Monday, May 31, 2004
In Memory of
Few speeches provide a more fitting tribute to Memorial Day than this one:
The Gettysburg Address
Published May 31, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: On Nov. 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln delivered the following speech at the Dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg. We reprint it in observance of Memorial Day.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Why is crime in the US worse than in other Western countries? Or is it?
This is what results from my taking an intro to Criminal Justice. When given a chance to answer why crime is worse in the US than in other Western countries, I just about lost it. Well, who wouldn't defend the good ole US of A over Memorial weekend?
Q: What are some of the reasons that crime rates are much higher in the United States than in most other Western nations?
A: Some typical descriptions of US crime can be found in the chapter and other sources, like this quote from the Scientific American:
“Most Western countries have put more people behind bars in recent years, but in none has the incarceration rate risen more than in the U.S. The cause of the extraordinary American figure is not higher levels of crime, for the crime rate in the U.S. is about the same as in Western Europe (except for the rate of homicide, which is two to eight times greater, mostly because of the ready availability of guns).
…the length of sentences, already severe by western European standards, became even more punitive…
…In their twenties, most whites give up violence as they take on the responsibility of jobs and families, but a disproportionate number of African-Americans do not have jobs, and they are most likely to contribute to crime and imprisonment rates. The system is biased against blacks in other ways, such as in sentencing for drug offenses…
… (crime is) unlikely to decline until there is greater equality of income.”
Another source, Why are US Incarceration rates so high? quoted the International Crime Victimization Survey which found that US crime rates for the most part were not higher than those in Western countries except for one category: violent gun crimes. The US led in robberies and assaults involving guns as well as gun homicides (Statistics were from the late 90’s).
So if these sources are credible, then the question would become: what are some of the reasons that gun-related crimes are higher than other Western countries?
The Scientific American quote above typifies the reasons claimed by many countries, liberals, and generally “soft on crime” types that will go to any length not to blame the criminal him- or her-self. The first example is how the rate of homicide is immediately followed by “…mostly because of the ready availability of guns.” This link between guns and crime was discussed at the end of the chapter and it definitely was not proven. Besides, if a criminal wants a gun, there are only three ways to get one, and they ought to apply equally around the world: steal a gun, purchase a gun from a dealer or purchase a gun from a private citizen.
The chapter also casts doubts on the “myth” that an increase in gun ownership “causes” an increase in crime. It gives three possibilities:
--crime rises with more guns.
--crime rises so people buy more guns to defend themselves.
--law abiding gun ownership deters criminals.
The author calls the third “controversial,” but at least the idea of guns deterring crime was given equal time. Again, the link between gun ownership and crime apparently is not settled.
So if the availability of guns to criminals and law abiding gun ownership aren’t largely (if at all) responsible for high gun related crimes, then what is? From the same quote above, the author claims that US lengths of sentences were “already severe by Western standards.” Especially considering European sentencing standards, this likely isn’t saying much. So lenient US sentencing could still be a factor.
What about racism, bias and inequality causing high gun crime? He states that our “system” is biased towards Blacks in the sentencing of drug offenses, which may be true; but it wouldn’t necessarily follow that harsher sentencing of Blacks who commit drug offenses increases the number of crimes committed. Another quote attempts to prove bias:
“…a disproportionate number of African-Americans do not have jobs, and they are most likely to contribute to crime and imprisonment rates. The system is biased against blacks in other ways…”
This implies that the fact that a disproportionate number of Blacks don’t have jobs proves that the system is biased towards Blacks. But that’s not even an argument, much less proof. The chapter might call Black unemployment and bias correlational but not necessarily causal, but that doesn’t stop such Liberal thinkers from stating them as fact. There is no doubt that some unemployment and crime is the result of bias towards Blacks, other minorities and the poor, but it is by no means the only reason or necessarily the main reason. In fact, if it were possible to quantify and definitively prove bias and racism in a court of law, no doubt some judge by now would have allowed bias and racism to be added to the list of legal defenses or justifications for crime.
The author goes on to his final conclusion that “… (crime is) unlikely to decline until there is greater equality of income. “
Again, many Liberals would agree. While they might concede that poverty doesn’t necessarily cause crime, as does our book, they blame the income disparity in the US and even argue for greater equality of income. This example of the Social Conflict theory comes right from Marxism and is a typical tactic of the political Left—the criminal is never to blame. (But ironically, extremely rich Liberals and wealthy anti-Americans are not to blame, either). Free will or rational choice is not included in any of the reasons for high gun crime that ought to be included. Even reasons like Social Disorganization and Cultural Deviancy are rarely mentioned. Social processes like Learning and Control Theories are also ignored but should not be. What they will use are the Strain Theory and Social Conflict Theories that blame “the system” and “the man” for the violent crime levels and basically exonerate the criminal. In fact, Liberals often portray the criminal not only as a blameless victim, but as the “good guy” fighting for justice.
But the belief that a Capitalist system produces income inequality and leads to the exploitation of the working classes by the powerful in society, including corporations and politicians, has largely been relegated to fringe elements and election years like this one. What confuses Socialists is that Capitalism doesn’t necessarily produce inequality—it merely allows it more than other economic systems. You can’t force people to limit their income potential any more than you can legislate morality for everyone. It has been tried, and it has mostly failed. In fact, Liberals and radicals like to ignore the many failures throughout history. The Soviet Union, Communist Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, India, China, most of the Arab countries and many others all tried Marxist income equality and failed. These people complained that Capitalism in the US caused the “true crimes” of poverty, racism, sexism and the destruction of the environment. They conveniently ignore the fact that catastrophic attempts at income inequality and “workers’ paradises” have been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people due to their command economies and the “revolutionaries” who grew into power-hungry and murderous tyrants. As these hypocritical tyrants trumpeted the values of income equality, Socialism and Communism, they impoverished millions and accumulated vast amounts of wealth for themselves—as much or more than the “greedy Capitalists” that they falsely accused of doing the same. In the process, millions starved, were slaughtered or exiled because of ethnicity, were oppressed and were denied basic human rights.
And in the final irony, criminals were deterred not by the foolish Marxist idea that everyone’s incomes were more equal. In reality, the income of the oppressed population was equally extremely low, while in comparison the ruling regime and the powerful enjoyed their hoarded wealth that was vastly inequitable. How were criminals controlled and deterred? Deterrence came mostly by the brutal and repressive ruthlessness of the regimes.
Many Liberals would argue that in comparison to Totalitarian Marxism, the relatively milder Socialist countries in Europe and other Western countries have less income inequality. This is fairly accurate. But these countries as a result pay a heavy price and suffer from economic, political, cultural and freedom deficiencies, especially when compared to the US. And interestingly, the often rich and powerful Liberals and radicals choose not to move to these countries. Instead, they choose to stay in the US or immigrate to the US, enjoy the fruits of our system, and simultaneously whine about it.
So if the high rate of US violent crime is not mainly due to the availability of guns, gun ownership, lenient sentencing, racism, bias or income inequality, what then are the main reasons? The chapter spells out many other reasons that could be lumped together under one main reason—the US is different. That has never been more apparent than lately with the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
The US is different compared not only to Arab countries, but compared to even Western countries that are supposedly our allies, like France, Germany, Russia, China or most of the countries in the United Nations. The US values freedom above just about everything else. As a result, it is likely that this freedom has led to our many and extreme successes nationally and across the world. And we are much more likely to fight for our freedom, violently if we believe it necessary. Unsurprisingly, we are more successful at war and violence than most. So it could be that another extreme result of American freedom has been the extreme violence of our criminals. So the main reason our violent gun-related crime rates are so high could be as simple as the notion that more criminals in the US are inclined to be--as well as free to be--more violent; and that they believe that they will be more successful in committing a crime if they choose to use a gun.
The specific reasons for the American tendency towards extreme freedom and violence—to the point of criminals using guns due to a combination of nature, nurture and choice--can be seen in US history, politics, legal system, geography, economy, population growth, culture and values.
Historically--from the original “misfit” immigrants from Europe almost four hundred years ago, Americans have aggressively and violently settled this country. We revolted violently and successfully against the British and subsequently fought and won many violent wars in the name of freedom. Our history of freedom and violence includes wars against National Socialist (Nazi) as well as Communist countries. The violent defense of freedom by the US made much of the world safe in the 40’s and 50’s. So safe, in fact, that many of these same countries were able to experiment with Socialism. These expensive and defective Socialist systems still to this day are in good part subsidized by American military power. This subsidy allows them to spend a much smaller percentage on national defense and in turn spend much more on their expensive and inefficient social programs. But this is already changing, as the US plans to cut back this large military subsidy from Europe and apply it instead to the Middle East.
American violence was also applied in our Civil War, whose victory by the North ensured Black freedom from slavery. The quest for freedom also resulted in the violent civil rights disturbances of the 50’s and 60’s and may even have sparked revolutions against colonialism around the world. The 60’s and 70’s then saw a period where freedom, crime, drugs, guns and social and cultural disorder really came together. The trend toward rising violent crime seems to have begun around that time.
Geographically--the US has a high number of large urban areas of high density pockets of lower class and minority communities, more so than other Western countries. This concentration generally has been cited as one of the important causes of crime.
Politically--our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and laws reflect a fierce independence, including the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and many civil liberties protections for even the most violent criminals.
Economically—American freedom allows more economic choices. The old ideas of “Rags to riches” and “The sky’s the limit” are as true today as they ever were. Most Americans value the work ethic and reach throughout their lives for economic satisfaction, often changing jobs, changing careers, continuing education, taking risks, succeeding and sometimes failing. This is much harder to do in most other countries. Because of this, the US economy remains the economic engine that powers the global economy and buys many of its products. And while some Socialism is still reflected in the American version of a social safety net, it is still relatively inclusive while being efficient and tied to employment--not as much through nationalized and socialized government subsidies. The European economies, on the other hand, are struggling with low growth and stagnation and are overburdened by restrictions, regulations, high taxes and crushing social safety net requirements, more so than the US. And now they apparently find themselves with economically frustrated and rapidly growing minorities as well as immigration problems similar to those in the US. In the European case, that includes large Arab minorities living in high density slums. They are often unemployed, living on generous welfare and engaging in criminal activities.
Ironically, some studies have shown that the standards of living of American lower classes and minorities are considerably higher than those of similar groups in other countries, including Western countries. It seems that income inequality is a very misleading and relative indicator.
Still, does the US economy include some racism and inequities that cause strain, social disorganization and social conflict that lead to crime? It probably does. But other reasons are probably much more influential. These last ones involve:
Social and population—US society and values begin with the family structure, which is much weaker, less patriarchal, less extended, less tight-knit, and much less repressive than most traditional families in Europe, Asia and especially the Arab world. In a sense, the American individual in a family is much freer. American youth are able and willing to grow up much quicker, leave home sooner, and express their individuality and freedom more so then their Western counterparts, including in criminal and violent ways.
Population growth also fuels this social churning, through both a larger natural birth rate as well one of the highest rates of immigration for the last 200 years. Most Western countries have lower or negative national birth rates and aren’t as generous with their immigration. They had up until recently avoided the social upheaval that results from higher immigration rates. In the US, the high population growth leads to increased social churning, conflict and probably more violent crime due in part to the resultant social disorder and strain of the generally lower income immigrants looking for ways up the social and economic ladder. Such a move up to the next higher class typically takes a couple of generations and possibly longer for immigrants without language or work skills. In the meantime, the citizens of all classes and the new immigrants come into contact in various ways, some good and some bad. The youth and males, in particular, are susceptible to criminal behavior that may result from this strain. And yet, the waiting list for people that are lining up to enter the US from all around the world continues to grow.
Diversity—the resulting income and ethnic diversity from this population growth is another reason for some of the violent crime. The US is one of the most ethnically, culturally, religiously and economically diversified countries in the world. For all of the charges that Americans are racist and biased, the evidence seems to prove otherwise. Oddly enough, Blacks have recently been surpassed by Hispanics in population; and Whites will lose their majority status within a few generations. These changes in proportions have also led to friction and crime in a way that other Western countries have not yet permitted to occur.
Social Disorder/Cultural Deviancy—all of the above can combine with the likely detrimental effect of too much freedom to produce Social Disorder that begins with the family and extends to school, work, pier groups and the media. Results can include problems at home that lead to a loss of connection with the family, poor performance or dropping out of school, problems getting or keeping a job, or even a refusal to join most of society and “work for the man.” In the US, more so than in other Western countries, this also results in Cultural Deviancy that prizes the typically “All-American” values like strength, getting in and out of trouble thanks to street smarts, excitement and autonomy. Sex, drugs, music and gun violence is celebrated and reinforced--or caused—by the media in movies, TV and music.
As a result, one of the most likely reasons for violent criminality is the overall influence of drugs. In one of the most striking statistics, around 80% of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs or involving drugs. Other figures show that most crime is committed by young males in geographically dense, lower class urban areas.
These types of statistics, causes and theories have been known to criminologists and law enforcement officials for years. Violent crime can be studied and reduced somewhat, but the large degree of freedom available in the US will probably ensure that violent crime will always be around. But especially when compared to other Western countries, the current balance struck by our criminal justice system between freedom and crime probably represents the best trade-off possible, given our circumstances.
Q: What are some of the reasons that crime rates are much higher in the United States than in most other Western nations?
A: Some typical descriptions of US crime can be found in the chapter and other sources, like this quote from the Scientific American:
“Most Western countries have put more people behind bars in recent years, but in none has the incarceration rate risen more than in the U.S. The cause of the extraordinary American figure is not higher levels of crime, for the crime rate in the U.S. is about the same as in Western Europe (except for the rate of homicide, which is two to eight times greater, mostly because of the ready availability of guns).
…the length of sentences, already severe by western European standards, became even more punitive…
…In their twenties, most whites give up violence as they take on the responsibility of jobs and families, but a disproportionate number of African-Americans do not have jobs, and they are most likely to contribute to crime and imprisonment rates. The system is biased against blacks in other ways, such as in sentencing for drug offenses…
… (crime is) unlikely to decline until there is greater equality of income.”
Another source, Why are US Incarceration rates so high? quoted the International Crime Victimization Survey which found that US crime rates for the most part were not higher than those in Western countries except for one category: violent gun crimes. The US led in robberies and assaults involving guns as well as gun homicides (Statistics were from the late 90’s).
So if these sources are credible, then the question would become: what are some of the reasons that gun-related crimes are higher than other Western countries?
The Scientific American quote above typifies the reasons claimed by many countries, liberals, and generally “soft on crime” types that will go to any length not to blame the criminal him- or her-self. The first example is how the rate of homicide is immediately followed by “…mostly because of the ready availability of guns.” This link between guns and crime was discussed at the end of the chapter and it definitely was not proven. Besides, if a criminal wants a gun, there are only three ways to get one, and they ought to apply equally around the world: steal a gun, purchase a gun from a dealer or purchase a gun from a private citizen.
The chapter also casts doubts on the “myth” that an increase in gun ownership “causes” an increase in crime. It gives three possibilities:
--crime rises with more guns.
--crime rises so people buy more guns to defend themselves.
--law abiding gun ownership deters criminals.
The author calls the third “controversial,” but at least the idea of guns deterring crime was given equal time. Again, the link between gun ownership and crime apparently is not settled.
So if the availability of guns to criminals and law abiding gun ownership aren’t largely (if at all) responsible for high gun related crimes, then what is? From the same quote above, the author claims that US lengths of sentences were “already severe by Western standards.” Especially considering European sentencing standards, this likely isn’t saying much. So lenient US sentencing could still be a factor.
What about racism, bias and inequality causing high gun crime? He states that our “system” is biased towards Blacks in the sentencing of drug offenses, which may be true; but it wouldn’t necessarily follow that harsher sentencing of Blacks who commit drug offenses increases the number of crimes committed. Another quote attempts to prove bias:
“…a disproportionate number of African-Americans do not have jobs, and they are most likely to contribute to crime and imprisonment rates. The system is biased against blacks in other ways…”
This implies that the fact that a disproportionate number of Blacks don’t have jobs proves that the system is biased towards Blacks. But that’s not even an argument, much less proof. The chapter might call Black unemployment and bias correlational but not necessarily causal, but that doesn’t stop such Liberal thinkers from stating them as fact. There is no doubt that some unemployment and crime is the result of bias towards Blacks, other minorities and the poor, but it is by no means the only reason or necessarily the main reason. In fact, if it were possible to quantify and definitively prove bias and racism in a court of law, no doubt some judge by now would have allowed bias and racism to be added to the list of legal defenses or justifications for crime.
The author goes on to his final conclusion that “… (crime is) unlikely to decline until there is greater equality of income. “
Again, many Liberals would agree. While they might concede that poverty doesn’t necessarily cause crime, as does our book, they blame the income disparity in the US and even argue for greater equality of income. This example of the Social Conflict theory comes right from Marxism and is a typical tactic of the political Left—the criminal is never to blame. (But ironically, extremely rich Liberals and wealthy anti-Americans are not to blame, either). Free will or rational choice is not included in any of the reasons for high gun crime that ought to be included. Even reasons like Social Disorganization and Cultural Deviancy are rarely mentioned. Social processes like Learning and Control Theories are also ignored but should not be. What they will use are the Strain Theory and Social Conflict Theories that blame “the system” and “the man” for the violent crime levels and basically exonerate the criminal. In fact, Liberals often portray the criminal not only as a blameless victim, but as the “good guy” fighting for justice.
But the belief that a Capitalist system produces income inequality and leads to the exploitation of the working classes by the powerful in society, including corporations and politicians, has largely been relegated to fringe elements and election years like this one. What confuses Socialists is that Capitalism doesn’t necessarily produce inequality—it merely allows it more than other economic systems. You can’t force people to limit their income potential any more than you can legislate morality for everyone. It has been tried, and it has mostly failed. In fact, Liberals and radicals like to ignore the many failures throughout history. The Soviet Union, Communist Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, India, China, most of the Arab countries and many others all tried Marxist income equality and failed. These people complained that Capitalism in the US caused the “true crimes” of poverty, racism, sexism and the destruction of the environment. They conveniently ignore the fact that catastrophic attempts at income inequality and “workers’ paradises” have been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people due to their command economies and the “revolutionaries” who grew into power-hungry and murderous tyrants. As these hypocritical tyrants trumpeted the values of income equality, Socialism and Communism, they impoverished millions and accumulated vast amounts of wealth for themselves—as much or more than the “greedy Capitalists” that they falsely accused of doing the same. In the process, millions starved, were slaughtered or exiled because of ethnicity, were oppressed and were denied basic human rights.
And in the final irony, criminals were deterred not by the foolish Marxist idea that everyone’s incomes were more equal. In reality, the income of the oppressed population was equally extremely low, while in comparison the ruling regime and the powerful enjoyed their hoarded wealth that was vastly inequitable. How were criminals controlled and deterred? Deterrence came mostly by the brutal and repressive ruthlessness of the regimes.
Many Liberals would argue that in comparison to Totalitarian Marxism, the relatively milder Socialist countries in Europe and other Western countries have less income inequality. This is fairly accurate. But these countries as a result pay a heavy price and suffer from economic, political, cultural and freedom deficiencies, especially when compared to the US. And interestingly, the often rich and powerful Liberals and radicals choose not to move to these countries. Instead, they choose to stay in the US or immigrate to the US, enjoy the fruits of our system, and simultaneously whine about it.
So if the high rate of US violent crime is not mainly due to the availability of guns, gun ownership, lenient sentencing, racism, bias or income inequality, what then are the main reasons? The chapter spells out many other reasons that could be lumped together under one main reason—the US is different. That has never been more apparent than lately with the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
The US is different compared not only to Arab countries, but compared to even Western countries that are supposedly our allies, like France, Germany, Russia, China or most of the countries in the United Nations. The US values freedom above just about everything else. As a result, it is likely that this freedom has led to our many and extreme successes nationally and across the world. And we are much more likely to fight for our freedom, violently if we believe it necessary. Unsurprisingly, we are more successful at war and violence than most. So it could be that another extreme result of American freedom has been the extreme violence of our criminals. So the main reason our violent gun-related crime rates are so high could be as simple as the notion that more criminals in the US are inclined to be--as well as free to be--more violent; and that they believe that they will be more successful in committing a crime if they choose to use a gun.
The specific reasons for the American tendency towards extreme freedom and violence—to the point of criminals using guns due to a combination of nature, nurture and choice--can be seen in US history, politics, legal system, geography, economy, population growth, culture and values.
Historically--from the original “misfit” immigrants from Europe almost four hundred years ago, Americans have aggressively and violently settled this country. We revolted violently and successfully against the British and subsequently fought and won many violent wars in the name of freedom. Our history of freedom and violence includes wars against National Socialist (Nazi) as well as Communist countries. The violent defense of freedom by the US made much of the world safe in the 40’s and 50’s. So safe, in fact, that many of these same countries were able to experiment with Socialism. These expensive and defective Socialist systems still to this day are in good part subsidized by American military power. This subsidy allows them to spend a much smaller percentage on national defense and in turn spend much more on their expensive and inefficient social programs. But this is already changing, as the US plans to cut back this large military subsidy from Europe and apply it instead to the Middle East.
American violence was also applied in our Civil War, whose victory by the North ensured Black freedom from slavery. The quest for freedom also resulted in the violent civil rights disturbances of the 50’s and 60’s and may even have sparked revolutions against colonialism around the world. The 60’s and 70’s then saw a period where freedom, crime, drugs, guns and social and cultural disorder really came together. The trend toward rising violent crime seems to have begun around that time.
Geographically--the US has a high number of large urban areas of high density pockets of lower class and minority communities, more so than other Western countries. This concentration generally has been cited as one of the important causes of crime.
Politically--our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and laws reflect a fierce independence, including the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and many civil liberties protections for even the most violent criminals.
Economically—American freedom allows more economic choices. The old ideas of “Rags to riches” and “The sky’s the limit” are as true today as they ever were. Most Americans value the work ethic and reach throughout their lives for economic satisfaction, often changing jobs, changing careers, continuing education, taking risks, succeeding and sometimes failing. This is much harder to do in most other countries. Because of this, the US economy remains the economic engine that powers the global economy and buys many of its products. And while some Socialism is still reflected in the American version of a social safety net, it is still relatively inclusive while being efficient and tied to employment--not as much through nationalized and socialized government subsidies. The European economies, on the other hand, are struggling with low growth and stagnation and are overburdened by restrictions, regulations, high taxes and crushing social safety net requirements, more so than the US. And now they apparently find themselves with economically frustrated and rapidly growing minorities as well as immigration problems similar to those in the US. In the European case, that includes large Arab minorities living in high density slums. They are often unemployed, living on generous welfare and engaging in criminal activities.
Ironically, some studies have shown that the standards of living of American lower classes and minorities are considerably higher than those of similar groups in other countries, including Western countries. It seems that income inequality is a very misleading and relative indicator.
Still, does the US economy include some racism and inequities that cause strain, social disorganization and social conflict that lead to crime? It probably does. But other reasons are probably much more influential. These last ones involve:
Social and population—US society and values begin with the family structure, which is much weaker, less patriarchal, less extended, less tight-knit, and much less repressive than most traditional families in Europe, Asia and especially the Arab world. In a sense, the American individual in a family is much freer. American youth are able and willing to grow up much quicker, leave home sooner, and express their individuality and freedom more so then their Western counterparts, including in criminal and violent ways.
Population growth also fuels this social churning, through both a larger natural birth rate as well one of the highest rates of immigration for the last 200 years. Most Western countries have lower or negative national birth rates and aren’t as generous with their immigration. They had up until recently avoided the social upheaval that results from higher immigration rates. In the US, the high population growth leads to increased social churning, conflict and probably more violent crime due in part to the resultant social disorder and strain of the generally lower income immigrants looking for ways up the social and economic ladder. Such a move up to the next higher class typically takes a couple of generations and possibly longer for immigrants without language or work skills. In the meantime, the citizens of all classes and the new immigrants come into contact in various ways, some good and some bad. The youth and males, in particular, are susceptible to criminal behavior that may result from this strain. And yet, the waiting list for people that are lining up to enter the US from all around the world continues to grow.
Diversity—the resulting income and ethnic diversity from this population growth is another reason for some of the violent crime. The US is one of the most ethnically, culturally, religiously and economically diversified countries in the world. For all of the charges that Americans are racist and biased, the evidence seems to prove otherwise. Oddly enough, Blacks have recently been surpassed by Hispanics in population; and Whites will lose their majority status within a few generations. These changes in proportions have also led to friction and crime in a way that other Western countries have not yet permitted to occur.
Social Disorder/Cultural Deviancy—all of the above can combine with the likely detrimental effect of too much freedom to produce Social Disorder that begins with the family and extends to school, work, pier groups and the media. Results can include problems at home that lead to a loss of connection with the family, poor performance or dropping out of school, problems getting or keeping a job, or even a refusal to join most of society and “work for the man.” In the US, more so than in other Western countries, this also results in Cultural Deviancy that prizes the typically “All-American” values like strength, getting in and out of trouble thanks to street smarts, excitement and autonomy. Sex, drugs, music and gun violence is celebrated and reinforced--or caused—by the media in movies, TV and music.
As a result, one of the most likely reasons for violent criminality is the overall influence of drugs. In one of the most striking statistics, around 80% of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs or involving drugs. Other figures show that most crime is committed by young males in geographically dense, lower class urban areas.
These types of statistics, causes and theories have been known to criminologists and law enforcement officials for years. Violent crime can be studied and reduced somewhat, but the large degree of freedom available in the US will probably ensure that violent crime will always be around. But especially when compared to other Western countries, the current balance struck by our criminal justice system between freedom and crime probably represents the best trade-off possible, given our circumstances.
