Vanishing Violence
projects.sfchronicle.com
projects.sfchronicle.com
Some anecdotes:
I've personally been mugged at gunpoint in Oakland. I luckily managed to hold on to my cellphone and called 911 right away. The police showed up right away, but only cared to take a statement and left without going after the perpetrators, or even giving us a ride to somewhere safe.
The only other time I called 911 because a woman collapsed on the street in front of me. She was bleeding from the head and making a scary-looking pool of blood. It took 45min for an ambulance to show up, in downtown San Francisco, around noon on a weekend day (no traffic).
The authorities are entirely useless and unreliable.
It's almost as if the article is equating less crime being prosecuted as less crime existing. There's a big issue with that.
I feel like we need much tougher police that actually prevents and prosecutes all types of crime, including rampant petty theft, car break-ins, muggings, shootings (which are common), harassment by deranged drug-addicts all over the streets, etc. etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Killings-violent-c...
It's crazy how bad car break-ins are though. If you park outside overnight, it's not exactly surprising to wake up to a smashed window. Even if you don't have anything in the car to steal.
No, doing that would be silly. Criminologists look at both prosecuted crime, crime reported in victim surveys, number of arrests and incarcerations and a whole host of other metrics before drawing conclusions. The good news (which no one ever believes :)) is that they all point in the same direction. See this fact sheet f.e https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artw...
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/128-the-crime-machine-...
For instance, in San Francisco, car breakins have been reclassified as a misdemeanor. And obviously this is anecdotal, but residents are so blasé towards the complete fucking shitshow that is SFPD (I actually rewrote that into something much gentler) that they don't even bother calling the police or reporting crimes.
If it's gotten so bad that people don't even report crimes, and police make it difficult to report crimes (there are many stories about this - yes it's anecdotal), how can we expect the statistics to mean anything?
The only thing I know for certain is I've been assaulted by homeless people more than once, including one who pushed me into traffic. After the first few times calling the police and having nobody show up for 30+ minutes I just stopped bothering.
I've also seen someone rob a store while a cop was stationed at the entrance of the store for the sole purpose of stopping theft - the cop literally shrugged and said "what am I gonna do, chase after him?"
Obviously I'm biased based on my experiences and I'm referring to the microcosm that is SF, but I absolutely unequivocally do not trust anything that comes from the SFPD. And I see no reason to trust other police departments either.
For something a little less anecdotal, here's an interesting podcast that basically says once cops started tracking crime they just stopped reporting it. Goodhart's Law in action.
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/127-the-crime-machine-...
What you will see is broad agreements of the trends, often including fluctuation in shorter terms.
Your theory would thus require (a) some evidence that the police is now somehow hiding murders, or (b) that murders fell but other crimes (even attempted murder) were somehow exempt from the trend and the police in almost any jurisdiction managed to underreport all other crimes with almost perfect accuracy to reproduce the trend in murders.
The comparisons across jurisdictions is interesting by itself: falling levels of violent crimes have been observed across a broad swath across North America, Europe, and beyond. It's somewhat unlikely that all these unrelated police forces somehow simultaneously decided to and succeeded in embarking on a corrupt campaign to falsify statistics.
If anything, the prevailing winds should have led to more crime being reported. Something like rape or assault tend to be taken more seriously these days. In cases such as Spain, one would also expect today's statistics to be more accurate than they were in the 70s, when it still was a fascist dictatorship interested in projecting an image of stability and safety.
Actually it's been posited before that Japan reclassifies murders as suicides in order to skew the data, and some believe other countries are doing this as well. There is a correlation between countries with low murder rates and high suicide rates.
http://freakonomics.com/2009/10/29/fewer-murders-more-suicid...
In fact, the suicide rate in the US is the highest it's been in decades.
https://psmag.com/news/the-suicide-rate-is-at-its-highest-in...
I know at least one instance where there was a lot of controversy over the police ruling it a suicide and stopped the investigation there. Not everybody in the victim's family agreed but they decided not to challenge the police.
The first time I called 911 was when a man coming down from drugs tried to kick in my fire escape window. Four police were in my apartment within five minutes; they arrested and handcuffed the man. I couldn't have been more thankful.
My second interaction with the police occurred when I was punched in the face a couple of times while riding a Muni bus (San Francisco Mass Transit). The driver pulled the bus over while me & two other passengers held the guy until the police showed up (within minutes). Again, the police detained the gentleman who had punched me in the face.
Whenever I've needed the police, they've been there.
the police detained the gentleman
I know what you're driving at here and I would probably tend to agree, but man you should travel to some other parts of the country some time.
Even in other American cities known for crime, I feel safer than in SF, because at least those cities' crime is more contained to "bad neighborhoods" whereas in SF it's everywhere and extremely concentrated downtown.
Granted I haven't spent a ton of time in US flyover country… I hear St. Louis, Tulsa, Baltimore, etc. aren't too nice…
There are a lot of criminologists in the United States and they will all agree on that violent crime is much less than what it used to be, with some parts of the country (Colorado, for example...) bucking the trend. The idea that they would all have been fooled by manipulated data is absurd.
For example, yes it is possible that some police departments has a tendency to under-report crime. Criminologists aren't dumb and they know about such tendencies. So to counter that they measure crime rates using other statistics too.
One example is victim surveys in which they ask X number of people if they have been the victim of a crime. If the number of respondents answering yes decreases then it is plausible that the crime rate has decreased. Another is hospital surveys in which they ask hospitals how many patients they have treated for being punched in the face. If the hospitals report that fewer patients have been treated for getting punched in the face than before, then it is plausible that the number of people getting punched in the face has decreased.
Putting enough of these statistics together lets you conclude that, yes, violent crime definitely has decreased.
For a better explanation you have to ask a real criminologist, which I'm not.
https://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/california/san-f...
Pushing the police to be 'tougher' while the community is critical of their every move isn't going to happen. It also takes about 7 years until an SFPD officer makes the salary of an entry level Software Engineer in San Francisco. You get what you pay for.
The bigger problem is that these police officers can't afford to live in the city which they work. Think for a second, about how that might affect your desire to "clean up" crime. Who's neighborhood is it? Certainly isn't yours.
It's not that software engineers are payed too much, it's that it costs too much to live here.
One follows from the other, doesn't it...
>It's not that software engineers are payed too much, it's that it costs too much to live here.
It's simple, pay cops more and you'll attract better cops. No different than anything else. I made the comparison to software salaries because the risk involved with being a cop is much higher than a software engineer.
It’s infuriating though that laws exist but aren’t used so additional laws have to be introduced (sit-lie laws).
"Haight."
Fairness and justice do not require relinquishing all expectations of socially normative behavior. There are plenty of freedom utopias around the world where libertarians can live tax free and nonconformists can escape the bondage of community morals, but few of them are places people _choose_ to live.
No, I'd invest in helping them with the wealth in SF rather than criminalizing people for trying to survive. 60% of the city agreed by voting for Prop C.
That said help is different from ensuring they’re not disturbing the lives of the productive people (who they might rejoin one day).
Do you work with the homeless? I have a family memory who does, busing to and from 6th & Howard every day. Do you know what's actually going on out there? A neighbor's daughters lives on the streets, willingly. Every affordance is continually made available to her, but she's incapable of pulling herself away and there are no longer any forms of legal coercion available. Shooting up on the streets everyday and literally, physically wasting away is not only acceptable to the community but justified. Real, immediate human suffering is excused in the name of abstract, perverted principles and self-serving indignation.
The city spends more than $40,000/yr per homeless person, a sum that has been rapidly increasing for a decade. No city spends more money on the homeless than SF. The reality is that if you're actually homeless and living on the streets you can and will get permanent housing in a matter of months if not weeks, provided you're willing to make an effort at rehab.
The intransigence of street homelessness is at this point a deeply structural issue--medically, legally, politically. It has almost nothing to do with money. The affordability crisis is largely borne by those struggling to get by, sharing accommodations or living in vehicles--nominally functional citizens who aren't shooting up and defecating in the streets. Because providing services to the street homeless and housed addicts is priority #1, #2, and #3 at City Hall, everybody else is effectively locked out of housing assistance. And while more money could help these people (and hopefully will), you'd have to actively direct it away from existing street homeless programs. Without reforms that permit and demand the community to coerce treatment for mental illness and drug addiction, no amount of additional funds for street homelessness is going to substantially change things.
That's an absurd myth. The city spends about ~$3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day. Your story is based on incorrect data.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
I would imagine that would be a better argument than countering with a different number, since it would actually speak to the effectiveness of their budget. Or, show the budget to be not very effective, though I doubt that to be the case.
A very progressive city supervisor had had enough of it. That should tell you how bad it had become.
IMO, one reason why the drug epidemic has exploded in SF is because of the creation and centralization of so much homeless housing around the Civic Center and SOMA. Nothing is more certain to exacerbate addiction and drug use than to put drug users in close proximity. And anti-social behavior invites more anti-social behavior, particularly crime.
The Tenderloin always had it's share of problems, but the problem was primarily poverty, not extreme social dysfunction. Violence and property crime were relatively rare as compared to today. Drug use had been tolerated for decades, though the unwritten rule was that people had to make some effort to hide it, like shooting up in the alley. The erasure of this one very simple quid pro quo, the removal of any serious threat of consequences (i.e. the prospect of being forced into rehab if you invited arrest), and the dramatic increase and centralization of the addict population thanks to Mayor Newsom's and Mayor Lee's creation of over 10,000 units of permanent housing for the homeless, has created chaos.
Statistics are more valuable than the weight either of us put on our good/bad personal experiences.
Mixing up homelessness and adiction with serious violent crime in a single statement and saying both need to be dealt with by increasing policing is an very imprecise and inefficient way of addressing different issues.
That's how they ran Baltimore for a while. Great improvement in metrics make a good show even if the real situation is not good. Or go the other way: arrest more and more people for more and more trivial offenses. Number of arrests going up that way looks good but in reality it's useless.
Say what you will about Ed Norris, but he was an incredibly effective commissioner until he was removed from office.
Baltimore is in a class with about half a dozen other US cities for being an exceptional disaster. The entire city should be federalized and cleaned up top to bottom.
Compare it to functional or semi-functional, prosperous cities like Seattle, San Diego, Austin, New York, Boston or even Boise Idaho.
Seattle had 19 murders in 2016. Baltimore had 318, or 51 per 100k (with a slightly smaller population than Seattle). That's almost a warzone. It compares to cartel ravaged countries in Latin America. There's no excuse for it and nobody will do anything about it. There's only one possible solution given the extreme incompetence: the federal authorities must step in, take over the city and stop the slaughter no matter the financial expense.
EDIT: To clarify, "The Color of Law" and "The New Jim Crow" cover the ways that we have made sure that POC are primary police targets in the US. I further submit that we intentionally create lawless zones for POC to live in so that they can be harassed by police, and that the war on drugs was the perfect cover to do so. There is enough evidence of this that I don't think I need to go nuts explaining it.
Cities with similar demographics will have similar problems, because it has been designed to work that way.
I feel like we need much tougher police [...]
Maybe you would enjoy living in Singapore or some other more paternalistic and repressive society.
No, the article is about how arrests of juveniles have vastly declined, but state and county officials haven't adjusted juvenile facility availability (e.g. shutting underused facilities down), resulting in some counties paying as much as $500K/yr per juvenile detained, up from less than $200K.
As someone who has also been robbed at gunpoint, I empathize a bit with your experience. But it is so tangential to the actual topic of the article -- you suffering from a violent crime has very little to do with whether California is overspending on unneeded juvenile detention infrastructure.
What I take issue with articles making it seem like things are all rosy these days in California when I live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world which has an unbelievably rampant crime problem and woefully ineffective governance regarding this issue (and most other issues, really).
Also, I also take issue with the article alluding to the idea that a shift away from prosecuting crime is a good thing. I can see the problem with those policies in my city on a daily basis.
But at this point, I've given up on SF and I'm moving out. I've stuck it out here for too long and things aren't getting better, they're getting worse. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. So, so long…
Property crime might be a pain in the ass but I'll take it any day over the constant violence of where I came from.
Theoretically any crime is too much and some amount of crime is inevitable given human beings.
I mean, I was mugged twice, once beaten unconscious, saw someone murdered across the street from apartment, scared away someone who pulled out a gun and tried to mug me, and witnessed numerous other crimes in 90s San Francisco.
It's almost as if the article is equating less crime being prosecuted as less crime existing.
I'd believe statistic and neither your nor my anecdotes and statistics say violent crime is down everywhere. Statistics are taken from reports as well as prosecutions btw.
And police have never had more power than today but police very seldom directly stop crime, just prosecute it afterwards.
I remember in Boston, a couple guys walked out of a bar, one pointed at me, and after some quick talking, realized I had to either fight or flight, and they pursued me. They both looked pretty muscular, and I dont know why they targeted me.
I called the police, let them know I was running, and the operator told me "OK maybe we will send someone" and hung up.
Which is to say my anecdotal experiences agree with the statistics - violence has been on the decline in the US for a while. Remember, this is a country with a considerable "frontier history" where violence on all sides was common.
In SF, a group of youths stuffed their backpacks with things from Walgreens and ran off, but started walking about a block away because they knew the store owners wouldn't do anything about it, and because even if they got caught nothing would happen. I believe it's called Prop 47 that decriminalized theft under $1000 and these are now the unintended consequences.
It's seriously a joke here right now. The only reason protecting you against crime is just dumb luck. If you are a victim of crime, you will get no help from the cops or the government unless it's a "high profile" crime but you're probably already dead then.
> A 1994 study had indicated that the concentration of lead in the blood of the U.S. population had dropped 78% from 1976 to 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and...
I would wager the reasons for the increase in the late 60's is similar to the recent rise, and that it has nothing to do with lead.
There were WAY fewer cars back then. So, you need to look at emission per car*number of cars.
A lot of pollution problems peaked in the 1970's--that's the whole reason why a raft of environmental legislation was enacted at that point.
Unlikely that there's enough of this type of exposure to be a real factor. Even this study finds that it affects children living within 500m of a civilian airport and that the level of lead detected was "not especially large."
There may be an argument for phasing out leaded avgas, as no amount of lead exposure is good, but it's not likely to have an impact on overall violence in an area, even assuming that lead has anything to do with that in the first place.
"It’s important to emphasize that the lead-crime hypothesis doesn’t claim that lead is solely responsible for crime. It primarily explains only one thing: the huge rise in crime of the 70s and 80s and the equally huge—and completely unexpected—decline in crime of the 90s and aughts."
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le...
While there will always be smash and grabs and the like, I think smart criminals have realized there are steep penalties for muggings, the response time is much lower than it was previously, and even if you succeed you won't get much out of it since the CCs will soon be cancelled, the phone is IMEI locked, and the wallet only has a twenty.
I know in SF a lot of people have stopped reporting petty crimes since the cops don’t care or do anything about it.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artw...
Reporting rates haven't changed a whole lot according to that. So yes, crime on the whole has decreased nationally since the early 90's.
One of the causes pointed out by criminologists is the decrease in alcohol consumption. Among the general population it has decreased slightly, but enormously among youths. For example, the average alcohol consumption in liters per year for 16 year old boys has decreased from 7.4 l in 2004 to 3.0 l in 2018.
When young males aren't drinking there are much fewer incidents of unnecessary violence. Less of these "misunderstandings" in nightclubs and pubs that always caused fights in the decades prior. RE: Clearly, people high on cannabis doesn't get nearly as violent as some people get when they are drunk. However, the Swedish statistics doesn't indicate that young people are switching from alcohol to cannabis. Cannabis use remains fairly low as it has always been. The kids are just partying less it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden#/media/File:Nu...
And if you go back earlier than the 90s, crime looks like it has broadly gotten much worse:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Sweden-c...
Second, Wikipedia is an incredibly unreliable source for anything controversial and since the Orange Man decided make an example of the country ("Last night in Sweden..."), it's crime statistics became incredibly controversial!
It is correct that the number of reported crimes has increased, which is not the same thing as an increase in the actual crime rate. If we instead look at homicide and manslaughter (dödligt våld) per 100 000 inhabitants, it paints a different picture:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/comments/5lr3u6/mord_per_cap...
Note that the y-axis begins at 0.5 so it looks like the increase and decrease was larger than it was.
We can also look at victim surveys. The number of people who claims to have been the victim of violent crime:
https://www.bra.se/images/18.221265bc145ae05f27a1831/1400769...
Blue line is for young people 16+, purple line for the adult population (16-79) and green line also for the adult population (16-84). In reality, violent crime has decreased much more than what those graphs indicates. The reason is that the threshold for what constitutes violent "crime" has lowered. For example, 30 years ago someone who "lost a streetfight" likely wouldn't have considered himself a victim, nor would a woman who was slapped by her husband. But today they would because attitudes change. Therefore, counter-intuitively, the number of crime reports increases as crime decreases.
Well, I think I found a possible explanation. Domestic violence has always been shameful, but it only became unacceptable with the rise of second-wave feminism. The first generation of kids raised under the new rules hit adolescence in... you guessed it, the late '90s. Unlike other trends, this one was transnational.
[1] https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/yo...
In short:
Burglary: Entering a building intending to commit a crime.
Robbery: Stealing/attempting to steal from someone by force (or threatening force).
Theft: The actual stealing of stuff.
I will also add that I rarely report crime. This is somewhat learned helplessness as I do not expect any results. For example, calling Oakland's non-emergency number has resulted in me eventually giving up after getting nothing but a busy signal over and over. I was attacked by one of San Francisco's street addicts, but as I did not suffer any serious injuries, I did not waste my time reporting it. (I regret this on principle as surely that person has attacked others and will continue to do so.) I also do not report the obvious dealers hanging out on corners by our offices because I know from following the local (Tenderloin) police force's Twitter account that even if they make the arrest, the dealer will be released within weeks (possibly hours or days; not sure) back onto the streets. It is common for them to arrest the same dealers three times in two-month periods. (And no, they aren’t pot dealers; they are arrested with meth, crack, heroin, and other hard drugs ready for sale.)
I have always though video game especially violent ones were an outlet for aggression and could actually curbs those tendencies, not make them worse, it sure seemed like that way for me growing up, playing Doom and Carmageddon later Battlefield and GTA. Time line matches up pretty well with violent crime decline.
I doubt I would have made it this far down my current road had I never taken that initial jump from purely in my mind to consuming smoking fetish media. In other words, I think the smoking fetish media helped me take a harmless fantasy and turn it a ruinous reality. I wonder if the same could happen for other people with other (not even necessarily sexual) fantasies.
https://slate.com/culture/2006/10/proof-that-internet-porn-p...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601...
I think the chain stops at the point where you started dating smokers, and you should think of this as a success! (Depending on whether the relationships themselves are ruinous or successful on the whole.)
I remember how I used to get anxious or annoyed or bored waiting for the train or waiting for the ATM or in line at the grocery store.
Now I just pull out my phone and drone out on Instagram.
Outrage mobbing might well be an application of this metaphorical "opiate" for a large minority of the public.
I do think video games might have an impact though, but only as a distraction. They are so compelling that other activities are crowded out, including bad ones.
Yes, it's the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis all over again.
However, I do strongly believe that video games reduce violence, but only for the same reason that smart phones and the internet do: less socializing, less physical exercise, less kids hanging around bored and looking for trouble.
This effect was known from the beginning of the traditional prison system. Here is the quote from "Discipline and Punish" by Michel Foucault: ``. And, just as the project of a corrective technique accompanied the principle of punitive detention, the critique of the prison and its methods appeared very early on, in those same years 1820-45; indeed, it was embodied in a number of formulation which - figures apart - are today repeated almost unchanged: ...
- Detention causes recidivism; those leaving prison have more chance than before of going back to itl convicts are, in a very high proportion, former inmates 38 per cent of those who left the maisons centrales were convicted again and 33 per cent of those sent to con-vict-ships (a figure given by G. de Rochefoucauld during the debate on the reform of the penal code, 2 December 1831 Archives parle-mentaires, LXXII, 209-10); between 1828 and 1834, out of almost 30,000 convicted of crime, about 7,400 were recidivists (that is,1 out of 4.7 of those convicted); out of over 200,000 correctionels, or petty offenders, almost 35,000 were also recidivists (1 out of 6);in all, one recidivist out of 5.8 of those convicted (Ducpdtiaux, 1837,276ff);in 1831, out of 2,174 of those condemned for recidivism, 350 had been in convict-ships, 1,682 in maisons cenffales, 142 in four maisons de correction that followed the same regime as the centrales (Ducp6tiaux, 1837, 276ff). And the diagnosis became even more severe during the July monarchy: in 1835, out of 7,223 convicted criminals, 1,486 were recidivists; in 1839, 1749 out of 7,858 ''
Keep in mind, "Discipline and Punish" was published in 1975 which is whooping 44 years ago.
P.S sorry for typos, scanned version of the book is not very good quality
Do you know what a "fact" is? Because this isn't one.
* Testosterone is proportional to lean mass and inversely proportional to fat mass.
* Cholesterol is a precursor to testosterone, so gen x being raised with the "eggs are bad" mentality lowered testosterone.
* Sugar and carbs cause body fat increase, not fat/saturated fat/cholesterol.
* High weight, low reps like the 5x5 workout seem to raise testosterone and strength better than 3x8-12, but power lifting fell out of fashion in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s due to injury concerns which were unjustified. Luckily, this is reversing due to the instruction available on YouTube.
* Lower and misallocated funding for public education has resulted in poor school lunch programs and no money available for extracurricular activities like strength training during adolescence when testosterone is highest.
* Phytoestrogens in factory farm foods like soy antagonize testosterone in boys and cause early puberty in girls.
* Our economy moved from industry to information, so gen x and millennials are far more sedentary than baby boomers and previous generations. I'll let other commenters expand on that!
Also, chemicals in plastic like Bisphenol A (BPA) mimic estrogen, and that's probably most responsible.
* Your body creates cholesterol, dietary cholesterol hasn't been shown to increase hormone production AFAIK, might want to link some studies if you can find them
* Calories increase body fat, no particular macronutrient has been shown to be disproportionatelly fattening. The insulin hypothesis is mostly incorrect.
* Different workouts produce different hormone reactions in different individuals. Even so, the effect is transient and unluckily to modify average testosterone levels
* Phytoestrogens in normal dietary amounts likely have minimal effects on testosterone
My personal hypothesis is that the environmental load of various endocrine disruptors from plastics, pharmaceuticals, hygiene products, clothes, etc, has increased dramatically.
I think "calories increase body fat" is a correct, but a very low resolution statement. One can say that it will rain in the summer sometimes when there is more water in the air than the air can hold. But what else affects it? Can you say that today the chance of rain is 20% and tomorrow it is 40%?
This is happening all across the country.
I still don’t see anything as compelling as the elemental lead hypothesis that Kevin Drum has been pushing for the last couple of years.
In the US, the sharp reduction in crime happened 18-24 years after the legalization of Roe v. Wade. Unwanted children who would have been juvenile delinquents were simply never born. This would fit in nicely with the claims other commenters have made about some places that have had an increase in sexually violent crimes, since again, the children who would have been products of those encounters are never born, so the overall trend is still a decrease in violent crime.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...
I.e. declines did not start in same year in every country. They almost entirely began 18-30 years after phase-out of leaded gasoline.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html#/?...
"Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children... states that had abortion legalized earlier should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade."
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...
But maybe it's also the availability of recreational drugs from online dark markets. That'd be quite the trip, no?
When no arrest is made, the crime is not counted as committed by a juvenile.
Also I wonder if widespread use of marijuana and magic mushrooms in the relatively prosperous late 90s would have led to a drop in violence, like what happened during the free love era of the late 60s.
Of course, coming from the Napoleon Dynamite region of southern Idaho, I could very well have no idea what I'm talking about.
Don't be so hard on yourself, in the grand scheme of things, none of us do :)
Edit: Except that all of the images are extremely low resolution. Maybe an archiving artifact?
> 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
> Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
:(
Since it's not a paywall, the good old Internet Archive works flawlessly.
EU chose the latter at the expense of the former.
- Is GDPR crating a new hurdle for websites around the globe? YES
- Will every website follow GDPR? NO
- Is GDPR creating privacy value for the user? I am not sure
Thus, it’s a classical trade-off decision. So far I’m not seeing the benefits. The downside is very clearly demonstrated in the above example.
> 451 Unavailable for [Presumably GDPR]
Also Website:
> Here, have some google analytics scripts and cookies, because we still care who you are.
> Serious youth crime has fallen off drastically since the 1990s, leaving juvenile halls emptied. So why is California still spending so much?
I wonder if that could have anything to do with it? As youth see more and more people who look like them find success, maybe they're less inclined to turn to a career in crime?
(Pure speculation here. I'm not from the area.)