It was assumed for a long time by a certain political persuasion that poverty is a “root cause” of crime. All we need to do is alleviate poverty and mirable dictu, crime solved. Of course, the most generous of welfare states and localities became hotbeds for criminality. But then again, crime begets crime. When the state is looting first, it sets the precedent.
Here’s an interesting headline from the LA Times: Los Angeles crime rates plunge despite weak economy.
Crime in Los Angeles County dropped again in 2009 despite rising unemployment and the bad economy, continuing a slide that has pushed homicides to levels not seen since the 1960s.
You really have to appreciate the “despite rising unemployment”. The causal-realist approach to problems would be most helpful here. One doesn’t commit crime unless one first has no respect for property rights. In fact, crime is committed by criminals, it doesn’t “just happen”. This is again the product of Keynesian/leftist thinking, that if the government affixes the right remedies, everything will work out.
This is rather interesting:
The overall progress made this year around the country further refuted a once widely accepted belief that crime rates rise amid economic downturns.
Perhaps we can get rid of other widely accepted economic beliefs, like governments can stimulate economies and printing money creates wealth.
Then this too:
“Smart policing is not cheap,” said Rosenfeld, a professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “Whether it will continue to succeed depends on whether communities can afford it.”
Since being appointed last month, Beck has echoed that notion, warning that the department will not be able to sustain current crime levels, let alone improve on them, if budget cuts force the LAPD to shrink.
Because apparently, it’s not citizens who are responsible, it’s the police state. When crime goes up, we need more cops. When crime goes down, we need more cops. Makes perfect sense doesn’t it.