This is a fascinating article that looks at the evidence that lead exposure is the key driver of violent crime in America. While it is clear that many factors affect crime rates, this article draws on compelling research to show that our current understanding of how to reduce crime may be completely off-the-mark.
"America's Real Criminal Element: Lead" by Kevin Drum
Published in Mother Jones, January/February 2013
http://www.motherjones.com/print/208586
Eric
Its pretty interesting how you can find facts to back up any argument though in the case you'd have to say they look fairly conclusive. Does this discredit the work of Guliani and other approaches mentioned? The cost benefit at the end certainly seems attractive but how will they ever get people go buy into it, there is no real way to record the benefits in as clear a way as you can record the costs.
ReplyDeleteI think it does discredit the approaches that others have taken. And while yes, you can find some facts to back up almost anything, the question is whether those facts can withstand critical analysis. That's one of the things that I found interesting in this article -- that they corroborated using data from many sources beyond just national stats (eg, state and muncipal level stats, international stats, information about the known chemical effects of lead).
ReplyDeleteThe question about how to get the public on board is hard to answer. As the author notes, police departments aren't exactly excited about the idea that we might not need as many police as we think. The challenge of getting people to understand intangible or long-term benefits is one that we slam our head into societally over and over (think global warming or obesity or really the majority of problems we face).
Eric
So you're saying that the other efforts are discredited meaning the entire cause of decline in crime is lead?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair to say that one thing and one thing alone explains all crime rates. But I think it is fair to say that cities considering a "broken windows" model of policing strongly reconsider if they think it will drive a substantial reduction in violence.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, like most complex situations there are a number of things that go into fixing issues. The broken windows logic passes a number of tests including hard data and common sense. You can make numbers for just about anything, its the Davinci Code philosophy, and while i agree there is compelling lead based evidence i think it can't be the "full" cause.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it necessarily says that a broken windows model is necessarily a bad idea, but it's a matter of priorities. If only X dollars are available, would they be better spent toward hiring more police OR would it be better for lead cleanup efforts? I think that this article is compelling in arguing that without cleaning up lead, the other strategies may be futile.
ReplyDeleteEric
I think it's an awfully tough argument to make.
ReplyDelete