The cause of the rise of crimes in US cities in years past(and elsewhere): Lead

[Xelebes]

Mother Jones: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

. . .

So we're back to square one. More prisons might help control crime, more cops might help, and better policing might help. But the evidence is thin for any of these as the main cause. What are we missing?

Experts often suggest that crime resembles an epidemic. But what kind? Karl Smith, a professor of public economics and government at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, has a good rule of thumb for categorizing epidemics: If it spreads along lines of communication, he says, the cause is information. Think Bieber Fever. If it travels along major transportation routes, the cause is microbial. Think influenza. If it spreads out like a fan, the cause is an insect. Think malaria. But if it's everywhere, all at once—as both the rise of crime in the '60s and '70s and the fall of crime in the '90s seemed to be—the cause is a molecule.

A molecule? That sounds crazy. What molecule could be responsible for a steep and sudden decline in violent crime?

Well, here's one possibility: Pb(CH2CH3)4.

. . .

[MolsonExport]

plumbum?

[Xelebes]

Plumbum-quatrethylus

[dc_denizen]

Very far-fetched. Presumably Canadian cities had similar lead levels to US cities, but experienced far less crime, invalidating this guy's argument.

It's amazing the lengths that left wing social scientists will go to concoct ridiculous explanations for crime that sidestep demographic discussions.

[suburbanite]

The article states that the correlation was shown in Canadian and Western European countries as well, but doesn't describe the magnitude in any of the regions.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Very far-fetched. Presumably Canadian cities had similar lead levels to US cities, but experienced far less crime, invalidating this guy's argument.

It's amazing the lengths that left wing social scientists will go to concoct ridiculous explanations for crime that sidestep demographic discussions.

It seems fairly compelling. Childhood exposure to lead retards mental development and produces people who are less suited to learning and achievement. Without the mental capacity to succeed in the traditional way, some members of this very large group turn to violent crime.

Of course, it doesn't explain people like my dad, who grew up in working-class 1960s Chicago and went on to attend a prestigious university and earn a well-paying job. But my dad had a lot of things in his favor: a strong community, parents that placed a high value on learning, and a strict Catholic education. Sociological stuff.

[jd3189]

I got a better hypothesis. Maybe crime is high in the US because crime has always been high in the US. Although it may sound vague, that statement in itself holds on to itself many aspects,statistics, and other crap that I could state if one wants to know. There are many sides, many viewpoints on this issue. It don't simply come down to a few causes that can easily be eradicated. Until foreigners can understand this, and I'm not saying that all of them are ignorant to the conditions that exist within America, they will constantly believe that somehow what works for them will work for anyone no matter what. I wish that can be true, but alas, there are a wide array of realities that exist on this planet and we must acknowledge them.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I got a better hypothesis. Maybe crime is high in the US because crime has always been high in the US.

Crime wasn't always high in the U.S.

Have you seen big-city homicide statsitics from 1950? We had lower murder rates than European cities.

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

The article states that the correlation was shown in Canadian and Western European countries as well, but doesn't describe the magnitude in any of the regions.

This makes me think that if lead exposure is a factor, it's a small one. Surely it doesn't help, but I'm not ready to close the book and declare it the full cause like the author.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Of course, it doesn't explain people like my dad...

But you know the difference between an observed trend and an individual narrative, right?

Originally Posted by jd3189

I got a better hypothesis. Maybe crime is high in the US because crime has always been high in the US.

Look at the graphs that accompany the article. Crime in the US skyrocketed in the late 1960's. It was quite low before that.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Crime wasn't always high in the U.S.

Have you seen big-city homicide statsitics from 1950? We had lower murder rates than European cities.

Exactly. And this also invalidates the "blame the black people" argument. The high crime rates starting in the 60s were a result of societal breakdown in the cities coupled with easy access to increasingly deadly firearms (no Bushmaster assault rifles among the general public 50 years ago).

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Crime wasn't always high in the U.S.

Have you seen big-city homicide statsitics from 1950? We had lower murder rates than European cities.

I understand that. However the reasons why it it high now still leads to several factors that exist and are supported by aspects of this country today. I'm also guessing that by 1960 onward, a social change started to erupt and one of its many effects was a rise in gun violence. After all, 1950 America would not be very appealing to many today, especially to our fellow forumers,regardless if violence was at it's lowest.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Exactly. And this also invalidates the "blame the black people" argument. The high crime rates starting in the 60s were a result of societal breakdown in the cities coupled with easy access to increasingly deadly firearms (no Bushmaster assault rifles among the general public 50 years ago).

The facts: 50 years ago white and black people had similar crime rates. Then, societal breakdown happened across all ethnic groups. Firearms became more generally available to all ethnic groups. Aggregate homicide rates in the US are now higher than Canada or Europe, which articles like this purport to try to explain. Yet African american and hispanic men have vastly higher propensities for homicide than other american men. Reducing the American homicide rate should be most focused on addressing the higher homicide rate in the african american community.

The higher black homicide rate could be due to:

* the monopolization of drug distribution in the US by african americans
* economic racism in the 1970s eliminating blue collar jobs where african americans live, with the process completed by globalization in the 2000s; destruction of black family structures as a result of economic upheaval
* greater innate propensity for african american men to settle disputes violently than other groups (not saying this is the case, but social scientists should not shy away from any potential cause when analyzing an issue)
* failure of most of black population to diversify out of largely blue collar employment
* failure of government to adequately police black neighborhoods
* rioting and de-segregation leading to destruction of segregated black business class and their wealth and income
* community leadership with strong hostility to working within the capitalist system
* Vicious cycles of the above

Lead, more abortions, or the other kooky explanations that ppl have come up with for crime are not convincing. Usually, the originator of these ideas is some hip, young, lefty (and usually white) economist or other social scientist...you know the type.

Potential solutions that come to mind include drug legalization, de-globalization and manufacturing re-shoring, increased government police presence in troublesome neighborhood, more extensive early day care, affirmative action, etc.

[jd3189]

^^^ I can agree with that, and because of my background, I have witness that very closely.

[Xelebes]

The difference between the US and Canada can be explain by those factors, however the coincidence of the rise and the subsequent fall with the rise and fall of heavy metals in the urban environment. For example, the monopolisation of the drug trade by the African-American community is remaining the same, the broken communities still prevail and so forth but violent crimes are trending down across the world and in American cities.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Then, societal breakdown happened

What does this even mean? Societal breakdown is a symptom, not a cause. You mention racial and economic factors, but racial and economic strife in cities is not purely a 20th-century phenomenon, so why did similar crime rates not pop up. Within cities, the Irish and Poles were discriminated against in a similar fashion prior to the Great Migration. More compellingly, the Great Migration was a largely peaceful process, and black communities in cities lived with far less violent crime than the 70s or 80s (or today).

Muggers, pickpockets and thugs -economically motivated criminals - have been around as long as people have lived in cities. But we didn't see the revenge killings and obsession with posturing that characterizes urban criminals today.

[jd3189]

^^^ To take a guess, many ideas by the 1960s and 1970s started to affect the way the majority of Americans thought and lived. The civil rights movement, feminist movement, sexual movement, distrust of national government, and many others started to reappear on the national stage again,largely powered by leaders like MLK,Gloria Steinem,etc and major Supreme Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v Wade. Opposition started to arise against those radical ideas at the time and the war between them started another social upheaval in American society since the Civil War. The current state of the US right now is a result of the constant battle between ideas that have made this country the way it is since 1776 to now. These conditions have always existed, but in recent history, crap started to really arise. American society is continuing to be polarized by the unneeded war between conservative and liberal values which should be moderately working together and progressing together.

With that, I'm taking a gander on one reason why gun violence has risen regardless of the lack of gun bans. What has happened with Sandy Hooks, Aurora, and other shootings covered by the news media barely even make a small chunk of the kinds of shootings and deaths that happen in this country every day. It is mostly basic crap similar to the Trayvon Martin case almost a year ago. It has come down to fear itself. Fear is why Trayvon was shot. Fear is the reason why the NRA is able to influence Americans to call for more guns in school. Fear was the reason why white flight occurred and blacks had to deal with subpar living conditions in the city. Fear is what led many black youths to gangs because they were taught at a young age that they could never amount to anything better and decided to take on a violence lifestyle. Fear inspires hate and bigotry. It's the reason why more Americans than Canadians, Europeans, and East Asians seem to carry guns everywhere and they are completely paranoid. Fear of change is what caused the opposition against many of the great movements of the early second half of the 20th century. The radical right-wing owes much of its existence and support to fear. In essence, it all comes down to fear,of lack of comfort, when you try to change things for the better and others don't agree with your changes. Just think about it.

[Centropolis]

crack and fear werent good. fear begets all kinds of old testament bullshit. it's as bad as crack, except you can't hide or control fear as well. fear makes deadmen.

very good jd.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Crime wasn't always high in the U.S.

Have you seen big-city homicide statsitics from 1950? We had lower murder rates than European cities.

I hate to beat this drum again but what started in the 1950's? Auto-centric suburbanization and mass consumerism that led to the decline of population and social order in our older urban cities. In the 1950's itself it was not out of control yet but that is when the seeds were planted. The desolation of paleourbanism is what is responsible for many of our social ills including murder rates. It spurred the negative aspects of globalzation and manifested itself in many of the ills that have existed for decades in the inner city ghettos. What does Western Europe and Canada to an extent have more of? Paleourbanism. New York City is the only older urban city that has a higher population and population density today than it did in 1950, and it's murder rates are now at or near 1950's levels, it is the only city that has truly embraced paleourbanism to any large degree, it was in decline at the precise time that flirtation with anti-paleo-urbanist ideals manifested itself in the 1970's. Chicago was a very segregated city in 1950 but at least those separated communities had their own thriving residential and business communities based on paleourbanism. The sprawl mentality convinced people that it was better to simply totally abandon the built environment of our ancestors than adapt and embrace racial diversity. Racism always existed but the real problem is the ideology of auto-centric mass consumerism itself, that is the true sith master here, racism was just one of many puppets in the grand plan to turn people into consumerist conformist drones. Is free parking and buying cheap junk at Wal-Mart so fucking orgasmic that it was worth us losing so much that made our country great?

[J. Will]

Lead? Sounds a little far-fetched to me.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by J. Will

Lead? Sounds a little far-fetched to me.

Well more specifically, heavy metal pollution. Mercury, lead and such were discovered to be toxic in trace amounts in the 50s and 60s.