Is it all about lead?
I don't know if you have seen but Mother Jones just released an article that correlates the rise and fall in crime in the U.S. to the rise and fall of exposure to lead. The article is well written and well researched, but I encourage people to read and think critically and understand that while lead may be a contributing factor to crime it is hardly the sole cause. I have spent my professional and educational career studying criminology and while I whole heartily agree the criminological community is not always open to ideas outside their realm of sociological thought, I don't necessarily think that it gives the author of this article the pass to write off decades of criminological research and theory.
First, I will say the author does an excellent job of matching up lead exposure trend lines to that of violent crime in the U.S. - and it is incredible how similar they are - it definitely had me thinking. However, I will note that the author only talks about violent crime, not property crime - the other major reported and statistically cited category of crime. Now, property crime although it has had much higher levels and rates - has followed a very similar pattern in rise and fall as violent crime. So, I just find it curious that throughout this article the connection between lead has been only to violent crime. It has me wondering why - is it because the side effects of lead often relate to lower IQ, developmental delays, decrease in impulse control and increased aggression? Now the author doesn't directly connect lower IQ to violent crime, but he gets pretty close, which again - I encourage the reader to look at with caution. Because to my knowledge there is no conclusive evidence that a lower IQ increases one's likelihood to commit a violent crime.
But again, all of these connections has me wondering what about property crime? What about crime that is not driven on impulse or pure aggression, but is more deliberate and methodical in nature - how are those trends explained by lead. Frankly, I don't think that they easily are...nor, do I think lead alone is an explanation for the consistent decline in crime over the past 20 years. I think that yes, lead exposure has played a part and I believe you will be seeing more recognition of this over time from both the public health and criminological communities, but I also urge everyone to look at some of the work that criminologists have done over the past 50 years - the connections between socioeconomic status, race, gender and the role institutions and policymakers have played in shaping our laws and criminal justice system - all of these things have impacted not only crime trends, but also how we have responded to crime.
Because while crime has been on the decline since 1992, it wasn't until 2010 that we saw the first decline in the prison population since 1972. And mind you that decline was only seen at the state prison population level, that year the federal prison population had an increase. And while we have continued to see crime on the decline we continually invest more money into police, courts and corrections - even in times of economic recession. So, while I congratulate the author and Mother Jones of writing such an informative and thought provoking piece, I encourage all of you think critically about our criminal justice system and our laws - because most of the people serving time in prison are not there for violent crimes, in fact a lot of them are their for drugs - and I am not talking about leading drug cartels - I am talking about possession and use of illegal substances. Even though it is now 2013 and we have seen some progress in relation to the legalization of marijuana, here in the U.S. policymakers still choose to use the criminal justice system to deal with a public health issue. So, take some time and learn a little bit more about the criminal justice system - it is not as just as you might think.
If you want to learn more about our criminal justice system, incarceration and how investments in other social services can help reduce justice system involvement check out www.justicepolicy.org - or if you are curious about my experience and what I actually do for work here are some of my latest publications:
Moving Toward a Public Safety Paradigm
Gaming the System
The Education of D.C.
Rethinking the Blues
First, I will say the author does an excellent job of matching up lead exposure trend lines to that of violent crime in the U.S. - and it is incredible how similar they are - it definitely had me thinking. However, I will note that the author only talks about violent crime, not property crime - the other major reported and statistically cited category of crime. Now, property crime although it has had much higher levels and rates - has followed a very similar pattern in rise and fall as violent crime. So, I just find it curious that throughout this article the connection between lead has been only to violent crime. It has me wondering why - is it because the side effects of lead often relate to lower IQ, developmental delays, decrease in impulse control and increased aggression? Now the author doesn't directly connect lower IQ to violent crime, but he gets pretty close, which again - I encourage the reader to look at with caution. Because to my knowledge there is no conclusive evidence that a lower IQ increases one's likelihood to commit a violent crime.
But again, all of these connections has me wondering what about property crime? What about crime that is not driven on impulse or pure aggression, but is more deliberate and methodical in nature - how are those trends explained by lead. Frankly, I don't think that they easily are...nor, do I think lead alone is an explanation for the consistent decline in crime over the past 20 years. I think that yes, lead exposure has played a part and I believe you will be seeing more recognition of this over time from both the public health and criminological communities, but I also urge everyone to look at some of the work that criminologists have done over the past 50 years - the connections between socioeconomic status, race, gender and the role institutions and policymakers have played in shaping our laws and criminal justice system - all of these things have impacted not only crime trends, but also how we have responded to crime.
Because while crime has been on the decline since 1992, it wasn't until 2010 that we saw the first decline in the prison population since 1972. And mind you that decline was only seen at the state prison population level, that year the federal prison population had an increase. And while we have continued to see crime on the decline we continually invest more money into police, courts and corrections - even in times of economic recession. So, while I congratulate the author and Mother Jones of writing such an informative and thought provoking piece, I encourage all of you think critically about our criminal justice system and our laws - because most of the people serving time in prison are not there for violent crimes, in fact a lot of them are their for drugs - and I am not talking about leading drug cartels - I am talking about possession and use of illegal substances. Even though it is now 2013 and we have seen some progress in relation to the legalization of marijuana, here in the U.S. policymakers still choose to use the criminal justice system to deal with a public health issue. So, take some time and learn a little bit more about the criminal justice system - it is not as just as you might think.
If you want to learn more about our criminal justice system, incarceration and how investments in other social services can help reduce justice system involvement check out www.justicepolicy.org - or if you are curious about my experience and what I actually do for work here are some of my latest publications:
Moving Toward a Public Safety Paradigm
Gaming the System
The Education of D.C.
Rethinking the Blues