November 11, 2005
The Intersection Theory of Crime.
David Tufte has something interesting up. Post Katrina New Orleans provides an opportunity to conduct an experiment about crime. Read him for the full argument but the conclusion:
Alternatively, the root causes story of crime suggests that while the total number of crimes should be smaller in New Orleans after the storm, their rate should be higher. Again, this is a natural experiment that strongly suggests that the root causes approach - a common one in social sciences over the last century - is nothing short of nonsense.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Intersection Theory of Crime.:
I've always had problems with the "root causes" explaination of crime and although I'm no mathmetician and thus can't put it as eloquently as David I also have a theory.
The root causes theory says that poverty, racism or any other liberal denominated "reason" causes crime. Yet it ignores the fact that many people live in the same conditions as the criminals and yet do not become theives, rapist and murderers. In fact these people are in a majority compared to the criminals. Of course, because these "deluded fools aping bourgeoise manners" aren't out raping, stealing and murdering every night the liberals ignore them as inconvenient facts when dripping off about "crime and the causes of crime".
My theory is far simpler. We all contain within us the capability to commit crime. What stops us is our consciences which are partly genetic and partly learned. Temptation tries to erode that conscience (and if one is starving the temptation to steal a loaf of bread is much stronger than if one has just dined at Chez Gaston), but usually the conscience manages beat the temptation. The stronger the conscience the easier it is to defeat temptation.
The problem lies in our current system that does little to develop our inate consciences and often seems to reward those who give in to temptation.
Of course anybody who suggests such a theory, however, is shouted down as some sort of hanging and flogging-religious nutter-conservative-fascist by the liberal powers that be. Why? Because to do so would be to question the very foundation of the entire liberal economy. If crime isn't caused by social conditions then there is no need for sociologists, just more policemen and jailers. The problem is you can't wear Tibetan tofu-knit sandals with a police uniform.
ps I treat insults from liberals as compliments.
Posted by: Remittance Man | Nov 11, 2005 8:47:17 AM
Please, Socialist not Liberal.
Liberalism is about liberty which the people that are trying to hijack the name do not believe in. Socialism, their true calling, is nolonger used having been pretty well discredited and so nolonger acts as a good label for them to use when claiming to be holier-than-thou which is what a Socialist really wants.
Posted by: chris | Nov 11, 2005 12:42:53 PM
Sorry, Chris, you're right. I've been too brainwashed by the socialist media.
I shall book myself into a re-education camp immediately. Failing that, I'll sit in the "naughty corner" until I'm very sorry. Then go down the pub and drink to the death of socialism.
Posted by: Remittance Man | Nov 11, 2005 1:36:08 PM
Just read most of the Daily Telegraph comments on 90 days detention. Strange how many from foreign parts agreed with it, still they will not be picked up for not voting labour will they. Our ancient constitution which should protect us has been well and truly dumped and we are at the mercy of a liar and "his" policemen. What happened to "separation of executive and judiciary?
Posted by: Derek Buxton | Nov 11, 2005 3:52:42 PM