# Record low murder rate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825 "2013-05-20T15:22:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/41 "2013-05-21T17:01:19Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes this was kind of meant as a response to the lead argument. I don’t know if i buy that lead poisoning automatically makes you violent. It may make you more subject to impetuous actions, but if your impetus is to do good, I don’t see how lead poisoning would make you evil. Would a society of Jesuses and Buddhas regress to violence due to lead poisoning? I’d say no. We don’t have a society of Jesuses and Buddhas, though. We have a society of people who have at least two relevant kinds of impulses: 1. Impulses to do nice things to other people. If your impulse control is strong, you’ll still do these nice things after you consider them. 2. Impulses to do mean things to other people. If your impulse control is strong, you’ll not do these mean things after you consider them. If you’re not impetuous, you’ll do a lot fewer mean things, and at least the same number of nice things (probably more nice things, because after consideration, you’ll realize the benefits of doing those nice things). If you are impetuous, you’ll do a lot more of those mean things, and at best the same number of nice things. > [@](#): > > Also the abortion argument is strange because many people would view an increase in abortion as an increase in violence in and of itself, what happened was merely a recategorizing of the type of violence from illegal to legal. Also, you would have to ask whether or not the forced taking from one to give to another is violence, broadly defined. No, there was no relevant “recategorizing of violence.” If you insist on a belief that abortion is violence, then yes, violence has increased dramatically. But if you separate out “violence” against embryos and fetuses, then violence has dropped dramatically for born folks. > [@](#): > > The inactivity theory would rest on an increase in productivity that allows people to live these lifestyles. An increase in productivity could also explain an improvement in morals. If more and more people have property of their own, they are more likely to have empathy for those who are robbed. Nice theory, but it’d suggest that historically speaking, wealthy folks are less violent. I’ll refer you to any feudal society to see the silliness of that proposition. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/42 "2013-05-22T05:05:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > We don’t have a society of Jesuses and Buddhas, though. We have a society of people who have at least two relevant kinds of impulses: > > 1. Impulses to do nice things to other people. If your impulse control is strong, you’ll still do these nice things after you consider them. > 2. Impulses to do mean things to other people. If your impulse control is strong, you’ll not do these mean things after you consider them. > > If you’re not impetuous, you’ll do a lot fewer mean things, and at least the same number of nice things (probably more nice things, because after consideration, you’ll realize the benefits of doing those nice things). If you are impetuous, you’ll do a lot more of those mean things, and at best the same number of nice things. This is all true. > [@](#): > > No, there was no relevant “recategorizing of violence.” If you insist on a belief that abortion is violence, then yes, violence has increased dramatically. But if you separate out “violence” against embryos and fetuses, then violence has dropped dramatically for born folks. Various flavors of abortion have changed labels from illegal to legal. What was once considered murder is no longer considered murder. What was once violence is no longer violence. I would consider that a relevant recategorizing of violence. If tomorrow murder by poison was labelled legal, there would be a corresponding drop in recorded violence. > [@](#): > > Nice theory, but it’d suggest that historically speaking, wealthy folks are less violent. I’ll refer you to any feudal society to see the silliness of that proposition. As Franz Oppenheimer has noted: > [@](#): > > There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. I don’t think the theory I laid out would suggest that wealthy people are less violent. If you make a distinction between the above two means of acquiring property, you will realize your wealthy lords in feudal societies were getting rich in immoral ways. That’s much different than today, where property rights are recognized across the board which forces people to acquire wealth through moral, mutually beneficial exchange. (For the most part, there are exceptions) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/43 "2013-05-22T06:36:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Various flavors of abortion have changed labels from illegal to legal. What was once considered murder is no longer considered murder. What was once violence is no longer violence. I would consider that a relevant recategorizing of violence. If tomorrow murder by poison was labelled legal, there would be a corresponding drop in recorded violence. Are you claiming that at some point in the past abortions were included in statistics for murders or violent crimes? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/44 "2013-05-22T07:00:06Z")
Maybe it’s the increasing tolerance of homosexuality? I mean if it can cause things like hurricanes and earthquakes, why can’t it cause a lower crime rate? It’s obviously pretty powerful stuff… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/45 "2013-05-22T07:27:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are you claiming that at some point in the past abortions were included in statistics for murders or violent crimes? Doctors, though not the mothers, used to be charged for that and, to this day I’m reasonably certain that people who performed an abortion without a license would be in trouble, but I don’t think they were charged with murder. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/46 "2013-05-22T07:35:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Doctors, though not the mothers, used to be charged for that and, to this day I’m reasonably certain that people who performed an abortion without a license would be in trouble, but I don’t think they were charged with murder. I’m not saying the crime didn’t exist. I’m disputing the claim that abortions used to be counted as murders for statistical purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Moonchild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Moonchild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonchild)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/47 "2013-05-29T07:10:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m telling you, video games and internet porn. Without it we would be living in mad max world. I’ve been saying this for a while – well, not the video games part, because I don’t obsess over video games ;)-- and I thought I was the only one that thought this. :smack: Seriously, you give base people complete and free (well, just about) access to something that satisfies their base desires, you get a more pacific, less-motivated group. My motivation to do good or be productive has been sapped by porn usage; why wouldn’t it work in the opposite direction? But it also rings true that a push for tolerance by the media (race, color, sexual identity, etc.) has paid off over time as well. And lead paint? Sure. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/48 "2013-05-29T07:34:54Z")
I submit that, at least in part (as the trend probably has multiple drivers), it is the inverse of video games: _cameras_. Freaking _cameras, everywhere you go_, people are beginning to realize that crime is kind of impractical in a world where you have a very high probability of being recorded on camera right now. Along with various other causes. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/49 "2013-05-29T14:00:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But, > > > [@](#): > > > > In states where consumption of leaded gasoline declined slowly, crime declined slowly. Where it declined quickly, crime declined quickly. One thing to keep in mind here is that the reduction of leaded gas consumption from place to place was probably very closely correlated with wealth. Most people kept using leaded gas until they bought a car with a catalytic converter. So when they became (essentially) mandatory in 1974, the amount of leaded gas being sold in a given area from then on would have been proportional to the number of people driving pre-'74 cars, and that in turn is going to be dependent on the wealth of an area. Saying correlation without causation doesn’t necessarily mean a complete random coincidence; there can be shared causes for both, without one causing the other. The lead theory is really interesting, and I think there may be something to it, but I also think it’s possible that implementing a car smog program that necessitated unleaded gas required good economic conditions and an active social-reforming government, and those same factors lead to various improved social conditions and thus reduced crime down the line. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/50 "2013-05-29T14:06:43Z")
A lot of murder attempts do not become actual murders because of advances in health care–attempts which would have been successful in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/51 "2013-05-29T14:59:04Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > A lot of murder attempts do not become actual murders because of advances in health care–attempts which would have been successful in the past. Those would still be classified as attempted murder or at least violent assault however. If that were the case, you would expect to see a rise in attempted murders and assaults but I don’t believe that is the case. All of them are down. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/52 "2013-05-31T03:24:48Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Sold. Lead may be part of the reason but it ignores that that uptick was a tiny uptrend in a long historical drop in the murder rate in the western world. WARNING PDF [http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma\_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf](http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf) Also look at figure 2 on page 67 of the following cite, total lead per capita was actually lower in the mid 1900’s due to paint…yet if it was the primary cause why would it not also follow the historical context. Warning PDF [http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf?new\_window=1](http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf?new_window=1) But the biggest issue with claiming that Leaded gas was the main cause is that the only way they hand wave away the other potential causes and over decades the main proponents just keep adding more things to blame lead on over the years without ruling it out for anything they have published. > [@](#): > > But there’s a problem common to all of these theories: It’s hard to tease out actual proof. Maybe the end of the crack epidemic contributed to a decline in inner-city crime, but then again, maybe it was really the effect of increased incarceration, more cops on the beat, broken-windows policing, and a rise in abortion rates 20 years earlier. After all, they all happened at the same time. Now…to fight off the inevitable straw man arguments, I think lead exposure, especially in young developing humans is a very bad thing and I am quite happy the laws have been moving towards exposure reduction. But that mixed with all the “toxins” talk hits my Baloney Detection Kit. Note I realize there are serious ethical issues with “double blind” human studies and that is not what makes me want to look at this closer. IMHO, one factor people just plainly ignore is that it wasn’t just birth control, Eisenstadt v. Baird was decided in 1972 just two years before Roe v. Wade. Previous to that there was no “right” for unmarried couples to use birth control and a short 7 years prior to that Griswold v. Connecticut was decided which had given married couples the right to use birth control. Mix in the equal pay act, no fault divorce and you have women and couples gaining more control control of family planning. There are probably lots of reasons the rate has dropped…and I don’t doubt that the reduction in lead exposure is part of the solution. But I also highly doubt that it was the primary cause. If I had to guess I would say it was due to a complex mixture of increased education, reduced poverty, increased access to family planning and real family planing information, increased access to recreational outlets and a whole lot of luck. I hope the whole subject receives more study right now there “answers” are mostly seem to be guesses and pseudoscience. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/53 "2013-05-31T03:40:37Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > One thing to keep in mind here is that the reduction of leaded gas consumption from place to place was probably very closely correlated with wealth. Most people kept using leaded gas until they bought a car with a catalytic converter. So when they became (essentially) mandatory in 1974, the amount of leaded gas being sold in a given area from then on would have been proportional to the number of people driving pre-'74 cars, and that in turn is going to be dependent on the wealth of an area. I am not sure this is so clear cut. Mixed in with the fuel embargos at the time it was very very common to just unbolt the exhaust and smash out the converters’ internals in some odd attempt to get better MPG or power. Gas stations had the adapters you would put on the end of a regular leaded gas pump by the front counter in many states and areas which didn’t have emissions testing. Add in the reality that lead was a very cheap way to increase the octane ratings and thus tended to be cheaper than unleaded people really didn’t stop using leaded gas until computerized ignition and O2 sensors made it impractical. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/54 "2013-05-31T03:49:13Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I am not sure this is so clear cut. Mixed in with the fuel embargos at the time it was very very common to just unbolt the exhaust and smash out the converters’ internals in some odd attempt to get better MPG or power. Gas stations had the adapters you would put on the end of a regular leaded gas pump by the front counter in many states and areas which didn’t have emissions testing. > > Add in the reality that lead was a very cheap way to increase the octane ratings and thus tended to be cheaper than unleaded people really didn’t stop using leaded gas until computerized ignition and O2 sensors made it impractical. And yes, obviously the 1986 total ban did put an end to that. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/55 "2013-05-31T13:39:42Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I am not sure this is so clear cut. Mixed in with the fuel embargos at the time it was very very common to just unbolt the exhaust and smash out the converters’ internals in some odd attempt to get better MPG or power. You know, I’ve always heard that but I came of automotive age driving old smog-era cars in a state that didn’t do smog tests and the vast majority of cars from that era still at least had the converter intact. I’m guessing sawing out the converter was more common among hot-rodder types. But that’s just anecdotal, I suppose. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And yes, obviously the 1986 total ban did put an end to that. In 1986 they mandated a reduction of lead content in “regular” leaded gas, but it wasn’t completely phased out until 1996. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/56 "2013-05-31T13:43:24Z")
Of course, I suppose another way to look at that is that only scofflaws would saw out their emissions equipment and keep using leaded gas on post-'74 cars. So maybe criminality in an area caused more leaded gas use instead of the other way around. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/57 "2013-06-03T05:34:37Z")
> [@Moonchild](#): > > I’ve been saying this for a while – well, not the video games part, because I don’t obsess over video games ;)-- and I thought I was the only one that thought this. :smack: > > Seriously, you give base people complete and free (well, just about) access to something that satisfies their base desires, you get a more pacific, less-motivated group. My motivation to do good or be productive has been sapped by porn usage; why wouldn’t it work in the opposite direction? > > But it also rings true that a push for tolerance by the media (race, color, sexual identity, etc.) has paid off over time as well. And lead paint? Sure. > [@GreasyJack](#): > > Of course, I suppose another way to look at that is that only scofflaws would saw out their emissions equipment and keep using leaded gas on post-'74 cars. So maybe criminality in an area caused more leaded gas use instead of the other way around. 🙂 OK so its settled. The whole leaded gas thing can be explained away but gangsters playing Madden Football and other likely violent offenders “sitting” in front of the computer explains everything. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/58 "2013-06-03T21:43:24Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Not all people are equally likely to commit violence. In all societies, at all times, males commit violence than women, and males aged about 15-30 commit more than small children and older men. > > Instead of measuring murders per 100,000 people per year, it would be interesting to measure murders per 100,000 males age 15-30 per year. The proportion of young people in the population as a whole has gone down recently in most of the world, which might explain why crime is lower. Good point. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m going with the lead theory. [The evidence in its favor seems pretty overwhelming](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline). That’s interesting and looks promising. However, one point in that paper: > [@](#): > > But there’s a problem common to all of these theories: It’s hard to tease out actual proof. Evidently, while they cited the Freakonomics work, they didn’t actually read it. The most conclusive evidence for their theory about abortion is how the downturns in violent crime in the early-to-mid 90’s, on a state-by-state basis, tracked when each state enacted its required response to Roe v Wade. A national correlation wouldn’t be very convincing (yet that’s all they show for lead …) It would be interesting to see, if changes in lead levels varied per-state, whether they also correlated. But in any case, the abortion argument would have fizzled out by now; so it can’t explain the whole trend (unless the remainder is due to ITR Champion’s suggestion.). ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/59 "2013-06-04T12:45:17Z")
I like the combo; why does it need to be only one cause? [ul] [li]Lead theory means people under 40 aren’t as impulsive and thus less likely to commit crimes[/li][li]Abortion being legal means fewer unwanted babies who are statistically more likely to commit crimes in the first place; most of them would be coming of age of criminality now based on when abortion was legalized in the US[/li][li]High incarceration rates and long-term sentences for many crimes means those who were unwanted babies but not aborted and exposed to lead-based-paint and / or leaded gasoline vapors are over 40 and thus likely already in prison and will be forever.[/li][/ul] Now if we could just stop this foolish ‘war on drugs’ that nobody’s winning, we’d be way ahead because we’d stop turning non-violent drug “offenders” into violent criminals in the gladiator academies we call prisons. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825/60 "2013-06-04T13:14:24Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > That’s interesting and looks promising. However, one point in that paper: > Evidently, while they cited the Freakonomics work, they didn’t actually read it. The most conclusive evidence for their theory about abortion is how the downturns in violent crime in the early-to-mid 90’s, on a state-by-state basis, tracked when each state enacted its required response to Roe v Wade. A national correlation wouldn’t be very convincing (yet that’s all they show for lead …) > > It would be interesting to see, if changes in lead levels varied per-state, whether they also correlated. Um, red faced … I hadn’t read the whole article. Evidently they did correlate the lead with the violence along a number of different axes. So, kettle, meet pot. My criticism of their not reading the Levitt/Freakonomics study stands. The Levitt paper linked above is a good one, and lists four contributors: increase in police incarceration demographics abortion It lists 6 factors often cited but which they feel are not contributors (or, not shown to be contributors), but lead was not among them, and it seems to me to be a very plausible factor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/record-low-murder-rate/658825.md?page=4)