"After five years of a declining crime rate, we are starting to see an increase in homicides in Baltimore this year", said Randy as he settled onto the couch next to me this past Sunday.
Randy is a veteran in the Baltimore police department. He has achieved a high rank. He has seniority and I would guess close to thirty years experience in the police department of one of America's most violent cities.
In the words of Baltimore's own mayor (in 2003), "Three years ago, Baltimore by most measures had become America's most violent city. For the sixth year in a row, America's most addicted city."
Recent headlines out of Baltimore confirm Randy's comment. After years of declining homicide rates, violent crimes are on the rise again. Violent crimes are up 5 %.
"Why is that?", I asked Randy.
I expected him to correlate the problem with socio-economic trends. He didn't.
"These things tend to go in cycles", he replied. I nodded. At its root, crime is a moral problem. Moral problems require moral solutions -- not economic ones.
Randy asked me about the crime rate in Roanoke. No one has ever asked me that before. I have no idea about crime in Roanoke. I live in a bubble. I am largely oblivious to what goes on around me. I thought I would do some research.
Here is the official comparison between Roanoke and Baltimore taken from 2004. The results are disturbing. Baltimore is truly a deadly place. Baltimore has nearly eight times the national rate of murders per 100,000 people. Roanoke has 1.5 times the national rate. However, in terms of rape, Roanoke has 2.3 times as many rapes per 100,000 people as Baltimore! In terms of larceny, Roanokers had 1.4 times as many larcenies as Baltimore per 100 k people. Roanoke rates of crime were worse than the national average in every single category in 2004. That is depressing, until you consider Memphis. What a crime infested dump Memphis must be ;-).
I asked Randy about broken windows theory. He smiled and knew exactly what I was talking about. I will post his response and more on my conversation with one of Baltimore's top crime fighters. Here is my trailer of our conversation: police ethics, high speed chases, illegal immigration, drug smuggling, port security, absentee landlords, Viet Nam (he served in 1968), the Ho Chi Min trail, Islam and its clash with the West ... nothing like a little light conversation on an Easter afternoon ;-)
I wonder how much the fact that there are three colleges in Memphis messes with those figures? Rape -- especially fo the date rape kind -- is a problem on college campuses, and dorms have always been a traget for thieves.
"I expected him to correlate the problem with socio-economic trends. He didn't.
"These things tend to go in cycles", he replied. I nodded. At its root, crime is a moral problem. Moral problems require moral solutions -- not economic ones."
I hope he said more than that because I don't se ehow you got what you got out of that statement. Economic conditions run in cycles. I don't think anyone would say that about morals.
Posted by: kevin | April 19, 2006 at 15:59
Poverty is the motivation for most crime. I know, that seems a broad brush to paint with, but it is true.
I wonder, if the church really got involved with fighting poverty, I mean REALLY got involved if we would make a difference. I think we could.
Proverbs tells us that blessed is the man that gets involved with the poor because he will be justly compensated. (my translation, but I know it is close)
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 19, 2006 at 17:22
How are you defining poverty, Carl?
I don't think that "economic poverty" is truly the motivation for most crime. I think moral poverty, lack of virtues and godly character is the motivation for most crime.
Posted by: B.A. | April 19, 2006 at 17:27
An arguement can be made both ways. Rape and corporate scandals and some of the big crimes would be considered a moral problem. However, most crime is theft, drug related, and other crimes that do not always grab the headlines.
I know it is not the most politically correct thing to say, but it is true. A poor person is more likely to steal either because he has no resources of his own, or because it is the way he has been tought to survive.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 20, 2006 at 07:09
Jeff,
As a former LE-type, I can't wait to read the conversation. I never liked to travel to Baltimore specifically or Maryland in general, as I could not carry off-duty. It bothers me that my 2nd Amendment rights were (are) trampled in certain states (NY, NJ, OH, etc.). I know that police can't be everywhere at once and the protection of my family rates high on my list. As a matter of fact, my barber just had a very unusual run-in with what might have been a crack junkie. It was only the fact that a uniformed cop pulled in for a haircut that the "odd" man left. The barber asked me this morning about how to purchase a firearm, learn to use the firearm, apply for a Concealed Carry Permit, etc. I take the personal protection issue pretty seriously, but I don't want to rant here...:)
Sorry Jeff. I am indeed excited to read the transcript!
Later.
Posted by: BWB | April 20, 2006 at 13:23
BWB,
You are right on. The Maryland CCW law is a serious problem. It is the only state between my place in Virginia and my parents place that I can't carry.
Needless to say, I would rather be in the great state of Virginia.
Posted by: B.A. | April 20, 2006 at 13:55
The correlations between violent crime (in particular) and economic conditions are pretty strong. Clearly, it's not all there is to it, but it's a pretty big indicator.
Contrary to what both its adamant supporters and adamant opponents tend to argue, concealed carry laws have no measurable impact on crime rates, violent or otherwise. The stats that claim to show something other than that are generally pretty badly flawed. (I can't remember if it was Florida or Texas, but one of those states had a significant drop in crime after enacting CCW; problem was, other states that had highly restrictive gun laws also experienced comparable drops over the same period.)
Bottom line is, the problem of crime is a complicated one, and no single factor (ecnomoics, morality, or gun availability) can explain it. Although of those three, I highly suspect that economics dwarfs the other two.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 20, 2006 at 17:40
What a crime infested dump Memphis must be ;-).
I bet you were expecting Kevin or I to disagree with this... :)
Posted by: tgirsch | April 20, 2006 at 17:41
I think moral poverty, lack of virtues and godly character is the motivation for most crime.
Despair, lack of options and the feeling of being trapped may have something to do with it, too.
I'm lucky, I only spent 4 months working full time behind the grill at McD's. Even though I knew it was temporary, (it had to be, I had a college degree for crying out loud) the thought of going back there crushed me every morning like it was the first day. It wasn't just that the pay was so low that nobody could live independently on it, it was that the job was physically demanding and mentally numbing for just about no pay.
Within a week, I understood why people left work and went straight to a bar. Within a month, I understood why people went home and lit up a joint. To escape.
"Behold, the poor are with you always." Poverty-related crime certainly existed then, and how much has changed in two thousand years?
Posted by: carlaviii | April 21, 2006 at 01:07
It wasn't just that the pay was so low that nobody could live independently on it, it was that the job was physically demanding and mentally numbing for just about no pay.
Do I sense a Christian arugment for a living wage forthcoming? :)
Posted by: tgirsch | April 21, 2006 at 16:36
"The correlations between violent crime (in particular) and economic conditions are pretty strong. Clearly, it's not all there is to it, but it's a pretty big indicator."
Sure ... and the correlation between a fever and being sick are strong too.
Let's not confuse correlative relationships with causitive ones.
The root of the problem has to do with morality -- not money. Even rich people commit crimes.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 21, 2006 at 18:06
"Poverty-related crime certainly existed then, and how much has changed in two thousand years?"
Not all poor people run out and commit crimes. Not all rich people are moral people.
The focus on money as the cause of crime is misguided, imo.
The cause of crime -- or any moral failure -- is quite clearly spelled out in the Bible. It is the human heart.
I can go look up verses for ya'll if that would help ... (meant seriously, not as a snarky comment)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 21, 2006 at 18:11
Most people I've been around or worked with haven't thought hard about what they believe; but they WANT to believe something; want to stand somewhere...to stand for something. In hard times they glommed on to stable people who seemed to be on firm ground. We generally recognize the wisdom that, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"; uncomfortable position, not standing for anything.
Posted by: PDM | April 21, 2006 at 22:34
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with any instance of a state with restricive CCW laws experiencing a drop in crime. Almost every state that has enacted RTC laws saw a significant drop in violent crime. See John Lott's work More Guns, Less Crime and follow up works.
Bad guys do not like the thought that a "victim" might shoot back.
BA,
Agreed about MD. Even when I was a LEO, the MD cops I knew "advised" me to literally take my gun apart and stow it in 3-4 places in the car with the bullets in a locked box in a completely inaccessable place. Stupid. When I get confronted at a rest stop on I-95 in MD, I'll just run to my car, unlock everything, reassemble my firearm, load the magazine, insert the magazine, charge the weapon, THEN tell the bad guys to leave me and my family alone!
:)
Later.
Posted by: BWB | April 24, 2006 at 13:38
BWB:
Florida enacted CCW in 1987. From then until 2000, its homicide rate dropped from 11.4 to 5.6, a 51% drop; there was no perceptible drop in its rape rate. Over the same period, California (gunnies' nightmare state) had its homicide rate drop about 42.5%, from 10.6 to 6.1, and it's rape rate decreased dramatically, 34%. But there's more. California's homicide rate peaked at 13.1 in 1993; its total drop in homicide rate since from its post-1987 peak was 53.5%, without the benefit of CCW. All in all, two states with vastly different gun laws ultimately experienced similar drops in the homicide rate, and only the state without a CCW law experienced a significant drop in its rape rate.
New York is an even better example. NY's homicide rate dropped from 11.3 in 1987, and 14.5 in 1990, to 5.0 in 2000. That's a 55.8% drop since 1987, and nearly a 66% decrease from its peak, without the benefit of CCW and despite highly restrictive gun laws.
I should point out that I'm a CCW permit holder myself, and am in no way an enemy of gun rights; that said, I think both sides of the gun debate engage in extensive misinformation, and I won't stand for it from either side. This is especially true of John Lott, who's been discredited so thoroughly and so frequently that even the nuttiest of my gun nut friends won't cite him any more.
Jeff:
I'm not saying that there's no morality component to it; I'm just saying that there are other factors that are more important, and that poverty is one such factor. The scripture seems to acknowledge this, as Jesus' ministry held poverty as one of its most important social issues.
It's certainly true that wealthy people sometimes commit crimes, and that not all poor people commit them, the problem with pointing this out is that it gives the impression that you think both are primarily caused by the same thing, and I'm not really sure they are. I suppose you could say that ultimately both are the result of moral failings (indeed, poverty itself is the result of our collective moral failings as a society), but these are still different in kind.
Also, I'm glad you brought up causal versus correlative relationships, because that's precisely the problem with the broken window model -- it ignores whether the first broken window is itself a symptom or a cause of the underlying problems. I think it's clearly the former.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 26, 2006 at 15:54
I would not say Jesus' ministry was focused on poverty. He cared about justice, and he cared about the poor and the outcast -- but it was not simply because they had no money, they were the despised and oppressed in society.
Listen, Jesus did not come to make people wealthy, I don't care what Joel Osteen says.
"Also, I'm glad you brought up causal versus correlative relationships, because that's precisely the problem with the broken window model -- it ignores whether the first broken window is itself a symptom or a cause of the underlying problems. I think it's clearly the former."
I am not sure we are on the same page about what broken window theory is all about.
It simply means that little things -- like cleaning grafetti, can have a large impact on a community because it restores order and is a bell whether indicator that people in this community care.
So, come again ... not following your argument.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 26, 2006 at 18:57
Tom, thanks for the links. I certainly must fall into the nuttiest camp, as I have not read any essays on John Lott being discredited, other than by the Brady Bunch, etc (who provide enough misinformation on their own).
I will have to spend some time hashing through the UCR and work the stats. That said, it is all in the reporting. Different states report crimes in different manners. Often it is a tactic to keep certain numbers low and certain numbers up. I know (from first-hand experience) that crooks like to be in places where they believe victims are unarmed. Glad to know that you don't fall into that camp!
Later.
Posted by: BWB | April 27, 2006 at 18:09
Jeff:
Listen, Jesus did not come to make people wealthy, I don't care what Joel Osteen says.
I didn't mean to imply that he did. In fact, he didn't have kind things to say about the wealthy at all. But it was clear from his teachings that it's important how we treat the least among us, and (I think) that the divide between rich and poor is not just troubling, but a moral failing.
It simply means that little things -- like cleaning grafetti, can have a large impact on a community because it restores order and is a bell whether indicator that people in this community care.
I don't think this is true. Patching over a problem isn't the same as solving it. I think that when you peel away the layers, you find that the communities that do those things are also doing other things and those things are what's responsible for the improvement. Those "things" are often -- I'd say usually -- education and economic empowerment.
BWB:
The Lott folks like to say (as you do) that CCW reduces crime. The Brady folks like to say that CCW increases crime. The truth, as with so many other things, is in the middle: it doesn't make any statistically significant difference.
And the criticism of Lott is far from limited to traditionally anti-gun groups. And, of course, Lott did little to bolster his credibility when he created a false on-line persona to defend his work from criticism as though someone else were defending his work... (and this fact was exposed not by the Bradies, but by the Libertarian CATO institute and by the conservative Washington Times). Lott has done a lot to mar his credibility, never mind what his critics say about him.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 28, 2006 at 15:26