Children..

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG »

Darth Wong wrote: If things are so much worse now, then can someone explain the fact that youth crime arrests in California were 50% higher in 1974 than they were in 1998? Subjective and anecdotal "evidence" is not really evidence at all. And increased media reporting of crime does not necessarily mean that crime is going up.

Reduction in crime in America doesn't necessarily mean that Americans are better behaved than in times past.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

SamG wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If things are so much worse now, then can someone explain the fact that youth crime arrests in California were 50% higher in 1974 than they were in 1998? Subjective and anecdotal "evidence" is not really evidence at all. And increased media reporting of crime does not necessarily mean that crime is going up.

Reduction in crime in America doesn't necessarily mean that Americans are better behaved than in times past.

Why not? The article you cited discusses possible causes of the improvement, such as improved policing. It does not refute the statement that a 50% drop in youth crime rate indicates less criminal behaviour.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG »

:lol: Of course it doesn't refute. Where oh where did I ever say it did? And no doubt Levitt would take issue with your use of the word "possible." He would say probable (primary causes -- better behavior is not in the top four), based on statistical analysis.

Anyway, I said, very clearly, that reduction in crime in America doesn't necessarily mean that Americans are better behaved than in times past. Until you can show some form of evidence that what I said is not possible, then I stand by my statement, and I will feel free to point to the work of people like Levitt as the basis for asserting the possibility that reduction in crime in America does not necessarily mean that Americans are better behaved than in times past.

Why do you make this so much work?!

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

SamG wrote: reduction in crime in America doesn't necessarily mean that Americans are better behaved than in times past

Could you please explain how "less criminal behaviour" does not equal "better behaved?"
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Swizec
Former Team Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:42 pm
Location: Slovenia
Contact:

Post by Swizec »

Darth Wong wrote:
SamG wrote:reduction in crime in America doesn't necessarily mean that Americans are better behaved than in times past

Could you please explain how "less criminal behaviour" does not equal "better behaved?"


people just learned not to get caught
people learned that the police doesn't do anything so they don't report anymore
people lost confidence in the justice system sot hey don't press charges anymore
the police is lasy so they make less arrests

stuff like that...

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Swizec wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Could you please explain how "less criminal behaviour" does not equal "better behaved?"

people just learned not to get caught

This would be statistically identifiable as a gigantic increase in the number of unsolved crimes. I have heard of no such increase.
people learned that the police doesn't do anything so they don't report anymore

You seriously think people have stopped reporting violent crimes?
people lost confidence in the justice system sot hey don't press charges anymore

You have some evidence that people who are victims of violent crime are less likely to press charges today than they were in the 1970s?
the police is lasy so they make less arrests

Oh come on, be serious.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Swizec
Former Team Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:42 pm
Location: Slovenia
Contact:

Post by Swizec »

1. actually, around here I'm pretty sure those statistics are going up, or so the magic box with pictures says

2. yes, I seriously do, just last week, a survey was done by the press and only 30% of the population here would report being mugged
personally I wouldn't even remember that the option was there :)

3. nope can't say I do ahe such evidence as I was not present back then and I'm not a statistics freak, I just have what I hear here and there

4. oh come on, those were just examples :)

User avatar
bonelifer
Community Team Member
Community Team Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:35 pm
Name: William
Contact:

Post by bonelifer »

Hmm, who are some people that don't report violent crime or other crime. Immigrants for one. Latinos for another, don't tend to report crime against themselves. As far as children. Lets not forget Columbine, Jonesboro, and many other schools where there were children terrorizing their classmates with weapons.
Knowledge Base | phpBB Board Rules | Search Customisation Database
Image
Please don't contact me via PM or email for phpBB support .

makc
Registered User
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:29 am

Re: Children..

Post by makc »

Darth Wong wrote: according to http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/myth/myth.html and the FBI's uniform crime statistics, youth crime has been going down over the last 30 years, not up.
Well, maybe that indicates rat count decrease? Or maybe young criminals are better these days. Any way, back in "old good days", we were better than they are now. But - hey - world changes.

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG »

Darth Wong wrote: Could you please explain how "less criminal behaviour" does not equal "better behaved?"

Certainly. Look please at Levitt's top four:

1. More police. This is a deterent factor, not a better behavior factor. Remove the deterent, and if Levitt did his math right, crime will increase.
2. Increased prison population. Criminals are more often behind bars than before, an environment where it is more difficult to behave criminally.
3. Stronger deterents have reduced drug-related criminal behavior. This is also a deterent factor; remove the deterent, and crime will rise.
4. Abortion. Similar in effect to #2.

No doubt this isn't the whole of the picture. But there is no evidence yet produced in this thread to suggest that a primary cause of reduced crime in America is better behaved Americans. It's that simple. That isn't to say that better behaved Americans is a non-factor, but that it isn't a statistically significant one, evidently, at least not so far with the information at hand.

Notice please that anectodal evidence that Americans are not better behaved than in times past is part of daily urban-American life. Consider, for example, that in suburban Dallas, Texas, kids who aren't met by a recognized adult at a school bus stop simply aren't allowed to get off the bus. This wasn't the case when I was growing up in suburban Chicago, Illinois. Americans certainly live in a land of elevated deterents, large and small, and not necessarily in a land where they are better behaved than in times past.

Or, to put it another way, it's possible that crime in America could be equal to or greater than it was in times past if deterents to crime had not increased, especially since Levitt's factors 2 and 4 are crucial factors that are not behavior-related.

At best, I think you can argue that reduced crime means Americans are not necessarily worse behaved than in times past, despite any anectodal evidence that seems to suggest otherwise. It doesn't necessarily follow that reduced crime means Americans are better behaved than in times past.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Sorry, but decreased bad behaviour is decreased bad behaviour regardless of what incentives or deterrents caused it. This is like saying that somebody who obeys the law doesn't really obey the law if he only obeys it in order to stay out of jail.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG »

This is getting hopelessly funny.

You cite decreased crime to question the topic starter's premise behind the question, "Who thinks childrens behavior is becoming more and more 'bad'." Not, according to the question, criminal behavior, but general, overall behavior. While I see the potential merit of your point, in itself, it doesn't address the whole of the question.

Then, an American economist is cited who says that due to various increased deterents criminal behavior is reduced. He says nothing about reduced crime because Americans are "less bad." He seems to ignore the question of "badness" altogether. This simply reinforces the notion that citing reduced crime as a rebuttal to the topic starter's question does not address the question with any kind of certainty. You wave the question off because of reduced crime. The American economist in effect says, "Not so fast ..."

I've made my point and had my say. Anything I could say further is just rehash of hash. Carry on.

Ezra-Bynx
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:31 am

Post by Ezra-Bynx »

You all seem to forget about the kids who are helping their communities and doing good things. The media seems to "forget" about those kids because they don't make good stories... Maybe we arn't getting worst, maybe the media just blows up the bad kids more than they used to because they make good headlines...

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

SamG wrote: This is getting hopelessly funny.

You cite decreased crime to question the topic starter's premise behind the question, "Who thinks childrens behavior is becoming more and more 'bad'." Not, according to the question, criminal behavior, but general, overall behavior. While I see the potential merit of your point, in itself, it doesn't address the whole of the question.

Why not? If young people are committing fewer crimes, then the assertion that they're much worse than in decades past becomes untenable.
Then, an American economist is cited who says that due to various increased deterents criminal behavior is reduced. He says nothing about reduced crime because Americans are "less bad." He seems to ignore the question of "badness" altogether. This simply reinforces the notion that citing reduced crime as a rebuttal to the topic starter's question does not address the question with any kind of certainty. You wave the question off because of reduced crime. The American economist in effect says, "Not so fast ..."

And yet, at no point does he remotely support the completely unfounded assertion that modern teens are behaving worse than their predecessors, hence the original assumption of this thread (that modern teens can be fairly accused of being generally morally inferior to their predecessors) is without foundation.
I've made my point and had my say. Anything I could say further is just rehash of hash. Carry on.

I don't see how any of your points support the original assertion of this thread that modern teens are morally inferior to their predecessors. All you're doing is trying to show that the case for modern teens being superior is not airtight.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

sonyboy
Registered User
Posts: 2980
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:10 am

Post by sonyboy »

It's been like this for years now.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”