Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Crime and Rhetoric
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Oakland, California, continues to suffer the high crime rate, and especially the high murder rate, which has long afflicted that city. Judging by a recent speech by its current mayor, long-time leftist Ron Dellums, it can look forward to a future all too much like its past.

Why is Oakland so crime-ridden? According to Mayor Dellums, "we have closed our eyes to the injustices and inequities, and now we are reaping the wild winds of that disregard for a whole range of people."

This is the "root causes of crime" rhetoric of the 1960s, still going strong on the left today, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary that have accumulated in the decades since then.

That is what makes Oakland's problem more than just Oakland's problem -- or even America's problem. The same kind of thinking prevails on the left in other countries, producing the same kinds of dire results.

As British writer Peter Hitchens put it: "England is rapidly becoming a place where the good are afraid of the bad and the bad are not afraid of anything."

He also said, "The sheer concrete-headed stupidity of most political statements about crime defies belief." Both statements would apply as much in Oakland as they do in London -- and in many other places in between.

A newspaper account of Oakland mayor Ron Dellums' speech said that he was "clearly comfortable with what he was conveying and speaking without notes."

Why should he be uncomfortable or need notes to be repeating the same politically correct notions that the entire left -- here and overseas -- has been repeating like a mantra for nearly half a century? Would you need notes to recite the alphabet?

The idea that "injustices and inequities" explain crime goes back more than two centuries. You can find it in William Godwin's 1793 book, "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice" in England and even earlier in a number of writers in France.

It is the hallmark of the left around the world.

While such ideas have been around for centuries, they did not become the dominant ideas among those making legal and political policy until the second half of the 20th century -- more specifically, the 1960s in the United States.

What was crime like in 1960, before these ideas took over in our courts and in the legislative and executive branches of government?

As of 1960, the murder rate had been going down for decades -- among blacks and whites alike -- and was just under half of what it had been back in 1934.

Were there no "injustices and inequities" in 1960 and in the prior decades? No one who is old enough to remember those times could believe that.

It was precisely the rise to power in the 1960s (in the courts as well as in politics) of those who believed that "injustices and inequities" were the causes of crime which marked a de-emphasis on law enforcement and imprisonment -- and marked one of the most dramatic increases in crime in our history.

Having declined for decades on end, the murder rate suddenly doubled between 1961 and 1974. The rate at which citizens became victims of violent crimes in general tripled.

Such trends began at different times in different countries but the patterns remained very similar. As the rates of imprisonment declined, crime rates soared -- whether in England, Australia, New Zealand or the United States.

After a whole generation of crime victims were sacrificed on the altar to the theories of the left, a political backlash produced higher rates of imprisonment -- and lower rates of crime -- in all these countries in the late 20th century.

We are still not back to where we were in 1960, as regards either the level of crime or the downward trend in murder rates. The notions of the left are still going strong in the media, in academia, and in politics.

The left is still comfortable talking about "injustices and inequities" -- even without notes -- and certainly without confronting the vast amount of evidence that they are wrong.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Same Sowell Response
Yes, the left has been saying the same thing for the last 30 years. And you, Mr. Sowell, have been saying the same thing, with the same condescending tone with the same net effect. That is to say, nada.

For a man who is supposed to be educated you'd thunk that by now

1.) you'd figured out your writing is ineffective in changing the public's opinion about the left

2.) Being all educated and such, you'd tried some new approach, some new tact, something perhaps effective.

Instead, we get the same old finger-pointing, holier than thou, fire-and-brimstone, arrogant, pompous, people just tune the tone out missive.

Great. After some 30-40 years one would think Mr. Sowell, by now, you'd of realized all your whining has been for naught.

Perhaps you should take a writing class that teaches one the basics, like your to your audience, not yourself.

Maybe you like to hear yourself whine, because that's all your doing, but no one who thinks differently than you will. Which would be the point of writing, convincing somebody of something they don't already believe in.

It's funny how the very same
leftists who want to leave the rest of us vulnerable to these thugs feel that it is THEIR right to send their kids to private school, to live behind gates keeping the rift-raft out, to hire armed guards, and to have a higher standard of living but that these things aren't okay for the rest of us.

Lies, D**n Lies and Dr. Sowell
Let's talk statistics.

Some 8-9 million people live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Guess how many people Oakland has? That's right, 400,000. But it gets better. I lived in Oakland for 5 years. It's not Oakland. It's West Oakland. In any given year when there are some 60+ murders, only 1 or 2 will be east of McArthur Blvd.

Trust me, the people who live in the East Oakland Hills in the million dollar mansions are NOT WORRIED.

Last I looked, the San Francisco Bay Area is predominantly liberal. Hooo ahh. The 9 million people who live there live in some of the safest neighborhoods. The only city with a million people, San Jose, came in as the safest large city with over 1 million people last year?

So is Sowell going to give the liberals credit for the safety of the 8 million while blaming them for the West Oakland problem?

No.

And there is the problem.

If you really want to stick it the liberals, bring up education. The people in the bay area are not overly concerned with crime. They are overly concerned about education. Education in California is a disaster and education has also had the same liberal spiels for the last thirty years. More than a few liberals would be willing to listen right wing criticism of liberal education because they are pissed off with the current state of affairs.

It would be interesting to compare the 8 million people who live in the Bay Area to some enclave of 8 million people who live in some conservative strong hold and see how the crime rates for the 8 million people who live in the conservative metropolitan area stack up against the bay area.

If I had to place a bet as to which group had less crime, I know where I'd place my money.

IMHO, some ot the difference is
attributable to the fact we are recognizing that not ALL offenders can be rehabilitated. Some just can't be.
Another part of the equation is perhaps the half- way houses to make that adjustment BACK.
And the last part is: crime goes down when you do NOT know WHO has got a gun.

shades of Simons?
driveby's second posting reminds me of the famous bet between Jullian Simons and Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich also had "the tide of history" on his side. And also wound up losing the bet because of a lack of knowledge of how society works.

Sorry Driveby, Dr. Sowell has a lot more credibility to me than you do. As for why, the prairie provinces in Canada are roughly the same population and population density (with similar urban/rural splits) as the northernmost states that they border. Ever see the comparison of violent crime levels between the two? Those with the leftist viewpoint would assume that Canada is the safer of the two. And would be wrong. US urban crime ups your averages, and the more liberal the judicial system the higher the violent crime rates I'd expect.

For a side bet, I'd say that pedophilia will be on the rise in Vermont because the judicial system there has been lax in prosecutions. Would you agree?

I'll take Dr. Sowell thank you
Uh, saying Dr. Sowell doesn't know what he is talking about is very risky. I'll put my money on his research every time. Ever read one of his books?

He has a knack for being able to focus like a laser on the true problems of do-good intentions. This is probably why liberals really despise him as he exposes them for all to see.


What about facts?
Hey, driveby...you blame Dr. Sowell for being ineffective because he cites facts and has done so for decades, but you exhonorate those who ignore the facts?

Now THAT'S clear thinking. Not.

Dr. Sowell may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but it isn;t he who has created the wilderness. People like you have, and in fact ARE the wilderness.


Indoctrination...
...is the only conceivable explanation for liberals' immediate recourse to "inequality" as the cause of high crime rates. There's no evidence for their proposition, and quite a bit against it, but the liberal faith in inequality-as-ultimate-felon remains unshaken.

Well, at least they haven't yet gotten around to blaming it on global warming.

Any Casual Observer.....
with any intelligence would come to the same conclusions Dr. Sowell provided concerning crime and Mayor Dellums.

But the Dellums and the drivebypostings of the world continue to blame anything under the sun for crime except the people who commit it.

The old story about two liberals walking down the street remains right on target. As they walk they see a man, who has been beaten and in need of medical help, sitting on the sidewalk. The one liberal notes, We must find the person who beat this man."

The other liberal adds, "Yes! We must find the person who beat this man. He needs our help."

new york city
I lived in Brooklyn during the Dinkins and Giuliani eras. Dinkins said the same things as Dellums. Crime was rampant, brutal. Giuliani took the adult approach and prosecuted criminals. Unbelievably, civilty returned. I wish people could spend one day in 1983 NYC, and another today.

A Better Idea
I'm old enough to remember the "We've got to understand..." rhetoric of the Silly 'Sixties and Stupider 'Seventies. Hence, I've got a lot of sympathy for Sowell's position. However, I also feel that first offense thievery should be dealt with by restitution; that if we can't prove that Joe Blow did the crime, he should walk rather than get a shorter jail term; and that once murder and/or habitual criminality is conclusively proven, it should be dealt with by a Chinese-style 9 mm. cerebral hemmorhage or the proverbial long drop and short tow of Renaissance Scotland ASAP. We spend enough supporting a criminal class in accommodations that are better than some honest people have.

velvety 1, perfect example!
The only positive thing about Rudy, that I can think of anyway, is his ability to reduce crime by blaming the criminals and not the victims. Of course his stance on gun owners completely negates the positive.

Criminals: Rebels or bullies?
The left has the notion that criminals are rebels against the evil capitalist system rather than bullies against innocent people. Anyone watching videos of convenience-store robberies would easily see that they are bullies rather than rebels. After all, a convenience-store worker is pretty much an exploited worker, so a robbery of a convenience store should be aimed at the system rather than the poor joe who happens to work there. Yet, time and again one sees the poor joe getting clobbered.

Anyway, the capitalist system isn't evil. That was the mistaken analysis that leftists made a couple hundred years ago. Workers were exploited horribly by capitalists back then, but the fact is that those workers didn't have the vote and were poorly educated. If they hadn't been exploited by capitalists, their lives wouldn't have been much better.

It was the maldistribution of power rather than capitalism that caused the problem.

driveby....
This sentence from your first posting makes no grammatical or logical sense:

"Perhaps you should take a writing class that teaches one the basics, like your to your audience, not yourself."

I THINK what you were TRYING to say was something like more like this: "Perhaps you should take a writing class which would enable you to teach some basic facts to your audience instead of simply re-iterating them to yourself".

Of course, even then that suggestion sounds odd coming from you as is Dr. Sowell quite obviously far more effective at coherently putting ideas and arguments into words that you could ever hope to be. On the other hand, you may have a point about the sorry state of secondary education in the Bay Area, particularly if you happen to be a product of that system.

Absent responsibility...
Driveby must not have read this article. Dr. Sowell didn't say that liberals were causing crime. He's saying that they're denying the cause, and of course, he's right.

The left won't take responsibility for anything and they won't allow anyone else on the left to take any either. It's injustice and inequality that causes crime...not the perpatrators. The mayor blames something else, because he can't have his administration accountable.

They will, however, blame everything on the conservative right. Randi Rhodes falls on her own arse and immediately the nutroots are blaming "right wing" hate mongers on the assault. William Jefferson takes $90k in bribes and he's promoted to a committee. After all, it's the fault of the guy who gave him the money.

If the left would just prosecute criminals, and not make excuses for them, there would be no debate and a lot less crime.






I too used to
live in the Bay Area. My favorite hangouts were in Jack London Square beginning just before the Nitmizt Freeway overpass at Broadway. I went back to visit friends out where I used to live and to show my wife around my old hangouts and take her on a walking tour of San Francisco.

We toured SF during the afternoon and got off of the Bart at the corner of 14th Street and Broadway and started walking toward Jack London Square. I saw a bus coming and my wife was starting to gripe about all the walking so we stopped at a bus stop to get on the bus. The bus driver wanted to know why two white people were walking around downtown Oakland after dark. After I told him about showing my wife around old hangouts he told us it was no longer the "old Oakland" that I knew and that we needed to stay off the streets.

It was a sad day and state of affairs. On top of all that, all my old hangouts were all gone. This is what happens when you let to liberals take over.

DriveBy Dimwit
Your 1st post illustrates Dr. Sowell's point better than he could have hoped--essentially, that no amount of logic or evidence will pry a self-important liberal from his cherished beliefs.

Incidentally, perhaps YOU should take a writing class that teaches one the basics--like the difference between "your" and "you're."

See, "your" is possessive, as in "your purse" or "your lack of any discernible intellect." On the other hand, "You're" is the magical melding of the words "you" and "are," as in "you're an idiot."

And now a quotation
From the Report of The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice, Standards and Goals, issued in December of 1973. This 636-page report cost the American taxpayer $1,750,000 from 1971 to 1973, not including U.S. Government Printing Office costs.

Other than the usual (even today) call for a ban on civilian firearms ownership, the Report had these gems RE criminal prosecution and incarceration;

"No prison sentence should exceed five (5) years except those dealing with murderers, professional criminals, and persistent dangerous offenders."

"Courts should impose prison sentences only as a last resort after considering such other tactics as immediate release with or without conditions, probation, fines, and sentencing to a halfway house or work release program."

"States should build no major institutions for juveniles under any circumstances and none for adults except in rare cases where no alternative exists."

Or in other words, the criminals are the real victims in their world view.

While this report came out 34 years ago, its effects echo down through our criminal justice system to the present day. It perfectly illustrates the mindset of those who "answer to a higher morality" in their drive to create a "perfect society".

Or at least one that is perfect for criminals to ply their trade.

Sort of like Ron Dellums.


cheers

eon

Sacred Cows
Mark Twain once quipped "Sacred cows make the best hamburger."

Sowell is and has been an idiot for over 20 years. Sowell is just like every other conservative pundit on this site:

1.) Everything Liberal bad.
2.) Everything Conservative good.

Which makes Sowell an idiot.

Giulani and crime in New York aught to give conservatives pause to think. New York, last I looked, was a blue state and predominantly liberal.

So how did Giulani get elected? Easy, liberals woke up to the fact that perhaps conservatives could fix a problem facing them and voted in a conservative. Which suggests that 1.) liberals are not as stupid as you all make them out to be and 2.) you can convince liberals to vote conservative under the right conditions.

Sowell is the biggest idiot of all though when it comes to the economy and when Sowell claims liberals are against the free market and bad at capitalism. Ha ha ha!

I live in silicon valley. Name me one new conservative company that can stack up to the likes of Google. Sowell has forgotten the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. All the new money from Microsoft, Yahoo! to Google is in the hands of liberals. Liberals kick butt in the free markets and liberals are responsible for *growing* this economy. The rules of this country for the forseeable future are going to be made by liberals because they have all the money.

Sowell can never answer the California challenge. Explain California's financial successes over the last 40 years given that local and state government has been run by liberals overwhelmingly. In order for him to answer that challenge he'd have to give liberals some credit for understanding capitalism and give them credit for being the best at it.

Since he can't do that he can't answer the California challenge.

Sowell is a simpleton. Liberal bad, Conservative good. That makes him an idiot as well as all his blabbering sycophants who hang out here.


The 60s and 70s was the time when
liberal dogma was implemented and it saw tremendous increases in crime. This is what Dr. Sowell was saying the article above. Sadly he didn't follow up with the 80s and 90s when the public finally woke up and started putting these people in jail. When jail became the standard for criminal behavior the crime rates started dropping.

It may not deter crime, but someone who is in jail will not do any crime to the public citizen. Now the liberals are crying because we are "jailing" too many people. LOL.






driveby has
promulgated this fallacy of "California's financial success" for a while now. Actually CA has long passed the time when it could be considered a "financial success". It originally grew based solely on the gold boom. WWII saw an increase due to government contracts which continued after the war along with farming. This led to a massive inflow of population to the jobs that were being opened up.

The years of the 60s and 70s began the "liberalization" of California and the Communist(D) takeover of State politics. By the 90s that had been completed and the State was well into a massive decline. Business, industry, and working people are currently leaving California in droves. Illegals are replacing them in droves. Within another decade at present trends California will go bankrupt if trends continue.

Driveby...
None of us could have guessed that you are from California. What makes Google, Microsoft and Yahoo liberal? Branding corporations liberal or conservative is a new one to me. Someone once said that, "there are no athiests in fox holes". Well there are no liberals in successful corporations either. When it comes to money, everyone's ideology is the same.

Liberal politicians however are a whole different animal. They will gladly take the wealth of those companies and give it to the millions of illegal aliens living in your state in order to buy votes with someone else's money. That also would include the incredible wealth of your drug companies.

Then, the once great California will become Mexico City. If you like socialism, great. Maybe we can consolidate all socialism in California and spare the rest of the country.

To Drive By
You twist facts and reason to fit your pre-established agenda. Sowell uses facts and reason to help form his opinions. That is a huge difference.

There is no such thing as "conservative" companies and "liberal" companies. Your suggestion of this is ignorant on its surface. These "liberal" companies would not be so successful if liberal policies prevail in Washington, and we are all taxed into oblivion. Yes, "liberal" companies benefit from prevailing conservative tax policies. California has had its share of problems over the past 40 years as well. You have a very short memory (or is it a short attention span?). California is blessed with abundant natural beauty, natural resources and a climate that, for the most part, is ideal year-round. These facts have a HUGE impact on the state's economic success. Sowell is right, however, that much of the real estate in California is priced beyond the average person's paycheck, and this has much to do with liberal property laws. Your "California challenge" is ridiculous. I've never seen Sowell state that lliberal do not understand capitalism; it's just that much of the hard left doesn't really believe in it, that's all. Sowell is not talking about all liberals in his columns; he's talking about the particularly ignorant ones.

Rock Strongo
PRICELESS!! LOL.

DriveBy Dimwit
The very fact that you claim that liberals are champions of the free market disqualifies anything you say from serious consideration.

Quick quiz: what do all of these things have in common (just to scratch the surface)?

Socialized medicine
Social Security
Welfare
Minimum wage
Redistribution of wealth
Unions
Onerous taxes/regulation

1. They are all antithetical to a free market
2. They are all championed by liberals

As to your question about a conservative company that can stack up to Google--WalMart's bottom line compares favorably to the combined revenues of every "liberal" company you listed.

And by the way, before calling anyone a simpleton, it might behoove you to discover that "aught" is not a word.



orlandocajun
"If you like socialism, great. Maybe we can consolidate all socialism in California and spare the rest of the country."

Wonderful! We have some real talent here at TH. You guys crack me up.

Dolly
Way to lob a drive-by post without the slightest hint of evidence or reason. Apparently, Bush's administration is crooked just because you say it is.

Breaking the Law
Crime is out of control in this country. There are a number of convicted law breakers elected to congress , you know the congress that makes laws that we all must follow. Check out the last two presidents, one impeached, definitely guilty of breaking a number of laws, and accused of committing a number of felonies, but not convicted. We have a president now convicted of DWI, accused of not fulfilling his National Guard duties, and now thinks there is nothing wrong with allowing millions upon millions of illegals here who have broken the law by entering this country illegally, and many who are committing horrendous crimes here, he thinks it's okay to make them citizens. The very term law and order is now considered to be racist. In Jenna LA. there is an entire group of people demanding that the law not be upheld and a criminal not be prosecuted. And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sowell's typical distortions and bias
Another conservative hit job, where do I begin?

You know I find it very interesting that a man like Sowell who has a PHD in economics somehow forgets to mention the effect that globalization, foreign free trade, and outsourcing has had on our economy and how this influences crime. Last time I checked, what the economy was in 1960 was completely different from what it is now. So not mentioning this is sort of silly considering what Sowell is analyzing.

The outsourcing of jobs has reduced millions of jobs in urban areas and these jobs have been replaced with employers like Walmart, Target, and other service low paying companies. My guess is that the cashier at the local Philadelphia Walmart isn't making enough to support him or herself. Some people in this situation may quit all together and turn to, yes, crime. Hey why work for 7 bucks an hour when you can steal or solicit drugs to make a living. Now of course I don't condone this behavior, I just find it interesting that an economist with the credentials of Sowell's wouldn't mention it. Must have just been a slip up.

Anthony
You have unknowingly helped to make Sowell's point. By blaming crime on anything but the criminal we essentially enable it. I'd like to see the hard evidence that shows a signficant amount of crime is perpetrated by Walmart or Target employees or even former employees of these organizations. The vast majority of crime committed is either directly or indirectly related to drugs and the drug industry. There is no data that I am awrae of which supports the notion that crime increase is due to job outsourcing. Honest people do not take relatively low-paying jobs and then decide to supplement their income with criminal activity. The theory may sound good to you, and may even look good on paper, but there is just no evidence of it.

Eighth Amendment
I wonder if we should abolish the eighth amendment in order to permit judges to sentence criminals to torment.

After all, if the All-Wise and All-Loving God condemns sinners to eternal torment, then what would be wrong with us condemning His enemies to any period of torment?

crime at the grass roots
I see criminals by the hundreds on a daily basis and the vast majority of criminals commit crimes for reasons that have nothing to do with past injustices or inequities. Most of them could not even name any specific past injustices. The vast majority of burglaries occur to support drug habits. People again supporting drug habits commit the vast majority of forgeries. The majority of murders in my district are blacks killing blacks usually gang related but at any rate I don't see the correlation between past injustices and blacks killing blacks. Domestic abuse can hardly be blamed on past injustices. As for the comment by Anthony Thomas "Hey why work for 7 bucks an hour when you can steal or solicit drugs to make a living. Now of course I don't condone this behavior, I just find it interesting that an economist with the credentials of Sowell's wouldn't mention it. Must have just been a slip up.” gets to the gist of the issue. People who commit crimes really like the integrity to remain honest in difficult circumstances. Honest people would never accept such foolishness and would never sink to level of thinking or living.

Rape
What about rape, Anthony Thomas?

After all, one could argue a woman would not have been raped if she just shared her vagina willingly instead of saying no.

Max power
"You're absolving the criminal of any responsibility. basically you're saying that committing a crime is OK if all the crook wants is more money than he can earn at Walmart."

No I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is I find it interesting that Sowell conveniently leaves the influence of right leaning, "reagan" economics out of his analysis, all while bashing the left for their politcal positions and judicial activism of the 60's. Basically it's a bias column that doesn't present the full scope of the argument. That was my point.

Anthony
Again, you prove Sowell's points. "Reagan Economics" and the conservative judicial changes (see: mandatory sentencing) of the 1980s led to a drastic decrease in crime.

The liberal, "How did society fail these people" philosophy of the 1960s and the identical mentality currently seen in our liberal-controlled cities have created massive increases in crime. I live right outside Baltimore and have seen the disastrous consequences of your political beliefs.

Anthony Thomas
That was a biased comment. You conveniently left out the effect of religious observance on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of the breakdown of the family on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of education on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of race relations on crime.

Or, perhaps you just happened to conveniently change the subject. Mr. Sowell chose to write about the liberal idea that "injustices and inequities" explain crime. Instead of replying to that, you chose to claim that the fact that this column isn't about the effect of economic policies on crime shows his bia.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Or were you showing your bias by not mentioning all of the OTHER things that effect crime?

Anthony Thomas
That was a biased comment. You conveniently left out the effect of religious observance on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of the breakdown of the family on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of education on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of race relations on crime.

Or, perhaps you just happened to conveniently change the subject. Mr. Sowell chose to write about the liberal idea that "injustices and inequities" explain crime. Instead of replying to that, you chose to claim that the fact that this column isn't about the effect of economic policies on crime shows his bia.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Or were you showing your bias by not mentioning all of the OTHER things that effect crime?

Anthony Thomas
That was a biased comment. You conveniently left out the effect of religious observance on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of the breakdown of the family on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of education on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of race relations on crime.

Or, perhaps you just happened to conveniently change the subject. Mr. Sowell chose to write about the liberal idea that "injustices and inequities" explain crime. Instead of replying to that, you chose to claim that the fact that this column isn't about the effect of economic policies on crime shows his bia.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Or were you showing your bias by not mentioning all of the OTHER things that effect crime?

Anthony Thomas
That was a biased comment. You conveniently left out the effect of religious observance on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of the breakdown of the family on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of education on crime. You conveniently left out the effect of race relations on crime.

Or, perhaps you just happened to conveniently change the subject. Mr. Sowell chose to write about the liberal idea that "injustices and inequities" explain crime. Instead of replying to that, you chose to claim that the fact that this column isn't about the effect of economic policies on crime shows his bia.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Or were you showing your bias by not mentioning all of the OTHER things that effect crime?

Sloppy
Amusing. Look I'm not the one who wrote the column, I was merely making an observation about Sowell's column. I can't give an entire analysis of crime on a Th post. However if I could, I would include many of the things that you mentioned. Sowell doesn't, and he is supposed to be the so called "expert". He has the platform to make his arguments all the time. When he does, there is no sense of objectivity in his work. That was my original point. You're actually changing the subject.

icedog
"Again, you prove Sowell's points. "Reagan Economics" and the conservative judicial changes (see: mandatory sentencing) of the 1980s led to a drastic decrease in crime."


I would looove to see a stat for the above comment! The 1980's were some of the worse and most violent times in the inner city in America. Globalization and poverty, combined with the crack epidemic led to increased crime, Aids, and murders during the 1980's.

It's a matter of character. Period.
Honest people do not commit crime, regardless of their state.
Back when I was young (before the cultural revolution of the sixties) I knew a black woman who was dirt poor, but who would no more steal than cut off her arm.
The reason she gave...
"I was raised to be honest."

Rock Strongo
You are good, REALLY GOOD! Please keep it up.

Driveby
I think driveby is a masochist. He posts ignorant claptrap and then he sits back and masturbates while people tell him what a fool he is.....he LIKES it.

Anthony Thomas -- on Globalization
Well, I imagine that one reason Dr. Sowell didn't mention how globalization and outsource influences crime.

Globalization has led to an INCREASE in our standard of living. We generally have outsourced mostly low-paying jobs -- and INsourced even MORE jobs. Despite liberal rhetoric to the contrary, the average purchasing power of Americans has gone UP.

So.

Nevermind whether or not poverty and bad economic conditions lead to crime. We DON'T HAVE bad economic conditions ANYway.

The other thing that has been left
out of these discussions is the impact of LBJ and his "great society". Those liberal programs rewarded out of wedlock children and school drop outs. With the reward incentives illegitimacy and school dropout rates skyrocketed. As the family structure of the inner city disintegrated from these policies so did crime skyrocket. So we had a one-two punch here of liberalism grown wild. Destroy the families and be easy on crime and criminals.

How could anyone, regardless of ideology, not see the outcome of that?

One more point - -
quoth Anthony Thomas: "My guess is that the cashier at the local Philadelphia Walmart isn't making enough to support him or herself."

Your guess would be correct.

Which is why the the cashier at the local Philadelphia Walmart IS NOT supporting him or herself on his or her salary from the local Philadelphia Walmart.

The cashier is most likely NOT the sole income provider for the family.

Max power,Independent thinker, IceDog
Ok let’s engage this for a second. Why do you think the most crime infested and violent areas of our American cities are the poorest? Ok, I know what you guys are gonna say: Lack of individual moral values. Right? Wrong! The inner cities are no less are no more moral than any other areas of our great country. The only difference is that unlike affluent suburban areas, people in the inner city don't have the money to support their immoral habits, so some kill and steal to support it.

While in college, I was a waiter in a pretty affluent suburban area outside the city. (I caught 3 buses just to get there!). Many of the kids that worked there were from this area. Now while I was working at this restaurant to pay for food, books, clothes, etc, most of my fellow co-workers were working there to pay for something totally different: Drugs! Ecstasy, cocaine, mushrooms, you name it, and they did it! As a naive 19 year old kid from the inner city I was shocked by this lack of moral behavior by people I was socialized to believe didn't engage in these types of activities. But they did, and I saw it.

One biggest lies and stereotypes that this country perpetuates is that only poor people are addicted to drugs. When the truth is, only poor people kill and steal for drugs (and even that's a stretch) Many of my drug addicted co-workers had parents that paid their rent, car insurance, and tuition for college all while they got high after work, and went to class the next morning. So the lack of morality has nothing to do with poverty, the lack of morality exist everywhere. The only difference is that people in the inner city don't have the money to support, or cover up their demons.

California
Is really 2 states. The Heathen Liberal Coast and The Conservative Christian Central Valley. Notice Oakland is on The Heathen Liberal Coast. In The Central Valley, there are LOTS of people who say they left SF, Oakland, etc because of the crime that Mayor Dellums says is THEIR FAULT! If that is so, why doesn’t the crime rate in The Central Valley go up when people from SF or Oakland move in? This proves 1 thing for certain, DriveByDimwit is a Limousine Liberal Moron!

Max power
"Hooked on drugs? Get help. Plenty of programs out there.Need money? Get a job, get a second job. Quit buying things you don't need and save your money."


Well lets remember the basic premise of the article, crime and its causes right? Well poor people are much more willing to commit crimes to support their habits and immoral behavior because of the lack of economic resources. While upper middle class and wealthy people don't have to resort to this because economic resources are readily available to them. Hmmm... It does seem be a direct link to the lack of jobs and inner city crime I think.

As I stated earlier, the effect of globalization and outsourcing has reduced many manufacturing jobs in the inner city, These jobs have been replaced by low paying employers like Walmart. This along with many other factors have contributed to the increase in crime.

Unca Alby
"Globalization has led to an INCREASE in our standard of living. We generally have outsourced mostly low-paying jobs -- and INsourced even MORE jobs."

Unca Alby the abve isn't completly true.Where are most of our clothes, jewlery, furniture, etc MANUFACTURED? Most big American companies have outsourced their manufacturing jobs to reduce the amount of money they have to pay to employees.(yes this is economically smart for them). Now the end product of this is, yes we get cheaper products, but we also lose millions of high paying jobs to China. India, Korea, etc. This has economically affected the inner city and is one of the many factors that has contributed to our crime problem.

Anthony
"I would looove to see a stat for the above comment! The 1980's were some of the worse and most violent times in the inner city in America. Globalization and poverty, combined with the crack epidemic led to increased crime, Aids, and murders during the 1980's. "

Since you would love to see a stat, I come to the rescue (courtesy of the US Justice Dept. Bureau of Justice Statistics).

I chose property crimes, simply because if your theory--that globalization/outsourcing has led to low-paying jobs, and that, in turn, has led to more crime--is sound, one could logically assume that property crimes would be particularly susceptible to an increase, if the purpose of the criminals was to supplement their supposedly now meager incomes (espescially during the eeeeevil Reagan 80's).

Total property crimes (burglary, theft, and vehicle theft) per 1,000 housholds hit a high of 553.6 in 1975. Then the rate dropped to a low of 154.0 in 2005.

Not only that, the rates of property crimes fell in EVERY year of the 80's.

Additionally, the murder rate fell from 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 8.4/100,000 in 1988 (Reagan's last year in office) which flies in the face of your bold assertion that they increased.


Max power
I agree , You won't get any arguments out of me on that one.

Rock Strongo
Well thanks for providing those stats. But also remember that the Reagan economic policies of the 80's affected different populations differently. The rich got richer the poor got poorer and so on and so fourth. My assertion that crime increasing was more focused on the inner city and not the general population. But I wasn't clear with that, so thanks for providing the stats.

Icedog
North Central Baltimore County here, I REFUSE to go into the city for ANYTHING!

Anthony
No, sweat. It's my pleasure.

However, I can't let this stand:

"The rich got richer the poor got poorer and so on and so fourth."

Another liberal myth that flies in the face of easily obtainable U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

Household incomes for the bottom quintile (both nominally and adjusted for inflation) increased every year of Reagan's two terms, except between '81-'82, when the entire economy experienced a recession.

But it is disturbing how casually this myth is tossed around..."so on and so forth"...as though you've heard it a thousand times before, which I have no doubt you have.

Pop Culture Quiz
Q:What do Max Power and Rock Strongo have in common (aside from their keen intellects)?

A: Both are Homer Simpson pseudonyms.

Anthony Thomas says he
"can't give an entire analysis of crime on a Th post."

I'm sure you can't. Are you suggesting that Mr. Sowell CAN on a TH column? I'm willing to bet that you have already put up about as many words commenting on this one column as he has in his column. It's ridiculous of you to suggest that because you don't like the subject he chose that he is biased.

A.Thomas says "You're actually changing the subject."

Really? How does that work? You don't like the subject Mr. Sowell chose to expound upon ('The idea that "injustices and inequities" explain crime..') and seem to think that this proves bias. When I point out that I can just as easily not like the subject that you chose, well, then that's not bias on your part. That's ME changing the subject. Do I have this right?

Oh, and Rock Strongo, you are doing great work there!

CRIME AND THE SIXTIES

.....The Sixties: Civil Rights Legislation ...the destruction of the two parent family (Social Welfare) ...forced intergration and bussing (White or affluent flight from the inner cities) ...lower educational standards ...no discipline ...single parent families ...poverty ...crime ....coincidence? ...ask any Liberal .....COLOSSUS

Max
Indeed.

Max
We're arguing?

Anthony
you said that the kids from the rich side of town were doings drugs, which is a crime. Again making Dr. Sowell's point. and when their habit exceeds their ability to pay they will most likely move onto other crimes. Nothing to do with past inequalities or unjustices

anthony easy questions
bill gates got rich; he hired people who got rich compared to the average guy in phila

the question is this: how did their getting rick screw the kids in north phila in drug gangs or the kids who knock down an old black lady for her money

Explain that connection.

or just come and say it, that bill gates and his employees should come out every sunday and hand out money in north philadephia; of course, we wont ask you to do it.

Anthony Thomas -- xx-sourcing
quoth Anthony Thomas: "Where are most of our clothes, jewelry, furniture, etc MANUFACTURED?"

I'm sorry, Anthony, this matters little as rebuttal to my statement.

The jobs being INsourced happen to pay better than the jobs being OUTsourced. Overall, the net result is that Americans are *richer*.

But you never hear about the INsourced jobs because it generally means good news, and good news for the country tends to be bad news for Democrats.

AT: "Now the end product of this is, yes we get cheaper products, but we also lose millions of high paying jobs to China. India, Korea, etc."

No -- we lose millions of LOW paying jobs. Generally (not always), the HIGH paying jobs come HERE. What goes overseas are the jobs requiring moderately more brains than a dachshund.

AT: "This has economically affected the inner city and is one of the many factors that has contributed to our crime problem."

I see you're still on this kick that folks are poor because of external factors beyond their own control. Therefore, government needs to step in and "do something."

As I'd told you under a different column: If a person, ANYBODY, graduates high school, refrains from underaged sex, gets married before having kids, *stays* married, and stays away from illegal drugs, that person's likelihood of being "poor" by anybody's definition is vanishingly small.

That's not too high a bar to jump, is it?

I'm sorry if the statistics don't bear out any other interpretation. Liberal Democrats just need to find a different windmill to tilt at.

Unca Alby
"If a person, ANYBODY, graduates high school, refrains from underaged sex, gets married before having kids, *stays* married, and stays away from illegal drugs, that person's likelihood of being "poor" by anybody's definition is vanishingly small."


That last paragraph says it all- a very simple formula for success that because of political correctness will never be uttered by America's so-called leaders.

Crime
Dr. Sowell is correct as usual!

Outsourcing Jobs and Crime
Anthony Thomas opines that Outsourcing jobs and lower wages caused by this correlates to higher crime. He uses the case of a service worker in Philadelphia working in a Wal-Mart or Target story.
The problem with his statement is that Philadelphia, a very high crime city, has not lost much industry due to outsourcing. So it is not like the inner city areas of Philadelphia can say “dang youse guys closed the steel mill and textile plants so I gotta rob someone now” .
I grew up in Philly. It’s a great city (Phillies had a good year I don’t know what is up with the Eagles, go Flyers!!). But it has not suffered a huge loss of jobs to overseas plants. The loss of the navy yard resulted in some high paying job loss but that is not enough to cause and happened after the upward trend in violent crime.

When I went to Temple U. in North Philadelphia I drove my mother in-law through the area (about 1991). She lives in Germany and was about 17 at the end of the war and was in the Berlin area. We saw boarded up rows of houses, burnt buses and cars, trash and rubble everywhere. She said it reminded her very much of Berlin in 1945-6.

Lots of problems influencing crime but outsourcing of jobs and loss of American Manufacturing is not really a MAJOR contributing factor.

Are Anthony & driveby the new satirists?
a la "Liberal Democrat"? They sound so stereotypically leftist, they can't be serious.

crime,gangs recrutment of youth,my draft
*NEVER AGAIN! ANTI GANG SOLISITATION AND YOUTH RECRUTMENT* MEMBERS OF VIOLENT CRIMINAL GANGS WITH YOUTH MEMBERS,RE-CLASSIFIED TO *VIOLENT PREDITOR GANG* ........... ALL ADULT MEMBERS CHARGED WITH VPG YOUTH GANG RECRUTMENT,LISTED ON PREDITOR WEB SITES SEXUAL PREDITOR OR VPG GANG PREDITOR,100% JAIL TIME 10 YRS $50,000 FINE FREEZE AND SEASE ASSETS,RELICED ONLY AFTER MANDATORY MENTAL TREATMENT AND DEEMED NO THREAT TO SOCIATY........ **THE VICTOMS OF VPG YOUTH RECRUTMENT ,MANDATORY MENTAL TREATMENT ,ANTI GANG TREATMENT.... **SOLISTIATION OF YOUTH INTO ANY GANG ,VIOLENT OR VPG CHARGED WITH A FELONY 5 YRS $10,000 FINE........ ANTI GANG TREATMENT......................... **VPG YOUTH ENDANGERMENT ANY ADULT VPG MEMBER WITH A YOUTH A(BECOUSE OF VIOLENCE)CHARGED WITH A FELONY VPG YOUTH ENDANGERMENT, ... 3YRS $5,000 FINE ................. *****NOTE; THERE ISNT A LAW TO STOP THE RECRUTMENT OF YOUTH INTO GANGS! THIS IS A HUMANITORIAN LAW NEEDED TO PENALIZE PREDITOR ADULTS,WE CANT STOP THE GANGS IF WE DONT STOP THE YOUTH RECRUTMENT. I NEED THIS BILL SPONSERED SEND TO YOUR SENATOR,CONGRESS,GOVENOR. WE NEED IT FOR OUR STATE,NATION. THANKS, DON MAC ARTHUR don_macarthur@yahoo.com 10- 17-2007

Drivebyposting
Your head is so far up your A#$ you can't see the light. Sowell would eat you for lunch in a debate. He doesn't debate with emotions. He uses only facts. To bad that intimidates you so much. I am from Silicon Valley and to say that the companies are liberal is a laugh. The Boys at Google could give a rat's a&s about our environment, they are using a boeing 767 as personal transportation landing at a government airfield, doesn't sound to environmentally friendly. Lyin hypocrites all of you. Chuck out.

Poor inner city welfare recipients are
NOT affected by globalization, since they were never employed to begin with.

Regardless of race or gender, inner city poor are often welfare recipients (and too often - not the first generation of welfare recipients). Since the Fed is taking care of them from cradle to grave, it is highly unlikely that they were forced into a life of crime because of the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, nor the low wages of working in a store (which all too many believe is beneath them).

The story goes that they are poor, so they commit crimes because they aren't paid enough by their employer, or the government.

The reality is, they commit crimes because they are subsidized to not work, therefore they have a lot of time on their hands, and getting into mischief is the work of idle hands.

Add to that the coddling lawmakers who cut breaks to the poor "children" who start out breaking laws precisely because they KNOW nothing will happen to them, and you have a recipe for trouble. Even the adult thugs out there know nothing will happen to junior, so they recruit him at an early age, and indoctrinate him into a life of crime. He gets away with it until he turns 18, then he gets hit with the full adult punishments for the crimes he got away with as a child.

Who is to blame here?

I say it is entirely the fault of the left, who supports their idle behavior with welfare, coddles them instead of punishing them young, then makes excuses for them when they finally are convicted in adult courts.

No PHD required here. It's easy to see the problem, if you're willing to see it.




FREEDOM
DON'T WRITE IN ALL CAPS.

It is virtually impossible to read.

Thoughts from www.zatavu.blogspot.com
We shouldn't be surprised when people are told that they are not responsible for their actions that they act as though they are not responsible for their actions.

Dr. Sowell is fascinating.
When ever possible I like to find out what makes the man. Whether that man be Adams, Jefferson, Nixon, Grant or Sowell. I am sure that most have more knowledge about him than I do. Is there a book that would help me understand how he has become the outspoken obviously conservative person he is, I am thinking a book or two that he has written would do that, but then again I am afraid someone would say read all of them.

I am really not looking for a debate today, if you have some ideas email me barrym@tds.net

Thanks,
Barry


Dangerous Cities
It is more dangerous to be In Oakland, Wash DC and Detroit,(to name a few), than it is to be in Iraq.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.