Something missed in the headlines is that the percentages have been in steady decline for about two generations and that is likely due to population aging as well. Less kids always means less adventurism.
The evolving end of drug prohibition will also sharply reduce criminal activity as well.
In time it is possible to engineer a society in which criminality simply disappears and becomes a rarity. That is still a long ways off as we still cannot even begin to identify those susceptible..
.
We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.
A couple embraces after a shooting that killed 14 people on Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif. (David Bauman/the Press-Enterprise via AP)
Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say,
plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a
horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a
result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.
In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis
of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013,
that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides.
The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in
death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per
100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.
Older data suggests that
gun violence might have been even more widespread previously. The rate
of murder and manslaughter excluding negligence reached an apex in 1980,
according to the FBI. That
year, there were 10.8 willful killings per 100,000 people. Although not a
perfect measure of the overall rate of gun violence, the decline in the
rate of murder and manslaughter is suggestive: Two in three homicides these days are committed with guns.
This
decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime.
According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has
decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of
mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a
much less violent place.
Much of the decline in violence is
still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for
the shift. Here are five.
1. More police officers on the beat
Additional
manpower helps police departments respond to and prevent violence. In
1994, President Bill Clinton signed a major crime bill that set aside
enough federal funding for law enforcement agencies nationally to add
100,000 officers, though the ranks of the country's police forces had
already been expanding as local governments dedicated more resources to
their departments to control increasing rates of crime.
In New York City, the recruitment of more officers was a crucial reason
that the decline in crime was larger and more sustained than in other
cities, according to Franklin Zimring, a criminologist at the University
of California at Berkeley. The economist Steven Levitt estimates
that larger police forces reduced crime by 5 percent to 6 percent. Gun
violence, presumably, declined along with crime in general.
2. Police using computers
It
wasn't just that police departments hired more people. They also
started using computers to collect data on crime and to direct their
officers' efforts more efficiently. When they have accurate, current
information on where crime is happening, they can identify the
neighborhoods where they are needed most.
As Zimring notes,
police in New York were among the first to realize the potential for
computers to aid in fighting crime. Departments nationwide are now using
versions of New York's CompStat system, short for Comparative
Statistics. A recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice suggests that similar systems across the country reduced homicide by about 11 percent.
3. Less booze
A
gradual decline in the amount of alcohol that Americans drink is
another explanation for the decline in violence. About four in 10
prisoners convicted of murder were using alcohol at the time of the
offense, according to a federal report. Americans drank 21 percent less alcohol in 2000 than in 1980, though consumption has increased since then, data from the National Institutes of Health
shows. The authors of the report from the Brennan Center believe that
this decline can account for 5 percent to 10 percent of the overall
decline in crime.
Total U.S. alcohol consumption per person declined sharply beginning three decades ago, but has recently increased. (National Institutes of Health)
4. Less lead
Besides
alcohol, lead is another substance that has been shown to make humans
more aggressive. Lead is toxic, and it can affect the behavior of
children who are exposed to the metal while their brains are still
developing. After the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, refiners
were required to sell unleaded gasoline. Jessica Reyes, an economist at
Amherst College, has argued that the children born after that law took
effect breathed in less lead from car exhaust and that their brains were
healthier as a result. She has estimated that the removal of lead reduced violent crime by no less than 56 percent. Other researchers are skeptical
that lead could have caused such a large decline in U.S. violence, but
many agree that the Clean Air Act had some effect on crime.
5. A better economy
Unemployment
declined sharply from the recession under the Reagan administration
through the boom under the Clinton administration, and income for the
typical household increased. In better economic circumstances,
communities and families might have more resources to dedicate to
protecting themselves from crime — for example, by installing alarms in
their homes. People also have more opportunities to earn money legally,
removing one reason that some break the law.
The authors of the
Brennan Center report conclude that the increase in household income can
probably explain about 5 percent to 10 percent of the decline in crime,
similar to their estimate for alcohol. Yet economic factors seem more
likely to affect rates of property crime than violent crime, and the
relationship between the economy and the rate of gun violence in
particular isn't clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment