Friday, April 20, 2012
On the Influential Assertion That Poorer Living Conditions Invariably Lead to Higher Crime-Rates
"During the 1960s, one neighborhood in San Francisco had the lowest income, the highest unemployment rate, the highest proportion of families with incomes under $4,000 per year, the least educational attainment, the highest tuberculosis rate, the highest percentage of substandard housing of any area of the city. That neighborhood was called Chinatown. Yet in 1965, there were only five persons of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in the entire state of California."......James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein, "Crime and Human Nature" 1985............Clearly there are some other factors/pathologies at work here, people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Anecdotal.
One could say you are cherry picking data also. Not that I am beyond doing so myself.
Liberals are always quick to point out that poverty causes criminal activity. Here is clear example of which it did not. Yes, it's an anecdote. But it's also monstrous one; in all of California only 5 prison inmates of Chinese ancestry in 1965.
It isn't poverty itself that causes crime, it's inequality (as proven by the research in "The Spirit Level").
Secondly, I'm not going to do any research on this to prove you wrong (and I am sure you're wrong), but I'll venture a guess.
1965? Most of the people in this community were first and second generation immigrants who were used to the government KILLING you for breaking the law. This new life in America was a lot better in comparison (it isn't inequality in itself, but PERCEIVED inequality that is the problem)
Plus, they probably believed that if they worked hard their children would have a better life.
That's why you went way back to 1965 for this example. You couldn't find a current one.
Decrepit moral character causes crime. Poverty might give the evil-minded more of an excuse, but that's all.
Impoverished people are more likely to not give a damn and more likely to be motivated to a life of crime. Moreover, they are more likely to need to commit crimes to survive and they are more likely to be unrepresented parentally in their youths.
Drive into poor communities and you will find evidence of more crime immediately. Additionally, all of the most dangerous areas of town are generally marked by poverty.
I don't know why you would try to find an exception to this or why this target of all targets would be worthy of debate.
Poverty does not cause crime, but it certainly motivates people to commit it.
WD: I never even mentioned the victims. I only mentioned the perpetrators.
Come on now, is your reading comprehension really that bad? I will be generous and assume so, rather than take it at face value and you called the criminals "victims".
dmarks: I will be generous and assume so, rather than take it at face value and you called the criminals "victims".
I was talking about victims of poverty, so I guess you assumed wrong.
The wrong assumption started with you. I was talking about the perpetrators of crimes.
wd, you can continue to say that "The Spirit Level" proved what you wanted it to but it didn't and it couldn't (correlations not being the same as causality, the fact that they used incredibly inept methodology yada yada).............Chinese and Japanese immigration started in the 19th century, wd. And these groups faced immense bigotry early on and often. And, so, too, did black immigrants from the West Indies (who were also enslaved). And, yet, none of these groups engaged in massive criminal activity. This, despite the fact that they ALL undoubtedly "perceived" the inequality and bigotry that was bearing down on them.............And you're sure that I'm wrong about what? It was a frigging direct quote from a damned seminal work, for Christ.............And the fact that I went back to 1965 is a good thing, wd. We've made a significant amount of progress, thank God.
I would just like to repeat what John said.
"Poverty does not cause crime, but it certainly motivates people to commit it." That's a reasonable sentence that I do not take much umbrage with.
I should have looked it up. It is, of course, a Conservative authored book. That Will goes, as usual, with the Conservative explanation, can really be no surprise to anyone.
The book was clearly written by and for greedy Conservatives who don't want to acknowledge (or pay to try and address) the social problems that cause crime.
They're blaming the victims of poverty (desperate people who don't know what to do/don't have a choice and turn to crime). I think it's pretty shameful. And it's rebutted by the research presented in "The Spirit Level".
Will said: ""Poverty does not cause crime, but it certainly motivates people to commit it." That's a reasonable sentence that I do not take much umbrage with."
I think John Myste's way of putting it is better than what I said also.
I think we are splitting hairs, if not outright wrong, when we say that something that "motivates" someone to commit a crime is not a "cause".
"The Spirit Level" rebuts that there were only 5 inmates of Chinese ancestry in California prisons in 1965, etc.?............African-Americans weren't desperate in 1930, wd (back when their unemployment rate was LOWER than whites)? They weren't desperate in the 1950s (back when there was literally ZERO crime in the public school system)? I think that maybe you need to look at some of the destructive policies on your side before you completely lose it.
And as far as this desperation goes, you really need to learn your history. The exodus of jobs from the inner-city clearly took place AFTER the riots of the 1960s. And even then, wd, not all of the groups suffered identically. Many Hispanic groups, for instance, pooled their resources and were easily able to garner transportation. Hell, some employers were even willing to come to a central location and pick these people up.............And I would also add that a lot of the violence in inner cities is drug related and in which the rewards significantly exceed that of merely putting food on the table.
The 5 Chinese inmates are the number admitted to CA prisons in 1965, not the total number in prison in 1965. However, I am sure that the total number was still very low, like maybe in the teens, but that's only a guess.
Yeah, the wording on that is a tad ambiguous. You may be right, Jerry.
I am right. Check out the California Prisoner & Parolees report for 1965 at this link.
I think we are splitting hairs, if not outright wrong, when we say that something that "motivates" someone to commit a crime is not a "cause".
True. I guess there is a cause in society, and poverty causes crime in society, meaning crime results. The perpetrator was not caused to commit the crime, though, just because he is poor.
So, "cause" applies to society justly, but not to the individual criminal. Dmarks spoke of cause in the individual and said poverty was not a cause. True, in the individual it is a motivating factor.
In society, poverty RESULTS in greater crime rates.
Sorry Will, but I recommend that you pick a different battle.
John Myste: Sorry Will, but I recommend that you pick a different battle.
He won't. He'll spew more conservative BS, produce some cherry picked stats and then laugh at how wrong Liberals are and how right these Conservative authors are. Then he'll deny being a Conservative.
Dervish,
As one often accused of being a conservative myself, I can tell you that Will is not a conservative any more than I am.
You may say that proves your point or you may not.
John Myste: As one often accused of being a conservative myself, I can tell you that Will is not a conservative any more than I am.
You voiced some disagreement in this comment thread. You told Will to pick a different battle. Those are your words.
Unless you wish to retract them I declare that you have passed the test and can't be considered a Conservative.
Conversely, Will has failed the test and revealed himself to be Conservative without question.
Dervish,
A single stance on a single issue has nothing to do with whether one is a conservative or not. You don't have to follow a play book or your not a true Scotsman.
This is one of the MOST important ones. Conservatives blame the victim (we saw dmarks do this). This isn't about a playbook, it's about the basics.
If I said that I thought we should radically cut taxes on the wealthy so the prosperity would trickle down, while at the same time I said I thought the government should slash spending on social programs, would you then believe me if I said I was a Liberal?
If I said I thought the government should set up cameras in everyone's bedrooms to make sure no one participated in deviant sex would you believe me if I said I was a Libertarian?
If I said I thought the government should radically increase spending on social programs and pay for it with a huge tax increase (mostly on the wealthy but also on the middle class), would you believe me if I said I was a die hard member of the Tea Party?
Maybe you would, as you keep citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Dervish,
I don't say that Will is a liberal either, so you can stop citing examples now.
I say that Will is a moderate, with some liberal ideas and some conservative ones.
When you claim he is a conservative, you are asserting he is something that many of his ideas, a huge number, don't fit. He has listed them before.
Your examples corroborate this. You cannot call Will a conservative if he has far left liberal ideas, per your own claims.
I am not sure why he can't be a moderate in your opinion, since clearly he is.
That makes sense. You see, I've been fibbing all this time about being a Liberal. I'm actually a Moderate too. It's just that my mix of Conservative and Liberal views is more Liberal, while Will's mix is more Conservative.
Dervish, if you are a moderate, there is no such thing as a liberal. I would be Will slightly left of center.
Will is slightly right of Center (I'm being generous). So if you're slightly Left of Will I'd say that make YOU the Moderate.
Will is slightly right of Center (I'm being generous). So if you're slightly Left of Will I'd say that make YOU the Moderate.
I agree. Being slightly left of a moderate is probably a moderate. I am way left of Will.
WD made an entirely false accusation: "Conservatives blame the victim (we saw dmarks do this)."
Everyone saw I was blaming the perpetrator, not the victim.
Will is slightly left of center. Because he tends to vote for left-wing candidates more often than not during Presidential elections.
dmarks: Because he tends to vote for left-wing candidates more often than not during Presidential elections.
Name ONE. You can't do it. I predict crickets.
dmarks: Everyone saw I was blaming the perpetrator, not the victim.
You said, and I quote, "Decrepit moral character causes crime. Poverty might give the evil-minded more of an excuse..."
You blamed the victims of poverty for turning to crime. Everyone saw it.
As for who is responsible for poverty: You never mentioned wealthy people who lobby (bribe) legislators to keep their taxes low, allow them to get away with crimes (Wall street banksters), and not pass laws requiring them to pay workers fairly (or pass laws allowing them to weaken Unions). These perpetrators went completely unspoken of in all of your previous comments.
I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat. I am significantly to the LEFT of President Obama on gay-rights, foreign policy (yes, I know, this is tricky in that a lot of conservatives are actually isolationists), and civil liberties. But I'm operationally to the right of him on health-care, energy, and the economy.............As for me voting for left-wing candidates for President, I did vote for Nader in 2000 (a protest vote, essentially - I should have voted for Gore), Kerry in 2004 (mostly because of Iraq), and Obama in 2008 (McCain, who I actually liked in 2000, seemed somewhat unstable by then). Whether this constitutes me voting for left-wing candidates, I will leave that up to others to decide.
And I voted for Perot in 1992 AND 1996. Duh, huh? LOL
John, I don't think that operationally you and I are all that different. I love to play devil's advocacy and tweak the far-left but you and I could sit down and hammer out a budget without significant rancor, I think (hopefully you'll recall that I wanted the top tax rates to go back to 39.6 AND I'm in favor of a reduction in military spending).............Of course, I also think that I could probably sit down and hammer out a budget with dmarks, and it's that level of bipartisanship that truly gets me in trouble.
dmarks: I could probably sit down and hammer out a budget with dmarks
He says taxes should be lower. He was in favor of both of bush's illegal wars and probably wants to start more... so how could he agree to lowering the military budget?
Yeah, we would probably have a stalemate over military spending (this, though even Bob Gates said that we could probably trim the Pentagon by 50 billion or so).......But he also said that he liked my plan of doing away with the Corporate Income tax and replacing it with higher individual rates/doing away with the special consideration for capital gains.......It's a negotiation, wd.
For the record, I wasn't in favor of any illegal wars.
--------------
Also, WD said; "You blamed the victims of poverty for turning to crime. Everyone saw it."
No, no one saw it. When someone does something out of just plain mean-ness or immorality (Decrepit moral character), they are not a victim at all.
WD: "Name ONE. You can't do it. I predict crickets."
Will named the left-wingers he voted for, in a comment in this very post.
--------------------------
Will: I am sure I would budge a lot on the military budget, with you. Because I know you are sane. You don't have a Kucinich-like "make the terrorists happy" agenda to disarm the nation and make it weak.
I know that you're not a big Ron Paul guy, dmarks, but I kind of like the way that he differentiated between military spending (which, yes, dove-tails nicely into Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech) and defense spending. That, to me (yes, along with smoking as many terrorists as possible), could really work in terms of trimming the budget substantively.
Will,
I could work with most any moderate, were I a politician. They have my utmost respect. I do agree that we could hammer out a budget. We disagree about guilt and equality, but in practical solutions, we could find much common grand.
And I don't even think that we necessarily disagree so much on the latter. Inequality indeed may be a factor. It just wasn't proven by this silly book that wd's been touting, that's all (that, and there definitely ARE a lot of noncorroborating examples; Jews in the latter-day period of the Ottoman empire yet another one).
dmarks: Will named the left-wingers he voted for, in a comment in this very post.
He did not. You said, and I quote, "Will is slightly left of center. Because he tends to vote for left-wing candidates more often than not during Presidential elections".
Then Will named ONE Left-wing candidate he voted for (Ralph Nader). Voting for one Lefty isn't "tends to", nor does it make someone "slightly left of center".
dmarks: For the record, I wasn't in favor of any illegal wars.
You said you supported the invasions of BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. And then you said something crazy about the wars already being "on" when questioned about it. Neither war was already "on". And both wars were illegal under international law. Sorry to burst your bubble dmarks.
dmarks: When someone does something out of just plain mean-ness or immorality (Decrepit moral character), they are not a victim at all.
I wasn't talking about those people. I was talking about poor and desperate people who turn to crime because they feel they have no choice. Given the topic at hand, any reasonable person should have known what kind of law-breaker I was referring to. And everyone saw you place the blame exclusively on their shoulders, and by doing so letting those who are really responsible completely off the hook (exactly like the authors of the book Will mentioned).
dmarks: You don't have a Kucinich-like "make the terrorists happy" agenda...
You're confused dmarks. Dennis Kucinich does not have that agenda (and he never did). You're thinking about George bush's agenda. Osama bin Laden wanted bush to invade Iraq. bush did and it made Osama very happy.
I find it quite strange that you would attribute this agenda to the wrong person, since you agreed with bush in illegally invading Iraq and therefore share his "make the terrorists happy" agenda. Who gets confused about their own agenda?
Will: It just wasn't proven by this silly book that wd's been touting.
It has, of that there can be no question. The facts are overwhelming.
WD said..."Then Will named ONE Left-wing candidate he voted for (Ralph Nader)."
Count also Obama and Kerry, two more leftists.
"Voting for one Lefty isn't "tends to""
But voting for the left-wing candidate for the past 3+ elections does.
"nor does it make someone "slightly left of center"."
Well, you do have a point. It might make him more than slightly left of center.
"You said you supported the invasions of BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq."
Yes. Neither of which was illegal.
"Neither war was already "on"."
Entirely untrue. The government of Afghanistan closely allied with Qaeda had already attacked us whether or not the US responded. The war was clearly on. And Iraq had engaged in hundreds of cease-fire violations before the US did the major retaliation.
"And both wars were illegal under international law."
That's complete bullshit and the worst kind of "armchair attorney" stuff. Silly false accusations and conjectures which never gained ground with the actual authorities involved because there is absolutely no merit to what you claim.
And you have a double standard always. You insist on Olbermann having his day in court before we accept the allegations of him abusing his drivers. Yet, in the case of "illegal wars" and "war criminals", you readily accept false imaginary interpretations of international law that have been rejected by the courts authorities.
"I wasn't talking about those people."
I was. So at least you admit to being dishonest by attacking me for what I never said about people I never mentioned.
"And everyone saw you place the blame exclusively on their shoulders"
No one saw this. Not even you: because it never happened.
"and by doing so letting those who are really responsible completely"
Who did I mention in my comments and leave off the hook?
"You're confused dmarks. Dennis Kucinich does not have that agenda (and he never did)."
Not confused at all. He opposes fighting back against the terrorists, and his foreign policy views are based entirely on ignorance. He votes 100% as if the terrorists are bribing him.
"I find it quite strange that you would attribute this agenda to the wrong person"
I attribute the agenda to the correct person.
"since you agreed with bush in illegally invading Iraq"
Again with the imaginary claims.. your fantasy world of foreign policy. Slanderous claims of illegality that are rejected by actual authorities, and are based only in your imagination.
In this, again, you are like the idiots who hate Obama so much they lie about birther crap. You hate Bush and readily make up stuff too.
dmarks: Count also Obama and Kerry, two more leftists.
Obama and Kerry are Moderate Democrats and only "Leftists" in the imaginations of those who see the world from position quite a bit right of the middle (a position dmarks incorrectly identifies as the center).
dmarks: Yes [I supported both of bush's illegal wars]. Neither of which was illegal [in my imagination].
Yes. I know that reality and reality as dmarks perceives it are two very different things. So I guess he has a point. If you ignore the UN charter then perhaps what bush did was not illegal. Although I would still say it was immoral.
dmarks: So at least you admit to being dishonest by attacking me for what I never said about people I never mentioned.
No, I admit you got confused and started talking about people who commit crimes for other reasons. We were all discussing the victims of poverty who turn to crime because they feel they have no choice.
dmarks: No one saw this. Not even you: because it never happened.
I did see it because it did happen. You did it by refusing to acknowledge that these people even exist... people who are victims of poverty and turn to crime because they believe they have no options.
dmarks: Who did I mention in my comments and leave off the hook?
Nobody. You didn't mention them, that's the problem.
dmarks: Not confused at all. [Dennis Kucinich] ...votes 100% as if the terrorists are bribing him.
More confusion from dmarks. George bush acted as if the terrorists were bribing him. Like I said earlier, OBL wanted GWb to wage war on Iraq. It was practically as if the two were BFFs.
dmarks: I attribute the agenda to the correct person.
No, you mixed up Dennis Kucinich and George bush.
dmarks: Slanderous claims of illegality that are rejected by actual authorities...
Please point me to any statements by "actual authorities" in which these claims are rejected. I've asked you to back up these claims before and you have yet to deliver any proof at all that the claims are rejected.
dmarks: You hate Bush and readily make up stuff too.
You like bush and approved of his illegal wars, which is why you ignore the truth and make up stuff about "actual authorities" and imaginary rejected claims.
And it's why you make up stuff about Dennis Kucinich voting as if he were taking bribes from the terrorists. In this regard you're much like the idiots who hate Obama so much they lie about birther crap.
I believe it is quite shameful that you slander a true patriot with lies (Dennis Kucinich) and defend a war criminal (George bush).
wd, your lack of understanding relative to the scientific method is astounding. Dude, the only way that you can infer causality is through a controlled experiment. These people didn't do anything even remotely resembling that. They cherry-picked a bunch of countries (they initially said that they were going to examine 50 and then magically decided to go with 23 instead) and indicators and then did a regression analysis that was so troublesome that it more than likely wouldn't have passed an introductory statistics class. I'm sorry, but your quest for nirvana is clearly going to have to head in another direction at this point.
Post a Comment