Freakonomics: What Attributed to the Sharp Drop In Crime?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Summary
Problem Definition
Relevant Information
Interpreting
Conclusions
Works Cited

Summary

In the early 1990’s, America crime rate was extremely high and most criminologists predicted that this trend would continue in the coming years. However, there was a sharp drop in all categories of crime and this turnaround astounded most experts (Levitt and Dubner 4). These experts formulated some rational theories that justified the drop in the rate of crime. Some factors such as the soaring 1990 economy, an increase in gun control laws and superior police strategies were attributed to the sharp drop in crime.

This article focuses on these reasons that were thought to have led to reduction of the rising crime rates experienced in United States in the 1990s and refutes the claims flaunted by the theorists (Levitt and Dubner 2). However, the article brings out another aspect on how legalizing abortion in most states within United States might have contributed to the reduction of crime in the 1990s.

Problem Definition

The problem identified by the author is why the crime rate dropped drastically in 1990 yet all the experts predicted it would continue rising. The author looks into the theoretical explanations given by experts on what would have caused this sharp reduction in crime in the United States and brings out the weaknesses in these theories. The chapter is named, “Where have all criminals gone”, leaving it open for discussion on all explanations to where criminals disappeared to in 1990 (Levitt and Dubner 118).

The author introduces the chapter by narrating how Nicolae Ceausescu banned abortion in Romania after taking over power in 1966 since he aimed at strengthening the country by boosting its population. His dreams were realized since the birthrate doubled one year after banning abortion in Romania. However, many of the children born did not get all the basic needs since such privileges were only reserved for the communist elite or Ceausescu family.

These children led a miserable life and formed the large block of students and teenagers who demonstrated against Ceausescu oppressive rule in 1989. The dictator was eventually ousted in 1989 and executed by a firing squad (Levitt and Dubner 118). By narrating this story, the author brings out the argument how banning abortion in most American states just like Romania, contributed to the birth of unwanted children, who most of the times ended up committing crimes.

Relevant Information

In trying to explain the sudden drop of crime rate in the early 1990, the author looks at the eight explanations given by citations from published articles in ten leading circulation papers found in the LexisNexis database from 1991 to 2001. From the data base, innovative policing strategies were associated to have contributed greatly to crime reduction with 52 citations.

It was followed by increased dependence on prisons with 47 citations, while a change in the crack as well as other drug markets was cited by 33 articles. The fourth explanation that is deemed to have contributed to the reduction in crime rate is the aging population as cited by 32 articles. Tougher gun laws cited by 32 articles came in 5^th, while a strong economy leading to a reduction in unemployment was ranked number six as cited by 28 articles.

An increase in number of police was ranked 7^th ,whereas other explanations such as gun buybacks and increased utilization of capital punishment was rated 8^th according to citations by 34 articles (Levitt and Dubner 121). Although these explanations were logical, the author argues that the expert’s opinions were inconclusive since all these factors only led to a slight decrease in crime, unlike what was experienced in the 1990s.

Interpreting

The author logically evaluates each explanation that is thought to have contributed to the reduction of crime using statistics to control and identify biases. For example, the first reason given for the reduction of crime is a strong economy in 1990 since it led to a significant decrease in unemployment as more opportunities were created by the thriving economy, offering the youth a chance to earn an honest living instead of engaging in criminal activities for financial gain.

However, the author refutes this claim because according to various studies, crime rate drops at the same percentage as the percentage decline in unemployment. For example, if unemployment drops by 2 percent, then non-violent crime is expected to drop with the same percentage. This is not the case in 1990’s since unemployment decreased by 2 percent but non- violent crime reduced by about 40 percent (Levitt and Dubner 121).

The second reason thought to have contributed to the reduction of crime is the increased dependence on prisons since, unlike in the 1960s, the early 1990s were characterized with higher conviction rates and longer sentences for violent crimes. The author argues that although prisons are expensive to maintain and hardly addresses the root cause of crime, imprisonment did lead to a decrease in crime rate albeit by a third (Levitt and Dubner 122).

The author arranges the solutions differently from the experts since he talks about the role of each factor from an economical point of view. He starts with the strong economy, then increased reliance on prisons, increased use of capital punishment among others and puts aging population as the last explanation. The author looks extensively at each factor and uses viable statistics to support and discredit some of the views presented by the experts.

Conclusions

After a critical analysis of the experts’ opinion, the author concludes that none of them statistically justifies the sharp reduction of crime in 1990s. The author seeks a different explanation and attributes this sharp decrease in crime to legalization of abortion in America. In 1900, abortion was illegal in the United States thus poor women could hardly access it since it was expensive and risky. Most states legalized abortion after the Supreme Court historic ruling in the case of Roe versus Wade in 1973 (Levitt and Dubner 138).

The ruling gave women a chance to decide whether to keep the baby or not. The author argues that by doing so, poor women or those in bad marriages or on drugs could afford an abortion in a safe environment, instead of giving birth to unwanted children who most likely would grow up to become criminals.

After the ruling, 750,000 women procured an abortion that year and by 1980, the figure had reached 1.6 million. The author argues that the reduction in crime in 1990 was because the cohort born after the ruling was in their late teens, which was considered as the criminal prime for young men, but the unwanted ones who would have become criminals were eliminated by the mothers through legalized abortion.

The author supports this claim by showing that crime data from those states that had legalized crime prior to the ruling such as New York, Hawaii indicates a sharp fall in violent crimes. These states experienced a 13 percentage decline in violent crime between 1988 and 1994 as compared to other states (Levitt and Dubner 140).

Through these statistics, the author is able to support his arguments that indeed legalization of abortion eliminated the unwanted babies who would have been born to single parents and had the highest probability of turning into criminals.

Works Cited

Levitt, Steven & Dubner, Stephen. Freakonomics. New York: William Morrow, 2005.

Click Here To Order Now!