Tag Archives: violence

Ban on lead the cause of drop in crime?

Posted on by

Here is a quick overview about how the reduction of lead exposure in society could have contributed to the recent decline in crime rates:

One of the most fascinating questions in American sociology, political science, and public policy is the substantial decline in violent crime in America has been falling for two decades after a near-peak in 1991; the homicide rate hit a 50-year low last year despite the recession. There are a lot of interesting theories, none that (as far as I’ve read) is considered dominant. In November, Llewellyn Hinks-Jones wrote a compelling piece for the Atlantic about crime rates and the declining price of cocaine; there’s the evergreen broken-windows theory; Steven Levitt’s abortion theory (PDF); increasing incarceration rates; the destruction of massive public-housing complexes; improved trauma care; and many more. I was reminded of another one when reading up on public housing yesterday, thanks to a brief aside in Beryl Satter’s masterful Family Properties (emphasis mine):

The “peril to life and safety of the inhabitants” of slum buildings was often of a gruesome sort. Residents were injured on poorly lit stairways or ones with broken banisters. They were knocked out by falling plaster. They were scalded by the escaping steam of malfunctioning radiators. They perished in fires in buildings where fire escapes had collapsed from neglect. Their infants’ limbs were gnawed by rats. Each year approximately twenty-five children died from eating lead-filled paint chips. Others survived lead poisoning but were left mentally disabled.

Satter’s numbers come from a Chicago Daily News report from 1963. To put that in context, between 16 and 46 young Chicagoans died from accidents each year between 2002 and 2006, the leading cause of death in the 1-14 age group. In a 1962 Trib report, a board of health poison control pilot study found 35 deaths from 1959 to 1961: “Most of the victims were from 1 to 5 years old and came from rundown slum area buildings….” 465 cases were treated at County Hospital in those two years, and another 65 suffered severe brain damage…

That’s correlation, but what about cause? The great young science writer Jonah Lehrer explains the believed chain of causation from lead poisoning to violence (emphasis mine):

Here, for instance, is a recent PLOS study from the Cincinnati Lead Study, in which the blood lead level of babies born in poor areas of Cincinnati were repeatedly measured between 1979 and 1984. Twenty years later, the researchers tracked down these subjects and put them in MRI machines, allowing them to measure the brain volume of participants. The researchers found that exposure to lead as a child was linked with a significant loss of brain volume in adulthood, particularly in men. Furthermore, there was a “dose-response” effect, in which the greatest brain volume loss was seen in participants with the greatest lead exposure. What’s especially tragic is that the loss of volume was concentrated in the prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain closely associated with executive function and impulse control.

Several things come to mind:

1. Perhaps we simply need more scientific studies in order to sort this out yet a one cause answer to the drop in crime may be really difficult to find. Human behavior within a social context is complex.

2. I wonder if this hints at an already existing and likely to grow set of studies that discuss how everyday substances negatively affect us.

3. The person who is able to conclusively/definitively find the causes in the drop in crime will be either heralded, attacked from all sides, and perhaps both.

Comparing the treatment of prisoners in Norway and the US

Posted on by

If I was teaching Intro to Sociology right now, the stories about Norway’s treatment of prisoners presents a fascinating contrast with the United States:

Norway “takes the mantra of rehabilitation to an extreme,” Foreign Policy’s Robert Zeliger explains. “The Norwegian prison system takes seriously the philosophy that inmates should be treated as humanely as possible and that jail sentences should be seen less as punishment than as an opportunity to reintegrate troubled people back into society.”

Norwegians tend to see “acts of extreme violence … as aberrant events, not symptoms of national decay,” Time Magazine’s William Lee Adams reported last year. Norwegian prison guards undergo two years of training, “don’t carry guns … and call prisoners by their first names and play sports and eat meals with them,” Adams reported.

That approach — and its underlying premise that people who commit crimes are troubled who should be given a second chance and prepared to live again amongst society — can perhaps be credited with Norway’s extremely low prison-recidivism rate—only about 20 percent of those imprisoned in Norway commit a repeat crime that sends them back to prison. Recidivism figures in the United States and the United Kingdom, by contrast, are much higher– 50 to 60 percent, Time reported.

Indeed, Norway, a country of 5 million people, only has about 3,300 prison inmates, according to Time. That gives Norway a ratio of prison inmates to the country’s overall population roughly ten times lower than that of the United States.

Since the figures in this story suggest Norway’s system works (fewer prisoners return to prison, saving money down the road and improving society), why doesn’t the United States pursue similar policies? Here are a few possible reasons:

1. The United States is not as innocent. Perhaps this could be tied to the violent American culture and history.

2. The United States has a lot more people than Norway. It could be more difficult to maintain order with more than 300 million people than just under 5 million people.

3. The United States has a wider gap, wealth and status, between different groups, leading to more violence and more repression.

4. The United States is more individualistic and therefore puts more emphasis on punishment rather than restoring someone back to society.

Put together, these reasons suggest a significantly different cultural outlook between these two nations: one wants to lock up prisoners and throw away the key while the other has only a 21-year maximum sentence and wants to restore prisoners to society. Such cultural perspectives are not easy to change. Think of how US politicians are punished by pundits and voters if they happen to release a prisoner who then goes on commit futher crimes. But perhaps the pragmatic nature of budget deficits might push some more US groups to advocate for rehabilitation over retribution?

(For a more detailed description of a low-security Norwegian prison, read this.)

If you want peace, you should head to Maine

Posted on by

The Institute for Economics and Peace has released its rankings of the most peaceful states in the United States and Maine tops the list. Here is some more information on this ranking:

The index, which defines peace as “the absence of violence,” looks at a set of five indicators, including homicide rates, violent crimes, percentage of the population in jail, number of police officers and availability of small arms (per 100,000 people) to rank the states. The data are drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On that basis, the institute finds that peace in the USA improved by 8% from 1995 to 2009.

It notes a significant correlation between a state’s level of peace and its economic opportunity, education and health but finds peacefulness is politically neutral — neither Republican nor Democratic states have an advantage.

Maine was ranked first overall because it topped the list of states on three of the five USPI indicators: number of violent crimes, number of police officers and incarceration rate.

There is some interesting regional variation with the northeast generally being more peaceful and the south being less peaceful. I’m sure there are a number of commentators and sociologists who could comment on the these findings about the South.

But, like many such rankings (see a recent example here), I’m sure people would ask whether these measures actually get at the presence or absence of violence. The percentage of the population in jail could be related to violence but there are plenty of other ways to end up in jail. The number of police officers could be related to violence but it could also be linked to funding and perceptions about crime. In terms of the availability of small arms, does this necessarily lead to violence?

Using these measures seems linked to how this organization views peace. According to the full report (page 8 of the PDF), “The methodological framework was based on envisaging a society that is perfectly at peace; a society where there is no violence, no police and no one in jail.” Here is the explanation about using the measure of small arms (page 8 of the PDF): “Additionally, this logic also applies to small arms: “the USPI does not make judgments about appropriate levels of small arms in society but rather considers their prevalence a reflection of the need for self-defense and a potential to generate violence.”

I don’t study in this area so it is interesting to read about how some of these things can ever be measured. Regarding getting a measure of small arms availability (page 10 of the PDF):

Although the U.S. has excellent data for many statistics, there is no reliable data on small arms availability, small arms ownership, or small arms sales within the U.S. or within the states of the U.S. An accurate measure of gun prevalence cannot be calculated from administrative records alone. For this reason many studies on gun prevalence use a quantitative proxy. The proxy used in the USPI is: fi rearm suicides as a percentage of total suicides (FS/S). As this indicator varied significantly from year to year for some states, a five year moving average was used in order to smooth out the variance. For example, the fi gure used for Alabama for 2008 was an average of FS/S for 2003-2007. More detail on why this proxy was chosen is supplied in Appendix B to this report.

The availability of small arms also had the lowest weighting in the rankings.

Discussing acceptable risk and gun deaths

Posted on by

One of the larger issues brought to light by the Arizona shootings is whether Americans want to risk the possibility of such an event occurring in the future. One commentator considers the trade-offs that might exist in limiting the risk of gun violence:

RealClearPolitics analyzed the most recent United Nation’s data to better understand American violence. The assault rate in Scotland, England, Australia and Germany is more than twice the US-assault rate, at times far more. Yet the US-murder rate is at least four times the rate of these developed nations. America’s murder rate ranks 53 among 153 nations. No other developed nation ranks within the top half. The comparison between assault and murder rates is rough; an assault is not always reported or discovered. Both rates are, however, based on criminal justice sources from 2003 to 2008. And the comparison, for all its imperfections, captures an important fact: Americans are not exceptional for their violence but exceptional for their extreme violence–murder.

American violence has known far worse days. In 2008, the national homicide rate reached its lowest level since 1965. But there are still about 12,000 gun related murders annually. Guns are involved in two-thirds of American homicides. The US firearm-murder rate ranks among third-world countries. It’s about ten times the rate of Western European nations like Germany…

There is an unspoken willingness to tolerate our share of murders. American hyper-capitalism makes a similar tradeoff. We subscribe to social Darwinism to a degree unseen in Western Europe. It’s one reason our economy is the fittest. But it also explains why the wealthiest nation in the world has a weaker social safety net than other developed countries. The conservative equation of freedom: lower taxes and fewer regulations on guns, equals more freedom. Liberals adhere to their own zealous formulation of American freedom. The left has won more civil rights for the mentally ill, but those rights will sometimes risk the public’s welfare.

This is an interesting take on the situation. Whose rights should be protected? Are we willing to risk similar events occurring?

Considering the relative risks might also be helpful. Gun deaths, particularly like those lives taken in Arizona, seem particularly tragic and sudden. In comparison, over 33,000 Americans died in motor vehicle accidents in 2009. Which is the bigger priority: limiting gun deaths or motor vehicle accidents. These sorts of questions are quite difficult to answer and often don’t seem to be part of national conversations.

[Another note: can we really say that “our economy is the fittest”? One index recently named Hong Kong the world’s “freest economy.”]

[A final question: is it strange that this particular violence occurrence is getting so much attention when there are 12,000 gun deaths a year in the United States? I’m reminded of the talk in Chicago in recent years about whether the deaths in poorer neighborhoods were receiving the attention they should from police and politicians.]

Quick Review: NFL Unplugged

Posted on by

With the  NFL season winding down and games taking on more importance, NFL Unplugged: The Brutal, Brilliant World of Professional Football offered me some new insights into professional football. A few thoughts about this new book:

1. Anthony Gargano suggests much of the game depends on what happens in the trenches with the offensive and defensive lines. This is not a new thought – John Madden pointed this out for years – but it rarely comes out in broadcasts or video games where quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers get a lot of attention. These linemen have a hard job: for less respect than teammates, they beat each other up play after play.

1a. I wondered while reading this about how much Gargano’s perspective was shaped by the players he has talked with during the years. While he shared information from players of all positions, he seemed to have closer relationships with some of the players in the trenches.

1b. Gargano seems to like playing up this warrior perspective.

1c. This reminds me of the different color commentary one hears depending on whether the commentator was a quarterback or lineman. Linemen, in particular, seem to see the game in a completely different way and tend to emphasize blocking and who is “getting a push” at the line.

1d. Do many fans have a skewed perspective because of playing Madden football and controlling the guy with the ball (usually the quarterback)? In a video game, the player doesn’t get any sense of the physical nature of football – it essentially becomes a game of X’s and O’s and putting the ball in the right holes or hands. Some years ago, Madden included a blocking feature where the player could control a lineman or other blocker rather than the ball handler. Does anyone ever use this feature?

2. Players have to amp themselves up to even play. Many have nerves, to the point of throwing up repeatedly before the game, and most have to get themselves into a mental state where they would be willing to throw their body into other people for 60 minutes. Gargano describes this mental state as something like “the dark side” that many players try to reach.

3. Even with all of the money they players make, there is no doubt that it takes a toll on their bodies. In our world of white-collar, management, and technology jobs, football players stick out as celebrated workers who put their bodies on the line. One of the classic examples Gargano talks about repeatedly is what happens in the piles when the football has come loose. Most football plans have some clue of what goes on in the piles but Gargano talks about screaming and particularly dirty tactics.

4. Do football broadcasters and commentators have some sort of unwritten rule about not mentioning or talking about the physical nature of football? Many of the commentators tend to focus on the glamorous parts – the quarterback with the perfect throw, the receiver with a great catch, etc. But if so many broadcasters today have played football themselves, why don’t they offer more insights int this? Do they think viewers don’t want to hear this? Americans seem to like football because it is violent – but is there a limit to how much violence people actually want to hear about?

5. There was not a whole lot of insights into actual tactics or strategies during the game. More time is spent talking about the schedule of football players: what happens during the week and then what happens on game days.

Overall, an interesting book that mainly talks about players’ preparation and recovery. Many of the insights have been offered elsewhere but this book is quite vivid in offering a perspective that is often buried or downplayed.

Intellectuals and football: two objections and two points of defense

Posted on by

Hampton Stevens discusses the frequent dismissal of football by intellectuals (like those who believe “the game is a malevolent force in American life”) and how one might defend the game.

Stevens points out two common objections: the games don’t really matter compared to more important things and that it is violent. In response, Stevens argues that “Sports are a refuge from real-world problems—and a place to release all the angst they cause” and “Football tells us that violence can be beautiful when performed for the sake of a greater good.”

To me, all the four points, two from intellectuals, two from Stevens, sound reasonable. To be a real fan doesn’t mean that one can’t point out some of the issues with football. A dividing line for me would be when fandom moves beyond an occasional escape from the real world and becomes an obstacle to accomplishing important things in life. Similarly, football may be a good outlet for violence but going so far as to glorify this sort of behavior as the only true form of masculinity is shortsighted.

Chicago police and meeting with gangs

Posted on by

When the story came out last week that Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis had met with gang leaders to deliver a warning that the police would crack down if the violence continued, I wondered if there would be some backlash. Many people looking at this story might be incredulous: why didn’t the police just arrest the gang members? If they know who the people are who are responsible for the violence, why not crack down already? Why are the Chicago police negotiating with gangs?

Mayor Daley defended Weis today:

The mayor, who faces re-election in February, has been trying to address criticism about continued violence on city streets. One approach has been to send Weis out for more public appearances to talk about crime…

Today, Daley likened the idea to the negotiations between war combatants.

“It’s a good concept. You’ll sit down with anyone,” Daley said. “We’ll negotiate after the Second World War. We’ll negotiate with anyone to have peace. Even during the war. So you sit down with anyone. If you can save one life, if I can save your son’s life, you’d want me to sit down with them,” the mayor said.

While this may not convince people (just read the comments after the story), the story behind such negotiations is much more complicated. Sudhir Venkatesh’s research about poor Chicago neighborhoods reveals that the police and the gangs actually have a relationship. Gang members may be partaking in criminal activities but they are also active, powerful, and important actors in their community. It is not as simple as just going in and arresting everyone.

The TV show The Wire illustrates this gray area. In the series, the police are generally after the leaders of the gangs, the guys in charge. They could crack down on the small-time dealers or runners but others just pop into place. While the crack-downs may look good for the media (and outsiders looking in), it doesn’t solve the larger problems.

Both Venkatesh’s research and The Wire suggest the problems of these neighborhoods are deeper than the gang activity. There are persistent problems of poverty, a lack of jobs, a lack of opportunities, poor schools, broken infrastructure, and isolation from the outside world. How to solve these issues and the problems of gangs is difficult – and would require a much broader perspective than just counting the number of crimes, arrests, and meetings between the police and gangs.

Spies in suburbia: not unusual

Posted on by

The Russian spy ring recently caught in America was primarily based in suburbia. One New York Times writer argues that this is not that unusual:

We’ve seen this movie before, a variation on “Fun With Dick and Jane” or “Mr. & Mrs. Smith,” among others.

It’s fun, but as sociology, the story line set against the presumed seamless banality of suburban life gets ever flimsier. We seem to have had a computer chip implanted in our brain about the time of “Little Boxes,” the dopey and incredibly sanctimonious 1962 song about suburban conformity (“Little boxes made of ticky tacky … Little boxes all the same”) that helped define the suburbs. And it seems to persist even as its descriptive value trends toward zero. So at a time when more than half of Americans live in suburbs, what exactly does the suburban part of this tale tell us? Alas, not much.

The article contains more information about the growing diversity in suburbia including a smaller number of families living the “Ozzie and Harriet sort of life.” (Perhaps this phrase needs to be updated for the 21st century since “Ozzie and Harriet” is a little dated. How about the “Homer and Marge Simpson suburban life”?) If a majority of Americans live in suburbia, it is not unusual that a number of nefarious characters come out of suburbia.

What is not addressed in this article is a stereotype that suburbia leads people to such things as spying, violence, and breaking up their families to escape the dull and empty suburban lifestyle. In this case, the Russians came to suburbia to blend in and live a normal life.

Supreme Court decides on Chicago guns

Posted on by

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court has decided 5-4 against Chicago’s gun ban in McDonald v. Chicago. The Chicago Tribune notes that Chicago will soon consider new gun laws and that the decision seems to be motivated in part by current conditions in the city:

In the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court noted a recent call by two state legislators to deploy National Guard troops to quell the violence on Chicago’s streets.

“The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq,” the opinion stated.

“If (the) safety of . . . law abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.”…

Read the full decision here.

Alito’s argument (summed up briefly in the article above) is interesting: Chicago may have lost this case because the crime rate, particularly murder rate, remains high even with a gun ban. Chicago’s ban has not limited the number of guns in the hands of violent actors. If violent actors can get guns even with a ban, Alitio suggests local citizens should have the tools to be able to fight back, particularly citizens “whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.” This is a case about a law but this statement in particular is a Supreme opinion regarding the abilities of Chicago government.

UPDATE 11:13 PM 6/28/10: Some Chicago officials also read some of the decision as an attack on the performance of Chicago’s police and government. Read here.

UPDATE 7:08 AM 6/29/10:  Links to more coverage:  Chicago Sun-Times, National Law Journal, ABA Journal, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NRA press release…