Internet And Homicide Rates: A Comparative Analysis

The 1980s and early 90s were home to an extreme wave of criminal activity that swept across much of the country. The dramatic uptick in crime can largely be attributed to the spread of the crack-cocaine epidemic and subsequent “War on Drugs.” New York City, for example, suffered from 2,605 murders and 208,813 burglaries in 1990, at the height of the violence . Much of this criminal activity centered around and affected the poorest individuals in those communities – which often included minorities.

The book’s fourth chapter, “Where have All the Criminals Gone?” in particular, includes several subjects the authors acknowledge will “provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections” (140). By this point, readers already know the authors’ view that the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade caused the drop in crime during the 1990s because this idea first appears on page four. Rather than simply explaining why abortion lowered crime rates, Levitt and Dubner use a chart to introduce seven explanations commonly cited by experts for the sudden drop in crime during the 1990s, then examine the authenticity of each one. The first possible cause is “a fairly uncontroversial one: the strong economy”

Select two (2) of the theories, suggested in Chapter 3 of the text that a researcher could use to explain the cause of digital crime. Provide a rationale to support your response.

After that introduction- they go on to tell the story of American crime in the 1990’s, and explore several other expert theories about the dramatic and unprecedented rise and fall of

Since the 1990s and the crime drop, there has been many questions to the reason why. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner thoroughly looked through the different theories but came to a conclusion that the main reason crime had fallen is abortion (117-145). One of the reasons they discuss is whether or not the increase of incarceration affects the fluctuations in crime rates. Levitt and Dubner suggest that the crime system became relaxed due avoid racism; however, the crime rates then began to rise (122). “Between 1980 and 2000, there was a fifteenfold increase in the number of people sent to prison on drug charges” (Levitt, Dubner 123). The purpose of this review is to evaluate the validity of the incarceration effects on crime rates.

The chapter goes on to overview the crime crisis happening the United States in the 1980s through the 1990s. After exploring possible causes of the problem and how bad everything has gotten, the authors go on to explore possible solutions to the crime epidemic. The solutions are quite varied, well thought out, and are supported with statistical facts. For example in talking about the effect of gun buyback programs and their effect on homicide: “Given the number of handguns in the United States and the number of homicides each year, the likelihood that a particular gun was used to kill someone that year in 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buyback program

In chapter 4 the chapter considers a variety of possible explanations for the significant drop in crime and crime rates that occurred in the 1990s. Based on articles that appeared in the country’s largest newspapers, the authors compile a list of the leading, commonly offered explanations. The next step is to systematically examine each explanation and consider whether available data support the explanation. What the authors, in fact, demonstrate is that in all but three cases–increased reliance on prisons, increased number of police, and changes in illegal drug markets–correlation was erroneously interpreted as causation and in some cases, the correlation wasn’t even that strong.

In 1993 Kleck and Patterson, made a new publication called The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. This publication reviewed the various effects there could be in which gun availability could affect violent crime rates. They stated, “If a gun is available, it could encourage attacks, especially by weaker attackers on stronger victims, and could facilitate attacks from a distance or attacks by persons too squeamish to attack with messier weapons such as knives or too timid to attack at close quarters. Similarly, guns may enable some

In Chapter 4, Dubner and Levitt talked about how crime rate decreased rapidly in the early 1990s. The top 8 mentioned explanations given on why exactly crime rates decreased by a large amount were; Innovative policing strategies, increased reliance on prisons, changes in crack and other drug markets, age of the population, tougher gun control laws, strong economy, increased number of police, and all other explanations. He starts off by explaining whether or not a strong economy was the cause of a drop in crime rate. He ridicules the explanation that a stronger economy means lower crime rates by explaining that a stronger economy only affects crimes with a direct financial motivation as opposed to violent crimes. The second explanation that

The United States has been a world leader in homicide for centuries. Indeed, “since the early 19th century ...[America has been] the most homicidal country in the Western world” and holds that title today (Kelley, 2009). In a 2007-2008 list of 31 nations, only two nations, Mexico and Chile, had higher homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Nations with higher populations, such as India and China have fewer homicides (Comparison, 2010). Further, a nation such as Japan, which has a lower population but a higher population density then the United States, has one of the world’s lowest homicide rates (Comparison, 2010). Population size and density, therefore, cannot be the chief reasons for this nation’s higher homicide rates.

In the 1990’s the economy flourished and the crime rate dropped (Hoover, 2014). These two factors could and do typically go hand in hand. With the economy on a rise, there was less violent crime as well as thief or non-violent crimes. Some reasons for this would be jobs were easier to come by, the stress of poverty was felt less, and overall people were just in a happier place. Also, the fact that incarceration increased in the late 1980’s could add to the demising crime rate of the 90’s,due to the criminals that committed those were all in jail. One good thing leads to another and so on throughout this decade.

The third top reason responsible for the decline is the new computer technology available today. In the past, computer systems lagged behind with criminal activity data by three months or more, unlike today where as the crime statistics are updated continuously" (Giuliani Art. 108). Giuliani explains, "computer technologies allow the mapping of patterns and the establishment of casual relationships among different categories of crime. In a truly interactive use of

While the rate is roughly half of what it was twenty years ago, it remains a crime that takes many victims and impacts many more in society. Some researchers view poverty as a leading factor in homicide (Chapter 3). Socioeconomic status has gone up across the country an income has gone up and employment rate went down. Researchers believe that poverty is a factor that can explain the drop in homicide rates the last 20years. I think poverty can help logically explain why homicide rates has gone down because if you have less people unemployed and they are making more income you could have less crimes and homicide. Political and Law can play a role in murders of the time. In the past 20 years it has been a lot of laws and policy to crack down

The hypothesis claims that “changes in routine activity patterns can influence crime rates by affecting the convergence in space and time of the three minimal elements of direct-contact predatory violations” and that “the absence of any one of these elements [motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of suitable guardians against a violation] is sufficient to prevent the successful completion of a direct-contact predatory crime.” (1) The authors claim that controls for routine activities, therefore, are essential to maintaining order and keeping the crime rate down. They also note that and understanding of temporal and spatial relationships are key to understanding the changing crime rates. Illegal acts are events that occur in space and time and involve specific persons and/or objects. The spatio-temporal organization of everyday activities is what allows criminals to turn their criminal ideas into reality. Dispersion of activities away from the household has led to a change in the spatio-temporal relationship that increases the opportunity for crime, which in turn increases the crime rate itself.

In the 1990s, as crime was continuing to rise at a steady rate, American leaders soon realized they had a crisis on their hands. In response to this, President Bill Clinton released a bill in 1994 aiming to take extreme action in combatting crime. This bill included many actions such as increasing the amount of police officers, more funding for cities’ law enforcement programs, and enforcing