Summary Of The Causes Of Drop In Crime

Reiman and Leighton comprehensively begin the discussion of crime by outlining their main objectives, establishing the immediate problems surrounding crime control in America, and setting the groundwork for their premises. In recent years, the crime rate in the United States has declined. This decline is generally attributed to ‘tough on crime’ and mass incarceration policies, but the authors are quick to assert that other variables--economic, social-- are greater contributors to this decrease, with the ‘imprisonment binge’ only actually contributing a small amount to the decline. These strict crime enforcement policies might have a small impact on crime prevention, but criminologists are concerned with the potential effect such policies might have on criminal justice procedures--promoting profit rather than safety-- and endangering citizens’ rights (particularly those considered minorities).

Although, there is no evidence that suggests mandatory sentencing is effective at decreasing crime rate but ample evidence of its long-term felonious results. The US and other jurisdictions are an example of the ineffective results of this regime, choosing to decrease the use mandatory sentencing regimes because they don’t work.

Prison did not deter crime significantly, many experts concluded. Those who had meaningful economic and social opportunities were unlikely to commit crimes regardless of the penalty, while those who went to prison were far more likely to commit crimes again in the future. The growing consensus among experts was perhaps best reflected by the National Advisory Commission of Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, which

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”

The current crime and incarceration trends have declined since early 1990s, which in part is due to the current reforms that takes place within the criminal justice system, such as early release dates for drug charges and non-violent crimes (Mauer, 2011). The incarceration rates in the United States are “three to four times that of other industrialized nations,” and the punishment scale is viewed as “out of proportion to that of other industrialized nation” (Mauer, 2011).

Because the attitude toward crime has diminished in volatility, it can now be brought into question whether incarceration is really effectual or cost-effective. While funding is required to build up these rehabilitation programs, in some programs the savings cannot be clearly understood until a few years into the revision.

Prominent among them is the reduction of the prison sentences for nonviolent and low-level drug crimes. However, this is not enough. “Even if we released everyone imprisoned for drugs tomorrow, the united states would still have 1.7 million people behind bars.” That massive statistic comes as a great shock to readers, as they only now realize the true urgency of the issue. The authors acknowledge that “half the people in state prisons are there for a violent crime.” However, “not all individuals convicted for a violent crime are alike.” They are convicted for different levels of violence: some are mass murderers or serial killers, while others are “battered spouses who struck back at their abusers.” Mauer and Cole also refer to studies that found that longer sentences are not better deterrents, as most serious offenses were committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The authors call for acknowledgement that excessively long sentences are merely a waste of money and totally

Could it be that the government’s intervention by legalizing abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision lead to the dramatic reduction in crime? Did the government inadvertently save my life by preventing the birth of criminals? This paper will first explore the generally

The authors share a similar but reversed story from Romania in the 1960s. Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu outlawed abortion in 1966, hoping to rapidly increase his country’s population. It worked. The very next year the birth rate doubled. But life for all these Romanian children was miserable. Compared to Romanian children born just a year earlier, the cohort of children born after the abortion ban would do worse in every measurable way: they would test lower in school, they would have less success in the labor market, and they would also prove much more likely to become criminals.

For example, when discussing the dependency on prisons, they give statistics proving how much more they were used, “By 2000, more than two million people were in prison, roughly four times the number as of 1972” (Levitt and Dubner 111). This data clearly elaborates on how much impact prisons had which helps the general reader process the information smoothly. Similarly, the authors discuss the impact of police strategies and the increased number of police with statistics. They include data which explains that “Homicide rates fell from 30.7 per 100,000 people in 1990 to 8.4 per 100,000 people in 2000, a change of 73.6 percent” (116). This supports the authors’ findings and convinces the reader about the accurate effects that the police force had. Levitt and Dubner successfully include credible evidence which supports their claim and ensures a valid position throughout this

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.

He then groups innovative policing strategies and increased number of police together but has differing views on them. He agrees that increased number of police accounted for 10% of the crime drop, but he thinks that innovative policing strategies, most commonly cited crime-drop explanation, was in fact not a cause. His next set of groups were a tougher gun laws and changes in crack and other drug markets. Tougher gun laws was actually in fact not a cause of the crime drop and he supports this by providing an example of Switzerland, whom have the more firearms per capita, yet is one of the safest places in the world. On the other hand, changes in crack and other drug markets have in fact caused a decrease in crime rate due to the price drop in crack which caused teens and dealers to consider selling crack as not worth.

The national crime rate has been dropping for the past several years. Over a 38% drop has been reported since 1993. The drop in the crime rate of America is mainly because of three top reasons. These reasons include the involvement of the community, the offenders of small crimes are being interrogated to come up with leads of larger crimes, and the new computer technology available today.

Defenders of the death penalty often claim that the execution of criminals will teach others not to do bad, initially decreasing crime rates. This hasty form of generalization statistically proves to be wrong. “When it comes to criminals, Texas has the toughest punishments along with a strict court system. The state of Texas spent four hundred and seventy million dollars in 2001 just for punishing convicts. Despite all that money and stern punishment, the crime rate is still twenty four percent higher than the national average, according to 2003 data” (Gonzales). This supports the fact that tough punishment doesn’t necessarily help crime. Ironically, the harshest state in the U.S continues to house the maximum number of criminal acts. The death penalty, a harsh form of punishment, clearly doesn’t lower crime rate.

“Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach” takes a unique approach on analyzing crime rate trends by looking not at the characteristics and identities of the offenders of crime, but at circumstances and environmental factors surrounding the crime (in this case only crimes confined to predator violence that involves physical contact) that takes place. The piece analyzes several different aspects of what the authors refer to as ‘routine activities.’ By showing real data collected over a significant time span, the article argues that changes to the structural pattern of these routine activities has led to the increase in crime rates despite the general improvement of social conditions. The idea that for a crime to