Conquer Club

So, I've read the first few chapters of Freakonomics and would like to regurgitate the information I have absorbed from this endeavour.

Crime in the US was HIGH.
And then it got EVEN HIGHER.
By the early 90s, commentators were predicting RIVERS OF BLOOD as RAPE became SPORT in the inner cities.
But then, crime started to fall (from '91 onwards).
Crime has dropped consistently, year on year. Violent crime has plummeted.

Freakonomics reckons that this is due to more abortion. The people most likely to use abortions are poor, uneducated, black, probably on drugs and poor. These people are most likely to have criminal children (Tupac, Jazzy Jeff etc.). By allowing these people abortions, you are allowing the 'thugs' and 'OGs' of the future to be neutralised before they get their hands on their first 'piece' (gun).

Is this a valid conclusion? Does more abortions help prevent tomorrow's criminals being brought into existence?

The poll is a number of events from the year the crime recession began. They may or may not be relevant to the fall in crime.

No..

Yes.

I suggest a more pro-active approach, however.

Offer any citizen 10 thousand dollars to get a reversible vasectomy / tubular.
Subsidize the reversals to lower the cost to 5000.

The poor, the idiots, addicts, and criminals will spend the ten grand, the smarter ones will only spend 5, and save the rest for a day when they may wish to start pro-creating.

POOF!!!! You'll clean up at least 25% of the gene pool with one stroke, and lower child poverty 50% in three generations.


JRock

Thank you for your inquiry. We have researched your question and found two other possible answers.

• 1. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of police in the U.S. increased by 50%, while the population only increased by 30%.
  http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1252006.pdf
  
  2. Beginning in 1993, 24 states enacted habitual offender laws, where persons convicted of three violent crimes are automatically sentenced to life imprisonment.

We discount number 1 as a factor. Finland has twice as many police, per capita, as the U.S. but three times the crime. Canada has slightly more police than the U.S. but also a higher crime rate.

The social isolation of a habitual criminal element is the cause for a decline in crime. The trade-off is wastage of an increased volume of public funds on non-productive agencies (prisons) and bad publicity.

Did this answer your question? Type "1" if yes, or "2" if no.

i dunno, maybe we should make abortion a states' rights issue and look at the results to determine whether abortion lowers crime.

craaaazy idea

saxitoxin wrote:Finland has twice as many police, per capita, as the U.S. but three times the crime.

I dispute this statement.

natty_dread wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Finland has twice as many police, per capita, as the U.S. but three times the crime.

I dispute this statement.

1. Police Per Capita - DISPUTE SUSTAINED | The U.S. has more police per capita than Finland, not less.

Finland - 146 police per 100,000 people
United States - 233 police per 100,000 people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ice_forces

2. Crime Rate - DISPUTE SUSTAINED | Finland's crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the U.S., not 3 times higher than the U.S.

Finland - 520,194 total crimes / 5,000,000 people = 10% crime rate
United States - 11.8 million total crimes / 300,000,000 people = 4% crime rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... tal-crimes

Six credits have been deposited to natty_dread's account.

I thank for the credits and would like to additionally point out that the rate of violent crime is approximately the same between Finland and the US. Both have approximately 0,5% rate in violent crime.

saxitoxin wrote:2. Beginning in 1993, 24 states enacted habitual offender laws, where persons convicted of three violent crimes are automatically sentenced to life imprisonment.

Crime began falling in 1991. It's more likely that one of the factors in my poll is relevant than the laws that fewer than half of US states enacted two years into the crime plunge.

barackattack wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:2. Beginning in 1993, 24 states enacted habitual offender laws, where persons convicted of three violent crimes are automatically sentenced to life imprisonment.

Crime began falling in 1991. It's more likely that one of the factors in my poll is relevant than the laws that fewer than half of US states enacted two years into the crime plunge.

I'm regret to inform you the U.S. population is not equally divided 50 ways, IIRC.

And I regret to inform you that your beloved habitual offender laws were enacted two years after the drop in crime began.

barackattack wrote:And I regret to inform you that your beloved habitual offender laws were enacted two years after the drop in crime began.

nope


http://www.moralityindex.com/crime.html

barackattack wrote:http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

Before throwing up a link to a 30-page report as one's entire response in a message board thread, one would be advised to first make sure said report doesn't - in fact - support the post to which one is responding ...

barackattack's link wrote:The evidence linking increased punishment to lower crime rates is very strong.
Typical estimates of elasticities of crime with respect to expected punishment range
from 2.10 to 2.40, with estimates of the impact on violent crime generally larger
than those for property crime (Marvell and Moody, 1994; Spelman, 1994; Levitt,
1996; Donohue and Siegelman, 1998)

I have to dash now but I'm certain, on my return, I'll be feted with frantic and angry exhortations as to why I've misread or selectively quoted this, a link to a 400-page book I could order on Amazon that definitely supports your position, several pictures of the Union Jack and 10 instances of the "N" word. I shall have to address those later, I regret.

I posted that article to refute your claim that crime began falling in 1993. Which is exactly what that article says: the dip starts in '91.

It therefore began two years before your trumpeted 'three strikes' policies were enacted.

saxitoxin wrote:10 instances of the "N" word.

Barack, when have you called saxi a nerd? That's not cool.

barackattack wrote:I posted that article to refute your claim that crime

Since it reinforces the idea of incarceration impacting crime rate, that sort of backfired on you then, didn't it?

barackattack wrote: began falling in 1993. Which is exactly what that article says

no, it didn't

Also, somewhere in this 102-page PDF, some point you have made - which I won't specify - is refuted:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75048022/An-O ... sory-Group

barackattack wrote:So, I've read the first few chapters of Freakonomics and would like to regurgitate the information I have absorbed from this endeavour.

Crime in the US was HIGH.
And then it got EVEN HIGHER.
By the early 90s, commentators were predicting RIVERS OF BLOOD as RAPE became SPORT in the inner cities.
But then, crime started to fall (from '91 onwards).
Crime has dropped consistently, year on year. Violent crime has plummeted.

Freakonomics reckons that this is due to more abortion. The people most likely to use abortions are poor, uneducated, black, probably on drugs and poor. These people are most likely to have criminal children (Tupac, Jazzy Jeff etc.). By allowing these people abortions, you are allowing the 'thugs' and 'OGs' of the future to be neutralised before they get their hands on their first 'piece' (gun).

Is this a valid conclusion? Does more abortions help prevent tomorrow's criminals being brought into existence?

The poll is a number of events from the year the crime recession began. They may or may not be relevant to the fall in crime.

This came up before. It is a real connection, but not because of race and the other factors to which you point. In fact, its not even truly "freakanomics". Its really about a very direct connection.

Specifically, people who decide to have an abortion do so because they realize either they do not have the maturity, the time, the energy and the finances and other multiple skills needed to raise a child. ALONG with a fair number of those who decide they either won't subject a child to living with serious injury/defects or that they themselves are not equipped to deal with those things (and yes, though you were not party to the earlier discussions on this, miscarriaged surgically removed ARE included in abortion statistics because that term refers to a procedure, not anything about the condition of the baby). The right wants to paint it as lazy, uncaring people deciding to kill fully healthy babies. BUT, here is the thing. Anybody can get pregnant, but not everyone is even close to capable of actually raising that child well. Some of those who have had abortions, particularly those having them for medical reasons, but also those who just realize they are not mature enough or financially able to raise a child then will go on to have others later and do very well. The right likes to pretend that is, essentially, proof that abortion is wrong. BUT they ignore that if that abortion had not occured, those future children would not be raised in the circumstances in which they have been raised AND may not have been born at all.

Even when someone is abortion due to medical reasons, you have to think about the sheer effort required to tend a child with extremely serious problems. Parents with highly disabled children are often unable to fully work, are often dependent on other taxpayers to just survive and pay for their child's medical needs.

Also... there is much more direct data on this. It has been brought up in other threads. I am not sure I will have the time here in the next few days to research it, but maybe you or someone else can find it if you wish.

In summary: abortion lowers the pool of future criminals, cutting off the river at source.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Anybody can get pregnant

I'd say at least 50% of people can't, actually.

barackattack wrote:In summary: abortion lowers the pool of future criminals, cutting off the river at source.

Agreed.
They should hand out vouchers for them with food stamps, and two boxes of condoms every month. Why governments do not aggressively promote and provide free birth control ( including sterilization ), family planning, and easily available abortions is beyond me considering the long term savings to be had.



JRock

Sweden had the balls to do it, and Sweden is currently one of the world's richest and nicest countries.

barackattack wrote:Sweden had the balls to do it, and Sweden is currently one of the world's richest and nicest countries.

Sweden is a horrible shithole.

PS. No offense, swedes.

Finland joined the Nazis in declaring war on the USSR.

So?