack cocaine was another element that took it to even greater heights, peaking in 1991.
I've found this discussion rather interesting and found this research paper from the University of Chicago that synhesized much of the research done on the question of "why did crime fall in the 1990's".

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...yCrime2004.pdf

The most interesting thing I found is that no one expected it to decline. If anything, they expected the crime rate to go through the roof in the mid-90's and the reason cited for that is the impact of the echo-Boomers coming of age.

They cite six commonly stated reasons that when studied had little to no statistical or proven impact on the decline:

1. Economy: They showed through various studies that the violent crime rate remains steady despite the overall economic state of the country. What does change is that for every 1% increase or decrease in unemployment there is an associated 1% increase or decrease in property crime. What that means is that the 2% decrease in unemployment in the 1990's could not even begin to explain the massive decline in crime.

2. Demographics: This is the one we were arguing about. The key age group in crime are 15-24 year olds. During the Boomers years, this cohort of the population made up 18.7% of the population. The current echo-Boomers during the time of the decline made up 14.6% of the population. So, one could theorize that this difference would account for some decline in crime rates, though not nearly enough as what happened. On top of that, age is only one part of the story. The study cites that crime committance and victimization rates are much higher among blacks. The black population INCREASED as a percentage of the total population during the time of the decrease, going from 12.1% to 12.9%. Statistically, this increase in the black population and the larger percentage of blacks in the 15-24 year old cohort, should have more then offset the 4% reduction in youth in the overall population.

3. Policing Stategies: They examine the case of New York City and prove that the "shift" in strategy of how the police operated had no impact on the actual crime rates.

4. Gun Control Laws: They disprove the theory that stricter gun control laws have any real impact on crime rates.

5. Concealed Carry Weapon Laws: They disprove the theory that laws allowing greater freedom to carry weapons had any impact on crime rates.

6. Increased Use of Capital Punishment: Disprove that even increased use of capital punishment has an impact on crime given how rarely it is actually imposed and the large chance of death associated with the committal of most crimes that end in capital punishment anyway. Meaning, the riskiest thing in terms of death is committing the crime itself, not the risk of being punished for it.

They go on to cite four reasons they believe had a direct impact:

1. Increased Number of Police Officers: They proved that there is an elasticity variable in relation between the numbers of police officers on the street and the crime rate. For every 1% increase in police, there is a corresponding .4% - .5% decrease in crime. The number of police was increased by over 14% in the time period of the decline, so approximately 7% of the reduction can be attributed to increased policing.

2. Increased Rate of Incarceration: The prison population per 100k increased dramatically in the 1990's. Again, there was an observed elastic effect on the crime rate from incarceration either because offenders were in jail or the threat of prison was a more impactful deterrent. Overall, around 12% of the observed decrease in crime can be directly linked to increased incarceration.

3. Ebbing of the Crack Epidemic: Their theories and the proofs are quite complicated, but to sum it up...the high profitability of crack helped fuel the increase in crime. The main impact was on violent crime and was mainly dealers/gangs versus each other, not necessarily users who needed money.

4. Legalization of Abortion: They prove out this theory by showing the impact legalization of abortion had. In states where it first became acceptable, those states showed declines in crime rate earlier. Later in states where the abortion rate was high versus those were it was low, the higher rate states had larger decreases in crime. The control groups actually showed a 25.9% decrease in crime in high abortion rate states and a 4.9% INCREASE in low abortion rate states.

The paper ends by applying these same reasonings to crime in the period from 1973-1991 and trying to see what that looked like. Based on these same factors, crime should have decreased in that time period, but instead it increased. Ultimately, the author concludes that it is not the DECREASE in crime in the 1990's that is "unexplainable", but it is the INCREASE in crime from 1973-1991 that has no real explanation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,987,554 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
The meth epidemic began as a result of us outlawing the manufacture and sale of amphetamines. When they were no longer legally available, home-made uppers took their place. The crime rate "bump" was self-inflicted.

Which leads to an important point when discussing crime and crime rates: Crime is simply what we deem to be illegal. In other words, the amount of crime is dependent upon how we define crime. The crime rate can be raised or lowered simply by changing the definition of what's legal and what isn't.

For instance, since the 1950's, the number of drugs we decided should be illegal has grown and penalties for possession, use and sale have been piled up, layer upon layer. With increased enforcement based upon those expanded illegalities, we created a crime wave just by redefining what drugs we thought should be illegal.

If you take the time to examine the genesis of a crime wave, you'll often find that it was an artificial creation, a response to a changing definition of what constitutes a crime.
Agreed wholeheartedly. When it comes to drugs, the more you crack down the worse the problem will get. With illegality comes loss of control. Crackdowns don't lessen use - they just make those being cracked down upon bolder, and create more bureaucracy and big government.

And by making more things illegal all sorts of new crimes are created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 11:16 AM
 
17 posts, read 19,337 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by questioner2 View Post

Historians: was 1965 the start of the downward spiral in American society?
No, 1776 was
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Location: The Bay and Maryland
1,362 posts, read 3,084,542 times
Reputation: 2138
Crime and drug use has escalated in the past 50 years for a number of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is outsourcing and lack of jobs. Outsourcing is very real. It has gotten to the point where almost nothing is made in America anymore. Even our politicians admit that America now has a "service economy". Millions of jobless people need to make money in America because you need money to live. The first segment of society to be really hurt by outsourcing and lack of jobs are Blacks and other minorities residing in the inner city. During World War II, Blacks had migrated to big cities to work in factories. When the war ended, many of these factories shutdown or relocated overseas. As a result, the inner city dwelling Blacks, who had little education, were left with little to no job opportunities. At the same time, Whites were abandoning big cities and relocating to the newly built suburbs. When you give people few opportunities to make money in a society where a constant flow of cash is absolutely necessary for food, housing etc., people will stop caring and resort to crime to survive. Either that, or the people will simply give up and retreat to a world of escapism in hard drugs and alcohol. So you have people who need to sell drugs to get money because there are no jobs and the other half of people living in this environment with them want to do nothing but abuse hard drugs to escape their gloomy pointless existence. Sounds like the perfect storm for a crime filled environment. Ironically, none of the drugs that can be bought in the American inner city, except for maybe weed, are manufactured here in America.

American inner cities have comparable violent crime rates as places in the third world. Detroit and New Orleans rank in the top ten most dangerous cities in the world list right alongside Ciudad Juarez and the war-torn Baghdad. Almost all big American cities have bad neighborhoods that are statistically more dangerous than anywhere in the Middle East. This is important to know because most serious crime in big cities disproportionately occur in the economically depressed ghetto areas. This is even true in America's more seemingly safe cherished jewel box cities. A good example is the impoverished poorly publicized Hunter's Point district of San Francisco which is home to sometimes 50% of all SF's homicides despite being only 5% of SF.

http://urbantitan.com/10-most-danger...world-in-2010/

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/132706.shtml

http://21stcenturyurbansolutions.wor...on-and-crisis/

Once upon a time, Americans were much more self-sufficient. A hundred years ago, much more Americans lived simple lives on farms where they grew their own food and knew how to do things like make and repair their own clothes etc. Today, the vast majority of Americans are incredibly dependent on our failing economy that leaves tens of millions of people out in the cold. It is not natural to warehouse poor minorities into decaying, neglected areas of big cities full of drugs, alcohol and guns with no way to make money and expect that area to be safe and crime free. If all those people lived on farms and knew how to grow their own food and take care of themselves, there would be much less crime. But the average American is far too brainwashed for that. We, as Americans, are brainwashed into deeply desiring things that have no real value in regards to our survival. We do not need the latest iphone, Nikes, Lexus etc. But people who can't afford these things in America deeply desire these meaningless cheaply made material trinkets with built-in obsolescence. Why wouldn't we? Global corporations like Nike and Apple spend millions of dollars annually figuring out ways to get into our heads and make us buy their crap.

Many poor people in America are not even that poor. It is no secret that poverty in America comes with low-income housing, bi-monthly checks from the gubmint, $100 sneakers, 7-11 snacks and EBT. Many people who have never been to Compton, Oakland or Detroit would be amazed at the sometimes rather large humble middle class abodes equipped with large well manicured front yards and garages that exist in the roughest American ghettos. It is a combination of relative poverty, messed up victim mentality and the desire for the "good life" which makes these areas dangerous havens of crime. The cost of living is too high and there are no jobs available to minorities in the inner city let alone a shot at a decent education because inner city schools are much poorer quality than schools in the burbs. Poor people in the hood desire all the same expensive material items as upper middle class people in the suburbs but have no way to earn similar things without resorting to crime.

In conclusion, there is a widening economic gap in America and with more people entering the ranks of the poor with no way to provide of themselves, expect crime to go up. The same factors that made American inner cities crime filled slums are beginning to effect White middle class America as well. Buckle up, kids. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Last edited by goldenchild08; 05-25-2012 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
1,458 posts, read 2,153,902 times
Reputation: 1277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
For the most part it was simply that the Boomers began to outgrow violent crime.
In California three strikes laws and longer prison sentences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
12,904 posts, read 18,471,181 times
Reputation: 13738
Default What year did America's crime/drug/morals start to be a problem?

1776

Crime and drugs were always a problem... and opinions on proper morales ebb and flow over time, never staying exactly the same from generation to generation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2012, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,592 posts, read 2,894,384 times
Reputation: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Why do you think whites didn't have the gang support? Why do you think white gangs declined outside of the NE and Chicago? There were more white ghettos in the '70s than today. In the '90s and '00s most of the remaining white ghettos either gentrified or became at least racially mixed, but in 1978 they were still plentiful. Not so much in CA but in other states. Given the same circumstances whites are just as prone to crime as any other group. Why did those circumstances change?

First about black/latino crime in California, you were there and if you say black crime was greater then I'll take your word for it. But as we go forward in time, there's a 3 to 1 ratio of hispanics to blacks, I would think more crime would be from hispanics and of greater concern. Perpaps I have the wrong impression, but Cali hispanics seem to be the least willing to assmimilate, and more violent. Stories I've seen where they overrun a post office and put up a mexican flag, have bumper stickers that say F you this is Mexico, M13 gang violence, the 90's LA riots where half or more of the participants were hispanic. It would be of great concern to me if I lived there.

Now to answer what I qouted from you, whites do not have the kind of gang support that will protect them in prison. How many white criminals had any association with biker/ayrian nation gangs when they went into prison ? Do you think they would offer any protection to those not associated, even if those groups could manage to protect themselves in the first place ? Heck, I heard some Cali prisons the whites are sold at auction as slaves, some prisons might have only 20% whites to begin with.

As for the part about whites being just as prone to crime as any other under the same circumstances, I disagree. Poor whites have a much lower crime rate than poor blacks or latinos. I might dare to say that whites do very well, if not better when the chips are down, and pull themselves out of some pretty bad situations. Germany in 1946-1955 for example, when they started from nothing and built the place back up on starvation wages. They did not turn to mass crime, drugs and alcohol and just give up. Forgive my opinion if you think I'm backwards, but I do think whites do better on their own for the most part. Less class division like you see in Europe, OZ, NZ and the USA before the 60's, and they create an overall safer and more sucure society then is possible with a large amount of diversity. Asian countries are the same way pretty much.

There are other aspects to explore other than race in this thread. Why did morality decline ? Could it be people like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Hugh Heffner, Larry Flynt, The Simpsons, South Park, Rated R movies and the media in general ? When you tolerate a little bit of naughty, then the ACLU and the Supreme Court says you have to tolerate a lot of it. Take the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969 for example...........big deal right ? That was one of the first movies where they took some bad guys, and made them into good guys. They made you root for the bad guy......thats how it starts. Pretty soon your at home with a stack of VHS porno tapes fantasizing about................whatever !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top