You are here: Home » News

Wilson speaks on declining crime rate

By Gaveliers, The Gavel Media Team, on December 1, 2009 9:50 PM

By James Sasso, For the Gavel -

In the 1970’s crime rates were staggeringly high. Cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City were experiencing waves of violence and drug use that turned them into some of the more dangerous places on the planet. Today, the crime rate has greatly subsided. What has caused the drop in the crime rate, and how America can effectively prevent a future rise in the crime rate (or at least moderate the inevitable rise) was the topic of James Wilson’s lecture last week

Wilson is a scholar on the topic of crime and has published numerous books and articles on a wide variety of urban problems. He provided a deep insight into which solutions to crime work, and which do not, and subsequently answered why the crime rate is so low in America today.

Wilson’s four main reasons for the low crime rate seem obvious on the surface:

1. The imprisonment rate is higher.

2.The population is aging, as most crimes are committed by people between the ages of 18 and 25.

3. There are new and better policing strategies to identify high-risk areas and places of recurrent crime using modern, instantaneous computer analysis.

4. There has been a cultural change in the population.

The last reason cannot be proven though scientific measures, but can be summed up by the different passions of the ‘60s generation (do what you want) and the ‘90s generation (don’t break the law!).

There are other reasons for the reduced crime rate, which involve post-jail or post-felony programs. Some of them work, and some do not. Rehab programs are generally the programs with the lowest success rates. Experiments have not conclusively shown that rehabilitating a former felon will prevent him or her from committing another crime. Most released criminals will in fact commit another crime within three years of being released.

One type of rehabilitation program that tends to work is called “social management.” Through these programs, former offenders are taught to understand that they control their own problems and that it is not society’s fault that they committed a crime. Rather, the fault lies with the criminal. Understanding one’s problems can help the offender change his or her behavior. Controlling anger and preventing it from turning violent is another goal of the program. These programs tend to reduce recidivism rates (rates at which criminals become repeat offenders upon release) by 20 to 30 percent.

Big Brother programs are other examples of programs that have worked in the past. They provide much needed adult mentorship to young people. Young, high-quality, active education systems work, as do home visitations by nurses to young, single, poor, pregnant woman. These programs all stress the importance of attacking the problem of crime at its root cause: poor family structure and lack of mentorship. If a child has a stable family life, better education, or better mentorship he or she is less likely to commit crime. But Drub Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) does not lower drug use. Students who are involved in DARE are just as likely to use drugs and those who were not.

If America were to cut down on the number of crimes committed by people on probation, the crime rate would decrease significantly. There are four million people on parole–– two million of which had previously admitted to an offense. When these people were forced to take drug tests two or three times a week with the understanding that a positive result would lead to jail time, the crime rate dropped dramatically. Reduction of drug use leads to a decrease in crime. Wilson further noted that those on parole forced to wear GPS anklets became repeat offenders less often than those who do not.

America still has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world, largely due to the severity with which drug offenders are punished. America also tends to imprison people for longer periods of time than other countries. There is no data, as Wilson said, to suggest that longer sentencing periods are deterrents to crime, but they do cost a lot more. The criminal justice system is at a precipice with a lot of jails are pushing maximum capacity while the crime rate is extremely low. Does society want to loosen sentencing to relieve the economic and social pressures of overcrowded jails or continue to severely punish minor offenses? This is a question that will soon come to the forefront of political debate.