Two reasons not listed:
The internet started booming, leading to more online gambling
.
More abortions after Roe v. Wade led to fewer unwanted children who were not raised properly by deadbeat parents, leading to lives of crime. Since Roe v. Wade was in 1973, the mid 90's would have been when this generation of men would have been entering the prime of their lawbreaking careers. Fewer potential criminals = less crime.
The internet started booming, leading to more online gambling
.More abortions after Roe v. Wade led to fewer unwanted children who were not raised properly by deadbeat parents, leading to lives of crime. Since Roe v. Wade was in 1973, the mid 90's would have been when this generation of men would have been entering the prime of their lawbreaking careers. Fewer potential criminals = less crime.
Mr. Levitt profers a choice that would indicate you are aiming for d.) However, causality is always more difficult than people imagine though his argument is most interesting. One could explain that Levitt's reasoning describes the decline of the Democratic party's power share as well, which, if true would be ironic! edub69, you came up with that idea all by yourself? How coincidental. Let's examine the causality behind your post!! LOL! tulsa
Tulsa said:
I didn't know who Steven Levitt was until about five minutes ago when I looked him up after mudbone's post. I had a similar discussion with some friends a while back and someone brought up the idea, and I thought it had a lot of merit. Whoever brought it up must have read Levitt's book, although I didn't know it at the time.
Actually, I'm ribbing you! I don't immediately discount that you or any one of us can have an original thought, but it was the close proximity to mudbone's post that made me elbow you a bit. When we believe that only the select among us can have a great idea or interesting take on things, then we have given up the fight and all is lost. tulsa
Tulsa said:
No worries man. I have been spending too much time in the Politics forum lately where personal insults are the norm. After re-reading your post I realized you were messing with me. I would not have come up with that idea on my own though - I never gave the issue much thought. It seems like a pretty decent theory.
talk about a red herring question.
the question should be
1. Define crime. Then compare (if possible) crime rates in the 1990's to the crime rates in the 1980's and also to the crime rates in the 1970's.
2. Discuss the changing definition of crime between time periods and its effects on the crime rate. For example: For the first half of the year 1995 Gambling was legal, for the second half of that year it was deemed illegal. Crime rates soared in the 2nd half of 1995. Did Gambling create the crime? or Did the lawmakers create criminals?
the question should be
1. Define crime. Then compare (if possible) crime rates in the 1990's to the crime rates in the 1980's and also to the crime rates in the 1970's.
2. Discuss the changing definition of crime between time periods and its effects on the crime rate. For example: For the first half of the year 1995 Gambling was legal, for the second half of that year it was deemed illegal. Crime rates soared in the 2nd half of 1995. Did Gambling create the crime? or Did the lawmakers create criminals?
