Crime Thread

pat · PostJan 17, 2013#25762013-01-17T20:12+00:00

^^I've read it, but I'm still not convinced.

If lead is/was such an influence, then why wasn't crime higher from people who grew up more privileged prior to 1978? Before the government started making laws to reduce lead, wasn't everyone dealing with it?

Look at Doe Run. One of the only lead smelters in the country, if not the only now. Its been there for over 100 years. You don't see spikes in crime/violence from people who have lived near the plant or have worked there do you? Using the lead argument, Herculaneum should be a hot bed for crime. The lead levels of people working there meet or exceed that of the country before leaded gas was banned.

IMO, who commits crime/violence depends on how they were raised, the emotional environment they grew up in.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 17, 2013#25772013-01-17T20:19+00:00

^ And so does the very significant drop in violent crimes in the US mean that more children are being raised in healthy emotional environments? The poverty and divorce rates would point to that not being true. Anecdotally, it's hard to imagine that families of today are tighter, more caring, more involved that the past generation(s).

roger wyoming II · PostJan 17, 2013#25782013-01-17T20:32+00:00

pat wrote:^^I've read it, but I'm still not convinced.

If lead is/was such an influence, then why wasn't crime higher from people who grew up more privileged prior to 1978? Before the government started making laws to reduce lead, wasn't everyone dealing with it?

Look at Doe Run. One of the only lead smelters in the country, if not the only now. Its been there for over 100 years. You don't see spikes in crime/violence from people who have lived near the plant or have worked there do you? Using the lead argument, Herculaneum should be a hot bed for crime. The lead levels of people working there meet or exceed that of the country before leaded gas was banned.

IMO, who commits crime/violence depends on how they were raised, the emotional environment they grew up in.

Pat, it is not disputed that lead levels are higher in violent individuals. As Drum points out, it doesn't mean that if you have higher lead levels you will be a violent criminal; however, higher lead levels in children of poorer, less stable family environments put them at even greater risk to fall into the wrong path. And again, this thesis fits globally, not just in the US. It is extremely wrong-headed to not accept this as a real possibility and for society to put a lot more study into it. Sure it doesn't fit the favorite pet theory of a criminologist or commentator, but sound science must prevail.

pat · PostJan 17, 2013#25792013-01-17T21:26+00:00

Does lead affect brain development and behavior in children? yes, it does.

Could that have exacerbated potential problems with children who grow up in adverse conditions? Yes, there's a chance.

My problem with the theory is that since lead can cause behavioral and developmental issues, why do we only see the effects in poorer neighborhoods? Why did we not see the effects of lead across all demographics when from the early 1900s until the late 70's, everyone was in contact with it?

Sure its probably worth looking into more. But if lead is as responsible for the spike in crime in the 90's as some think it is, then it should have had some sort of effect on aspects outside of crime as well. Was there a spike of teenagers with behavior issues? Was there a spike of people with reported learning disabilities in the 90's as well? Were more children reported to have ADD back then? Did more people have kidney and nervous system issues back then?

If you can find out answers to those, then I may take it more seriously.

beer city · PostJan 17, 2013#25802013-01-17T21:41+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:The economist/blogger Kevin Drum recently gained a lot of media attention with his attribution to the national drop in crime to lower lead levels.

I think there is much to this and it also seems that the Saint Louis story fits rather well into this thesis. Remember, there were 2 signficant actions with respect to lead. One is the complete elimination of leaded gasoline and the second is the harder to tackle problem of eliminating lead paint from residences. Saint Louis has seen a drop in crime rates since the late 60s. But we also have one of the most lead-contaminated housing stock in the country, particularly in North Saint Louis. Fortunately, some more aggressive efforts to eliminate lead were conducted in recent years although this has seen reduced activity with lower fed funding since 2009(thanks Kit Bond for past fed funding!). Anyway, the expectation would be that as fewer kids in Saint Louis are exposed to lead paint in homes, the lower the crime rate will continue to dip. Let's hope!

Certainly lead levels wouldn't be the only reason for the national trend, but it very well could be a major one.

lead was everywhere from 1900-1970 - crimes spikes start in the 60's in cities, all neighborhoods in most cities at the time have lead, crime spikes in a limited number of neighborhoods.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 17, 2013#25812013-01-17T23:20+00:00

pat wrote: Sure its probably worth looking into more.

Success! (I know this sounds harsh, but your initial comment was truly ignorant.)

Fortunately, Drum has helped ensure that the robust and compelling scientific evidence will move from the narrow confines of the medical research community into the larger discussion in the public policy arena. We'll definitely be seeing more research on this and an even greater understanding of the impacts of lead upon society.

PostJan 18, 2013#25822013-01-18T00:12+00:00

beer city wrote: lead was everywhere from 1900-1970 - crimes spikes start in the 60's in cities, all neighborhoods in most cities at the time have lead, crime spikes in a limited number of neighborhoods.

I recommend reading the Drum piece (linked above) as it addresses these concerns. The cause in the spike from the late 60s to 90s was due to the rapid rise of leaded gas emissions.... this additive wasn't invented until the 1920s and of course the post WWII-era saw the great increase in automobile use, with lead exposure particularly prevalent in the central cities due to the high percentage of traffic. So kids at the margins exposed to higher lead levels in the 40s, 50s and 60s resulted in more crimes in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Today, we see that neighborhood crime rates match up nicely with with lead levels... it is generally the poorer communities in central cities that retain high lead levels. It seems pretty compelling that high lead level + poor socio-economic background = increased crime.

pat · PostJan 18, 2013#25832013-01-18T04:49+00:00

^It wasn't an ignorant comment. Maybe brash, but not ignorant. I read the article too and considered the correlation between lead levels and crime. I just don't share your conviction. I think its ignorant to assume that just because they are correlated, then they are related or cause and effect. If lead was so effectual to people, then it should correlate with other issues other than crime. It should also be apparent across other demographics than the poor. One correlation (maybe we should call it coincidence for now) is not enough proof. Give me something else to backup the claim.

beer city · PostJan 18, 2013#25842013-01-18T05:05+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:
beer city wrote: lead was everywhere from 1900-1970 - crimes spikes start in the 60's in cities, all neighborhoods in most cities at the time have lead, crime spikes in a limited number of neighborhoods.
I recommend reading the Drum piece (linked above) as it addresses these concerns. The cause in the spike from the late 60s to 90s was due to the rapid rise of leaded gas emissions.... this additive wasn't invented until the 1920s and of course the post WWII-era saw the great increase in automobile use, with lead exposure particularly prevalent in the central cities due to the high percentage of traffic. So kids at the margins exposed to higher lead levels in the 40s, 50s and 60s resulted in more crimes in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Today, we see that neighborhood crime rates match up nicely with with lead levels... it is generally the poorer communities in central cities that retain high lead levels. It seems pretty compelling that high lead level + poor socio-economic background = increased crime.

its a good article, and certainly identifies the developmental problems that lead can bring, but it also implies that correlation = causality. Needless to say lead needs to go and its effect on crime is worthy of more research.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 18, 2013#25852013-01-18T05:21+00:00

pat wrote:^It wasn't an ignorant comment. Maybe brash, but not ignorant. I read the article too and considered the correlation between lead levels and crime. I just don't share your conviction. I think its ignorant to assume that just because they are correlated, then they are related or cause and effect....

I don't care whether you agree with me or not, its fine to be skeptical. But a statement like this

pat wrote:
Why is it that teens and 20 somethings are still shooting each other in poor areas like North City when they were born after 1978?

in the context of the discussion is ignorant.

pat · PostJan 18, 2013#25862013-01-18T13:34+00:00

Explain to me why that is ignorant. Am I being insensitive to people who live in North City? Maybe I should have phrased it "Why is crime still such an issue in North City?"?

Crime is still a problem. I don't think lead is the problem it once was. So if crime is still fairly common in certain areas, how does the lead theory explain that?

roger wyoming II · PostJan 18, 2013#25872013-01-18T14:48+00:00

^ Because if you had an understanding of the issue you'd know that:
1) the theory doesn't say that lead is the cause of violent crime -- that would be stupid -- but that it does explain the substantial decrease in crime rates from baseline rates;
2) reflecting the national trend, violent crime rates have fallen since the mid-90s in Saint Louis City, including in North Saint Louis;
3) while lead levels in Saint Louis are lower with the removal of leaded gasoline and some lead paint abatement efforts, the levels in North Saint Louis remain among the highest in the nation. (This link to Drum addressing race and lead is helpful:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... nects-race)
4) Stepping up lead abatement levels can be expected to pay huge dividends and lead to further crime rate drops. This would be especially true in Saint Louis.

It is a promising area of research and as beer city said, lead needs to go regardless.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 18, 2013#25882013-01-18T15:39+00:00

^ maybe get the conversation back on course and not aimed at one another?

roger wyoming II · PostJan 18, 2013#25892013-01-18T16:08+00:00

^ yes, and I didn't feel really good about my tone, but something just irked me with the comment that the compelling lead paint theory was illogical and a joke. Anyway, I think this discussion has pretty much played out. Its all roses and puppy dogs now!

pat · PostJan 18, 2013#25902013-01-18T16:19+00:00

^^Fair enough. This is my last comment on it. Then I'll drop the issue.

Calling it illogical was false. My apologies. But more evidence is needed to prove that lead is so effectual to crime rates. Correlation is not evidence or proof. I'm not comfortable banking on the idea that reducing lead reduces crime.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 18, 2013#25912013-01-18T16:38+00:00

So this is the issue again and again on big things like crime (or gun violence, etc.). It's virtually impossible that one thing is responsible for crime (death, murder, whatever). I think the connection to lead is a little over hyped (at the very least interpreted to be so), because we all want THE answer. There isn't one. It's very easy to say, "that's not the reason, there's this flaw and that flaw and what about..." And so we see it in the current gun control debate - every interest group says, "doing X to my constituents isn't THE answer". Of course not, but we a) need to do something and b) a lot of little measures and some experimenting IS the answer. So back to lead...any amount of lead is bad for your body and brain. It's medically true that lead lowers one's IQ and affects the portion of the brain that pertains to violent actions, etc. (rough paraphrase). Does that explain why people kill others? No way, but could it be important to our understanding of crime in society and the environmental effects of contaminating our environment? Sure.

pat · PostJan 18, 2013#25922013-01-18T16:56+00:00

^Maybe you should go by "NextSTL Negotiator" or the "Forum Facilitator"?

jcity · PostJan 18, 2013#25932013-01-18T19:23+00:00

"Anyway, the expectation would be that as fewer kids in Saint Louis are exposed to lead paint in homes, the lower the crime rate will continue to dip. Let's hope!"

I'm dying. People honestly think that the lead in older housing stock is the reason for criminal behavior in North City?! BAAAHHHAHAA! that's the best thing I've ever read. Ever. Read. Period.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 18, 2013#25942013-01-18T19:29+00:00

jcity wrote:People honestly think that the lead in older housing stock is the reason for criminal behavior in North City?!

No.

debaliviere · PostJan 18, 2013#25952013-01-18T19:51+00:00

Governor Holden got robbed on Washington Avenue http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Former-M ... 84281.html

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 18, 2013#25962013-01-18T19:53+00:00

I get it, he's the former Governor and was robbed in the middle of the day. OK, but the immediate response on Twitter of "no one is safe" and charges (again) that the Mayor and others don't think there's a crime problem, etc. etc. etc. is ridiculous.

debaliviere · PostJan 18, 2013#25972013-01-18T19:59+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:I get it, he's the former Governor and was robbed in the middle of the day. OK, but the immediate response on Twitter of "no one is safe" and charges (again) that the Mayor and others don't think there's a crime problem, etc. etc. etc. is ridiculous.

I agree. And come on, Gov. Don't fall for that trick.

terence d · PostJan 18, 2013#25982013-01-18T20:06+00:00

Bob, if you're gonna give a homeless dude cash, rule #1 is "don't whip out your whole bankroll right in front of him".

moorlander · PostJan 18, 2013#25992013-01-18T20:29+00:00

Governor got played.

threeonefour · PostJan 25, 2013#26002013-01-25T17:29+00:00

terence d wrote:Bob, if you're gonna give a homeless dude cash, rule #1 is "don't whip out your whole bankroll right in front of him".

Why did it not surprise me that Governor Holden got played like that?

Matt Blunt would have told him to get a job, or he would've whipped out a gun to defend himself. Governor Nixon would have asked, "How could you possibly need money, don't you know I'm the greatest governor this state has ever had?"

Crime Thread

Choose Display Mode