Roe vs Wade and effect on crime.
 

I just discovered this study ( although it's a few years old, but i never heard of it ).
********papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
Basically in short it argues that the main reason for a dramatic drop in crime in US that started in the 90ies is legalization of abortion.
That future criminals were just not born.

Mike, Olga and I read thatstudy, like, 10 years ago. It put a lot of things in perspective. Every time I mention it to my "liberal" friends, they start fuming like chimneys. Let's see what's going to happen here.

Yeah, it got released in 2000 or so.. :) but probably was not publicized much.. or just skipped my attention at times.
I downloaded the full study and went thru it in details and it seems valid. I have also read some critique on it and it still seems valid.

Mike, son of a drug dealer might be pre-disposed to violence? Unwanted daughter of the prostitute might inherit the skill?
NO WAY, you liar you

Oleg, i would expect both liberal and conservatives to freak actually..
they religious nuts are against abortion all-together..

why do you guys expect "liberals" to start fuming over it?
abortions need to remain legal, period.

The liberals are ( and have been ) fuming on the subject of this research as in their minds it encourages eugenics.
As poor black single mothers are most likely to produce future violent criminals this research could suggest encouragement of abortions for specific group.

yeah i nuked the rant about us typing in english.. :)
i am just not comfortable with any scientific terms in russian at all.
anyway, Ira i did not mean specifically you, or even Julia.. i was just reading about the reception this study got, as abortion is so politicized.
Other things that effect crime rates ( according to Levitt research )
- Longer prison terms ( stricter laws )
- Large police presence
Weaker correlation with
- Capital punishment
- Economic cycles

Ira & Julia, I'm glad that we see eye to eye here. I did have a violent argument with someone about it, long time ago. That person's premise: you can't predict what kind of person will that unaborted child become. Echoing Slavik: Yes We Can!
Unwanted children are usually fall into the life of crime faster than IVF babies. (IMHO)

i think it depends on demographics... kids of "decent" population, whether wanted or unwanted have more chance to stay more or less on the right path than kids, wanted or unwanted of, as you put it, crackheads.
eugenics is genetic selection based on... well, genes. Selecting whites vs blacks or yellow vs brown. Not based on social status. If the social status is low, abortion would be better than raising a poor human being who'd be forced to the streets at the age of 8 to feed themselves selling crack cause their parents are drunk somewhere. This would be the case for all races and eye colors and statute, etc... I don't see the connection of this with eugenics. But in allowing parents to choose gender and eye color of the future kid while going thru IVF - there i see it:-@

actually, the largest predictor for success of a child is his/her family genetic makeup.
In short it's what we are, not what we do that has the largest effect on how your child will grow up.

eugenics aside, -and I don't even want to get into it....- it would be also good to have a study of societies with gun control and gun-related violent death for comparison -ha-ha:-D .
sorry for deviating from the topic here

Julia, did you know that guns are actually one of the safest consumer products ever created? :)
we have 225mln guns with 25,000 death in US/year gun related. Half of those death are suicides. Leaves about 12,500.
So only 0.005% of all guns actually cause death.
So guns are 99.995% safe.. how many other products you know are that safe?

Ira, you can "say" what you like.. there are studies that show what affect childs success.. and it;s overwhelmingly genetics.
The best study is done on adopted children, which i linked in another topic.

sounds good.
let's look at some other statistics: main causes of death by age groups and gender in the US and other first world countries. Let's look , for example at the group of males ages 15-35. We can also look at those numbers by race, just out of interest

Julia, yeah.. lets look at a very specific demographics that's convenient to prove your point...
We are WAY off-topic.. but let me ask you a specific question..
You have 2 neighbors, one has a gun at home, another one has a swimming pool. You also have a 5yo child.
Everything else being equal, which house is it safer for your child to go to?
The point ( for US ) is.. there are so many guns out there right now, making them illegal will not change anything. bad guys will still get them

Why not just compare the level of violence in Russia, where guns are outlawed to US?
Anyone feels like digging up that statistic?

Slavik, I'm sure those statistics are unavailable. Ira, don't you have the toughest gun laws in your state?

we estimate on the basis of a comparison of biological and adoptedchildren that about 55–60 percent of the parental ability isgenetically transmitted.
sounds about right to me.
I can't find the study i referenced before here.. i do have a bookmark at home.. so will send later.
Again, mostly generic.. the rest environmental..

liberal and conservative religious nuts are against abortion all-together..
1.Ok, going back to the old argument...while I'd argue that conservatives are mostly religious, they are NOT nuts...nuts or fanatics are someone who use religion to harm...people of faith use their faith to quide them in determining right and wrong (and I am not implying that non-religious people are not moral)...While I would argue that ultra-liberals are zealots (but their religion is liberalism with own churches and Gods), conservatives are the ones who use traditional religion to guide them...name one religious liberal nut you know, PLEASE!!!...:-)

Also, going back to the subject:
a) Nether I, nor Mike, nor people behind the study ever mentioned the race or ethnicity.
b) I have no idea how eugenics came to play here.

Svetlana, to me anyone following any specific doctrine is a nut :).
But that's not the point.. the point it ( in less offensive terms ).
religious fundamentalists are against any abortions and hence reject studies like this.

2. going back to the topic..it's very wrong and immoral to look atpotential life as a criminal and their effect on the society..I believeSpartans would damn babies with birthdefects, Chinese still have forcedabortions - is/was it good for their societies?...probably yes...is itmoral?...just because we CAN scrape the embyo/fetus from the mother'suterus and benefit from it, doesn't make it right...just like newborn can't survive without us taking care of them, unborn babies can't survive withiout mother's womb...

3. While it's hard to argue with the fact that legalized abortions hasbeen ONE (not only) factor contributing to the drop in crime int he90s, you have to look at the factors that contributed to the rise incrime since the mid60s (and it never did drop to the level prior to60s)...my argument is the most contributing factor in the huge crimerise has been the decline in morals - unmarried women having kids/multiple kids.lack of fathers/supporting this kind of life style by government programs, drug use, etc...

name one religious liberal nut you know, PLEASE!!!
Not one but many:
***********.rawstory.com/exclusives/religious_liberals_042305.htm

Not one but many:
***********.rawstory.com/exclusives/religious_liberals_042305.htm
this is totally off topic...but just because someone calls themselves religious and then supports everything that religion teaches against...I am sorry then I am Buddha...

it's very wrong and immoral to look at potential life as a criminal and their effect on the society
and this is why you are a religious nut. Whose of is who are not crazy are able to look at data as just data, without injecting morality into it.

Ira, there is a difference between experimentation and just looking at data without injecting morality.
People who conducted the study did not have an agenda, but were just looking at regression analysis.

and this is why you are a religious nut. Whose of is who are not crazyare able to look at data as just data, without injecting morality intoit.
well, I thought you didn't want to be called commie names...let's not start again!...many not religous people will tell you that morality does play a role in determining if right and wrong...if we only used numbers/data, we would not be saving people without means (it's cheaper, right?)...or why not clone people if the data will show it's so beneficial?.........there is such thing as ethics whether you like it or not.......
I hope you are making money on this topic.....;-)

********pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
btw, here is a newer study looking at all he factors that have contributed to the drop in crime rate...
My suggestion to the further crime reduction is
1. Re-evalute fitness of many parents and promote adoption of kids whose parents are not capable of raising them (heavy drug-users, unemployed, etc)..........
2. Limit government aid to, say, one year, one kid....so it doesn't encourage having additional kids in a not "suited for kids" environment..........

Sveta, I totally agree with your point #1.
There was actually a precedent by a liberal ( and I know this judge personally) judge about 4 years ago to forbid a woman to have more children and it proved to be not enforcible because of all kinds of idiotic things:
***********.thefreelibrary.com/New+York+judge+orders+drug-addicted+moms+to+have+no+more+children-a0130647487

btw, if we looked just at the data/statistics, probably Obama wouldn't be born..;-)..I am sure statistics was not on his side..............
I just think someone is using this study to support their views ;-) without looking deeper at other factors that have contributes to crime before/after RoevWade..........

btw, if we looked just at the data/statistics, probably Obama wouldn't be born.

errrr..... what? did we study different statistics? event of Obama being born has a probability of 1. As it already happened.
There are different reasons why the crime spiked.. the main reason being loose laws in the 60ies probably. By the way, murder rate in 2008 is back to the level of 1964 or so.

event of Obama being born has a probability of 1. As it already happened.
Why? someone has to become president in order to be considered worthy living? or his mom never had an opportunity to even consider an abortion because he was born before Roe v Wade........anyway we never find out unless people are born...we can just make sure we (our government) are not encouraging irresponsible behavior - having kids without being able to raise them............
Thereare different reasons why the crime spiked..
how about the reason I gave you? Disintegration of the traditional family? Don't most criminals come from broken or single parent families?.................

the first part i don't even know how to answer. as i am confused.
as on the second - i am sure there is a positive correlation between single parent households and crime rate.

there seems to be, indeed, a correlation - i just searched family structure and delinquency rates:
***********.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf

in the case of IQ as predictor of success, it is not that easy...
it is definitely a big factor, but there are so many other factors, that it is really hard to prioritize them.
Just an example of one of those discussions:
***********.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/03/13/the-trouble-with-iq/

the first part was about not necessarily getting rid of the unborn child, but making the right conclusion and making the best of the situation people find themselves in...but very often by supporting behavior that's not in the best interest of the child (providing financial to drug users who continue to have more kids without being able to take care of them, not financially or emotionally), we, as a society contribute to crime......

Svetlana, i agree.. making the best decision is the important part.. the mother needs to be able to decide if it's the right thing for her and her family.

Миш, доборе утро! :-)
So, you all the non-believers don't the follow the religious doctirnes like - don't kill, don't still, etc, thus they are not nuts...What do you think the effect on crime would be if get rid of those doctrines and legalize them??...