The Curious Case of the Fall in Crime.

[FBM]

A lot of those in prison in countries with high prison populations (the USA has 1% of its citizens in prison) are there because they were drug users, which is an utterly stupid reason to spend up to $100,000 a year of taxpayers money keeping someone in prison.

This should be tattooed nailed on the foreheads of every politician in the U.S.

FTFY.

[Warren Dew]

The above title is a quote from the Economist, July 20, 2013.

According to this Economist article, crime has been falling in a dramatic way over the past 20 years, throughout the western world....

Why is this?
The Economist gives various reasons.
1. The most important reason is simply that advances in security systems makes successful crime much more difficult. Robbing a bank when the teller is behind bullet proof glass, pressing the alarm button and telling the robber to do his worst, suddenly becomes well nigh impossible. Stealing a car with an effective immobiliser likewise. Liquor stores and homes with superior alarms. Burglary becomes less rewarding when homes are fitted with effective locks and noisy alarms.

2. Western societies are growing older, and violent and physical property crimes are the hallmark of young men.

3. Police forces are gaining new technologies for solving crime. DNA analysis. Computer profiles and records.

Any correct theory of the fall in crime must also explain the equally inexorable rise in crime in the 1960s and 1970s. The Economist's (1) and (3) obviously fail this; I'm not sure about (2), but I suspect it fails too given the continued increase in average longevity.

I've only seen one theory that explains both the two decade rise and the more recent two decade fall, at least in the U.S., which I've written about here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/72164.html

[Beatsong]

Any correct theory of the fall in crime must also explain the equally inexorable rise in crime in the 1960s and 1970s.

Why? It's perfectly possible that the recent fall is due to something completely different from the previous rise. Your statement suggests that there must be one factor consistently responsible for all rises and falls. That's not necessarily the case at all.

I've only seen one theory that explains both the two decade rise and the more recent two decade fall, at least in the U.S., which I've written about here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/72164.html

Most obvious problem with that is that the changes in law enforcement you mention are US specific, while the fall in crime has happened across most of the western world, including in many countries with quite opposite approaches to sentencing etc. So if you're looking for a consistent explanation for the phenomenon in general, that obviously isn't it.

[Warren Dew]

Any correct theory of the fall in crime must also explain the equally inexorable rise in crime in the 1960s and 1970s.

Why? It's perfectly possible that the recent fall is due to something completely different from the previous rise. Your statement suggests that there must be one factor consistently responsible for all rises and falls. That's not necessarily the case at all.

If they are the result of different causes, the correct theory must include both causes. Theories that ignore the earlier rise in crime are highly suspect.

[Beatsong]

Any correct theory of the fall in crime must also explain the equally inexorable rise in crime in the 1960s and 1970s.

Why? It's perfectly possible that the recent fall is due to something completely different from the previous rise. Your statement suggests that there must be one factor consistently responsible for all rises and falls. That's not necessarily the case at all.

If they are the result of different causes, the correct theory must include both causes. Theories that ignore the earlier rise in crime are highly suspect.

Nope, that doesn't follow either.

The second world war and the Vietnam war were the results of different causes. An explanation of the Vietnam war is not highly suspect because it fails to explain the cause of the second world war (or for that matter, every other war in history).

Demonstrating the cause of a phenomenon is not dependent upon also demonstrating the cause of another phenomenon somebody decides to link to it.

[Warren Dew]

An explanation of the Vietnam war is not highly suspect because it fails to explain the cause of the second world war (or for that matter, every other war in history).

An explanation of the Vietnam war that only explains how the war ended, and not how it started, is indeed highly suspect.

[Audley Strange]

Just off the top of my head I think we might be able to put it down to mobile phones. Since a lot (if not the majority) of crime is opportunistic, everyone walking about with cameras and ability to instantly contact the police makes it less likely.

[Blind groper]

Without even reading the psychohist thing right through (the prison theory is obvious crap since Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany reduced prison sentences before the massive fall in crime) I can tell you why crime rates rose in the 1960's and after. It was the baby boomers reaching the age at which they become criminally active.

Of course, when the first baby boomers became middle aged, the crime rate began (slowly) to ease, and that fall accelerated when the other, technology based, factors kicked in.

[Warren Dew]

Without even reading the psychohist thing right through (the prison theory is obvious crap since Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany reduced prison sentences before the massive fall in crime) I can tell you why crime rates rose in the 1960's and after.

Contrary to your theory, it turns out incarceration rates in Germany have risen rapidly during the period of falling crime. On the following graph the vertical axis is per 100,000 population:


from http://champpenal.revues.org/7508

In other words, Germany now has about the same 1% of population incarcerated as the U.S. It's just that in Germany, they incarcerate them in insane asylums, instead of in honest prisons.

Notice how there was also a fall in the 1960s and 1970s during the period of rising crime rates as well.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Err... no.

Here is a list (from wikipedia but well sourced) of prison population by country. Germany's down in 166th place if you can't spot it!

What you have done there is conflate the figures for prison detention with psychiatric orders. Something that was NOT included in the 1% figure for the USA. Perhaps you should compare like with like. It helps.

[pErvinalia]

Yep. It's down to easier detection/prevention. Only the truly desperate or stupid try and hold up a bank these days. The clever crims moved into cyberspace a few years back. The Keystroke Kops have yet to catch up.

That doesn't explain why sex crimes are down though, since most of those are committed in private circumstances by people known to the victim rather than by strangers in CCTV-rich high streets.

It's possible that people are just becoming less violent.

I came across an article a while back (and I think I posted it here somewhere) which was a rather fascinating analysis of crime/violence and lead in petrol. I know correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but it was an impressive correlation. I dunno how I'd find it again. PRobably goggle or something. Too hard..

[Seth]

Without even reading the psychohist thing right through (the prison theory is obvious crap since Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany reduced prison sentences before the massive fall in crime) I can tell you why crime rates rose in the 1960's and after.

Contrary to your theory, it turns out incarceration rates in Germany have risen rapidly during the period of falling crime. On the following graph the vertical axis is per 100,000 population:


In other words, Germany now has about the same 1% of population incarcerated as the U.S. It's just that in Germany, they incarcerate them in insane asylums, instead of in honest prisons.

Notice how there was also a fall in the 1960s and 1970s during the period of rising crime rates as well.

Yes, that's how the Soviet Union did it too. That and the gulags. They just didn't count those folks as "prisoners." And the ones who died and were buried in the Road of Bones simply disappeared from the records.

[Warren Dew]

What you have done there is conflate the figures for prison detention with psychiatric orders. Something that was NOT included in the 1% figure for the USA.

Actually, you're mistaken. Contrary to your assertion, people incarcerated in mental institutions in the U.S. actually were included in my 1% figure for the U.S. If you had actually read and understood my earlier link before posting, you'd have realized that.

Comparing like with like, the total incarcerated in the U.S. - whether in mental institutions or in prisons - is about 1%, just as in Germany.

Yes, that's how the Soviet Union did it too. That and the gulags. They just didn't count those folks as "prisoners."

Basically, yes. Prior to the 1960s, the U.S. also used incarceration in mental hospitals extensively. The current U.S. system, where you actually have to commit a crime to be incarcerated, rather than merely have a psychiatrist make a judgement that you might commit a crime, is considerably more enlightened and honest.

[Tyrannical]

No mention of abortion yet?
Around 16 -21 years after it was legalized you start to see a sharp drop in crime. The simplistic poverty causes crime, poor people seek abortions explains that.

[Robert_S]

No mention of abortion yet?
Around 16 -21 years after it was legalized you start to see a sharp drop in crime. The simplistic poverty causes crime, poor people seek abortions explains that.

Or rather, that women who feel they are not ready to be a mother for any number of reasons do not have to be. So you don't have children growing up unwanted.

Of course there's the lead in the environment theory too.