Here’s a fascinating new theory: The Clean Air Act’s elimination of leaded gasoline was the cause of the drop in crime in the 1990s — Clinton had nothing to do with it. Low level lead poisoning makes kids dumb and aggressive. The Clean Air Act caused Americans’ blood lead levels to plummet. Looking at the elimination of leaded gas on a state by state basis shows a strong correlation between crime and leaded fuel. Fascinating!
Comments are closed.
I read an article a few months ago with similar research — there is a highway in Chicago that runs underneath a housing project. When gasoline was leaded, the fumes were obviously leaded as well. Comparing the incarceration rate of kids who grew up in that project in the 1950’s and 1960’s, when the fumes would have been leaded, and the incarceration rate of kids who grew up in the same project in the 1980’s and 1990’s, when the fumes had no lead, the researchers found that kids who grew up there in the 1960’s had a many-times higher likelihood of being incarcerated as a young adult.
Obviously, there are MANY variables to try to control for, but they felt that there was a strong enough link to allow the conclusion to be drawn of cause and effect.
I believe it was in the book Freakonomics (or perhaps it was The Tipping Point) that the author pointed out that you could argue that the drop in crime coincided with roughly the 18th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and that legalized abortion allowed individuals who did not wish to raise a child properly to simply not have it in the first place. Less children who are ignored and grow up impoverished => less crime.
This theory seems far more realistic and also far less politically charged.
Consider also the tendency for poorer neighborhoods to have substandard housing conditions. Lots of older homes have layers of lead paint on the interiors. Peeling or crumbling paint gets ingested by small kids or the small particles inhaled.
I also read an article about this a couple of months ago. I thought it was very interesting. The researcher found the same correlation between reduction of lead and lead poisoning awareness campaigns and a drop in violent crime 15-20 years later in other countries too.
Of course we could start to see something of the opposite of this effect concerning the onset of global warming; as tropical diseases spread, cities heat up (more intense heat waves), and worst of all worsening drought conditions that start to eat into food production, displace populations over and over again (ummmmm, wild fires anyone?)
This theory seems far more realistic and also far less politically charged.
Um… are you implying that Abortion is less politcally charged than lead poisoning? I do agree that it’s probably a stronger theory.
james — I think John was implying the reverse, “this theory” referring to the newer one about lead.
It’s certainly the case that most of the changes in crime statistics that politicians take credit for or get blamed for have nothing to do with their actions while in office. The changes can usually either be traced to national trends (meaning factors they have no control over) or longer-term effects of efforts started by their predecessors. It never stops whatever tactic they were trying at the time from becoming a new law-enforcement fad, however. The human brain is much better at associating an effect with a proximate cause, rather than looking for a long-delayed one.
Ah, that makes much more sense.
This is certainly an interesting and plausible theory. It’s curious that you list Clinton as the alternative for getting the credit for crime dropping in the 90s — the article doesn’t mention him. Crime prevention is overwhelmingly a local issue, with a little responsibility (and a little $$) at the state level, and even less responsibility (and less $$) at the federal level.
Any drop in crime that’s evenly spread across the country might be attributable to a president, but even that’s doubtful. More likely, and we’d have to look at statistics from many localities to do this, crime dropped in many places and rose in others, due to many and sundry reasons. Of course, if this lead theory is correct, then the violent crime rates should have fallen at the same rate all over the U.S., since the lead ban went into effect nationwide.
Bill Clinton’s COPS initiative put more than 150,000 new police on the ground all across the country, especially in localities that could not afford new hires.
Also they passed the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.
Coincidence or not, but gun related crimes dropped 40% during the Clinton Administration.
There were also many operations like “Project Exile” and “Operation Ceasefire”, which were part of a general crack down on gun trafficking.
I am not a fan of Bill Clinton, and I am sure that there was lots of contributing factors, every thing discussed above contributed, but Bill does get some credit.
Your info on the COPS program is off just a wee bit. (Numbers from the Clinton Library aren’t really trustworthy.)
First of all the number that Bill and the press repeated often enough that the gullible and the uninitiated believed it was 100,000, not 150K. Ultimately, COPS resulted in a net increase of about 40,000 police, with much of the money and new police going to places that didn’t need it. This was because instead of the common sense approach of putting police in just the crime-infested big cities that needed it, Clinton had to promise that EVERY locality would benefit.
Anyway, there are many good articles about it — even a few that don’t paint a revisionist pro-Bill picture of it.
Well, no — if I just recited what the article said, I can’t see that I’d be much use here. :) Plus, you should be appreciative: the purpose was to point out that the often-made claim that Clinton was responsible for the nationwide reduction in crime in the 90s may well not be true.