Foto search Stock PhotosRF Royalty Free
Core Competencies
This chapter raises a rather intriguing question,“Where have all the criminals gone?” Once you have
read and carefully studied this chapter you should be able to complete the following tasks which,taken
together,answer this and related questions.
Students are to provide thoughtful answers to the questions below and give an equally thoughtful response to at least 5 questions from 2 other students. Please place all answers on Graham's Blog.
1. In economic terms,what was Nicolae Ceau_escu’s rationale for banning abortion in Romania,
i.e.,how did he see banning abortion befitting the Romanian economy?
2. Describe the incentives Ceau_escu used to increase the birth rate in Romania.Were these
incentives effective? Explain.
3. As a result of Ceau_escu’s policies,what happened to the average quality of life in Romania?
Provide an economic explanation for the change that occurred.
4. Describe the general behavior of the crime rate in the United States between 1970 and 1999,i.e.,
indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
5. List each of the explanations of the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s that are evaluated
by Levitt and Dubner.
6. Of the explanations you identified in the previous question,which ones do not appear to in fact
be valid? Which ones do appear to in fact be valid?
7. The argument linking the drop in crime to the robust economy in the1990s would seem to be
quite strong.Provide a brief explanation of what the data have to say about the viability
of this explanation.
8. What rationale do some criminologists offer for the argument that imprisonment rates should be
lowered as part of the effort to reduce crime in the United States? Was their logic sound? If not,
what fallacy did they commit?
9. What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on prisons
is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
10.What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on capital
punishment is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
11.Explain how an increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline.
Does the evidence support this explanation of the drop in crime in the 1990s? Explain.
12.Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the
adoption of innovative policing strategies.Focusing on the experience in New York City,what do
the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing
is not a good thing? Why or why not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. He thought he would make Romania stronger if he increased the population.
ReplyDelete2. He only allowed women who already has 4 children or women who stood at a certain rank in the communist party. He also banned sex education and had government agents force women to take pregnancy tests. Any women who says otherwise had to pay a tax. Because of these things, the birth rate in Romania doubled.
3. Babies who weren't born into the communist elite weren't able to get a good education, a good job, and were most likely able to become criminals. So, they weren't successful in the labor market, and the crime rate would go up.
4. On Christmas Day of 1989, after Nicolae was killed, crime rate rose 80%. It began to fall in the early 1990s. Nonviolent crimes fell 40%, more people were sent to prison in-between 1980 and 2000. So, crime rose and fell in between the 70's and the 90's
5. Higher rates of imprisonment ,innovative police strategies, Increased number of police, strict gun laws Changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population,
6. The infactual crimes drops are innovative police strategies, strict gun laws, and the crack changes. The high imprisonments, and increased number of police.
7. From 1991-2001, the homicide rate for young black drug dealers fell 48% while the rate for older ones fell 30%. The crash in crack selling also caused a more than 15% drop in crime from the 1980s.
8. Crime rates would be high if prison rates were high, and crime would be lowered if prison rates were lowered. The logic was so
9. Crime rate would be high if prison rates were high, and crime would be lowered if prison rates were lowered.
10. The number of executions quadrupled in between the 80's and 90's, but there were still 478 executions in the U.S in the 1990s.
11. There would definitely be an increase in prisonment, which the evidence does say
only causes more crimes.
12. Crime did drop according to the evidence. Homicide rates fell from about 31 for each 100,000 to 8 per 100,000, Cops' population grew 45%
, and when other states did this, they got the same results. Smart policing, based on the evidence is definitely a good thing because it can lead to a lot less crime, and a lot more cops.
3. This affected Romania from an economic standpoint because they could not earn good money because of the lack of good education and bad in the labor market.
Delete4. Crime was rising and rising and reached its peak around the time when he was dying. Then it fell. It did not rise after his death.
7. I do not understand your answer because it is talking about the crack dealership when the question asked about the economy? im confused.
10. That's true, and the 478 deaths only accounts for 364 less homicides in the country per year.
11. Good point, and there would also be a loss of incentives for criminals because the risks are higher.
2. He only allowed women who were in the Communist Party or in his Clan to stop having babies when they had 4, not all women could do that.
Delete3. Also Romania would be lower and lower on the list of the smartest countries because people couldn't get a good education so they were, well, dumb.
4. The crime rate was not rising after he died, it was actually plummeting at a fast rate.
7. This is confusing, it almost seems like this is the answer to a question from last chapter. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
11. Good answer, i totally agree with you because that is exactly what the evidence indicated.
7. i do not understand your answer, and i dont think it answers the question well
Delete11. i totally agree with your answer because it is totally right, more prisonment equals more crime.
4. Crime didn't really rise after his death, it was at rising and rising and reached its peak and then it was falling. so it was rising when he was sick n weak about to die
3. I agree too and also without the education they were hopeless and like you said their labor market was really hurt by that which made them have no choice but crime
5. Also abortion which i found out later one
1.) This would also increase the economy of the future
Delete2.) he only allowed for women in his clan to stop having babies when they had 4 of them
4.) The crime rat actually dropped
8.) This is called the "Moratorium" argument and doesn't make much sense. It costs $25000 dollars to keep one person in prison for a year and it doesn't get to the root causes of crime but that doesn't justify setting criminals free.
9.)
1.) You could have written a little more for this question. Maybe you could talk about how more people benefits the economy
Delete2.) Women weren't taxed if they refused a pregnancy test, they were taxed if they weren't pregnant.
3.) I pretty much agree with your response to this question. It's pretty much what i wrote
7.) This answer sounds kind of weird... I think you're in the wrong chapter!!
5.) I don't understand this... Maybe I forgot some of the chapter!
1. That's a good about him wanting to make the country stronger, I just don't get it. He better have one heck of an army or something; you might have all these people, but they're no good to be strong if you can't control them.
Delete3. That could be a factor in way the children born at this time weren't as education and progressed as others, but I feel like the point was that there were just too many children and the schools and society was too overwhelmed so no one could have a good education to point them in the right direction.
6. I feel like you switched around the valid and invalid, but I could wrong...
9. I don't really get this logic. I mean.. I do, and I don't. But why they thought that lowering crime punishment would be GOOD, just wouldn't happen fast enough.
2. Not all women could choose to not have children, only the women in his clan and the communist elite party could choose that option.
Delete3. Romania would be lower on the educated lists of countries due to this.
4. The crime rate didn't go up once he died, it went down rapidly.
7. I don't exactly understand what you're trying to explain here, maybe use more examples from the chapter in your answer.
11. I agree 100% because the evidence in the book directly supports this statement.
2.He only allowed women who were in the Communist Party or in his Clan to stop having babies when they had 4, not all women could do that. The other women had stricter rules to lack equality.
Delete3. Also Romania would be lower and lower on the list of the smartest countries because the people were not able to get a great nor even a decent education.
4. The crime rate surpisingly not rising when died.
7. This is confusing, it almost seems like this is the answer to a different question from before
11. I agree with you because that is exactly what the evidence indicated in the section
1. Nicolae Ceausescu banned abortion in Romania because he wanted to "rapidly strengthen Romania by boosting its population. This is why is also banned contraceptives. He was trying to increase Romania's population drastically.
ReplyDelete2. Ceausescu doubled the birthrate in Romania by banning abortion, banning contraceptives and sex education, and having Mentrual Police hand out "celibacy taxes" on unpregnant women.The only exceptions for abortion, contraceptives, Menstrual Police were for some women in the Communist Party with four children already. His incentives were effective because the birthrate doubled.
3. The average quality of life in Romania decreased and was miserable, unless you were in the Communists elite or in Ceausescu's clan. The abortion, etc. bans caused the future generation to test lower in school, be unsuccessful in the labor market, and they were much more likely to be criminals. This put the standard of living at a low point and hurt the citizens economically because they could not get jobs, they were criminals, and did not have proper education.
4. The crime rate in America had risen by 80% starting during the 1970s, and reaching its peak in 1989, when Ceausescu was killed. Starting around 1990, the crime rate plunged. It fell down to the same amount of crime that was occuring forty years earlier, much earlier than the crime incrase.
5 and 6.
a. The Strong Economy (Not Valid)
b. Increased Reliance on Prisons (Valid)
c. The Increased use of capital punishment (Not Valid)
d. Innovative policing strategies (Not Valid)
e. Increased number of police (Valid)
f. Tougher gun laws (Not Valid)
e. Changes in crack and drug markets (Valid)
g. Aging of the population (Not Valid)
h. Abortion (Valid)
7. The robust economy seems like it would be a valid explanation for the crime drop but it is not valid. First of all, an unemployment decline of 1% should account for a 1% non-violent crime drop. Therefore, the 2% drop does not account for the 20% drop in non-violent crimes. Also, when the economy was roaring in the 1960s, so was the violent crime. Therefore, violent crime is not decreased by the economy thriving because there is not link between the two.
2. Were communist women completely immune (like, not completely, but you know what I mean) or was it only the ones with four children?
Delete5&6. I still don't understand the tougher gun laws and why they don't reduce crime rates. Is it because it provokes people?
7. Really good reasoning when comparing the crime rates in the 1960s along with its economy, with the crime rates and economy of the 1990s.
1.) I totally agree. This is pretty similar to what I wrote.
Delete2.) Your answers are very thorough. I agree
12.) Yeah the smart policing didn't help nearly as much as they thought it would. Adding smart policing when the crime rate is down doesn't make much sense. That was a bad call on their part.
8.) The criminologists should have known better. What they were saying clearly didn't make sense.
3. It's a shame that life had to be like that for those kids if they weren't apart of his clan... No one should ever be treated like that
8. Criminologists argued that because crime rates were high when imprisoned rates were high, then the imprisoned rates should be lowered in order to lower the crime rates. They were wrong because they failed "to see the direction in which the correlation runs." In other words, the imprisoned rates were high because there were more dangerous criminals committing crimes, not vice versa.
ReplyDelete9. The evidence availible shows that increased reliance on prisons accounts for 1/3 of the crime rate decrease. Evidence would be the increase in crime in the 1960s because the conviction rates were so low or short. They are practically handing crimes to the criminals. As the criminals were locked up, they lost incentives to commit the crimes because the risks were higher.
10. The evidence shows that increased reliance on capital punishment was not a valid reason. First of all, there were only 478 executions in America after this rate quadrupled. This shows that capital punishment is not quite deterrent. Secondly, it would only account for 1/25 of the decrease in crimes, and only a speck of the violent crimes. Since captial punishment is typically only given for violent crimes, it is not logical to say that capital punishment contributes to the crime drop.
11. The increase in police officers could decreaes crime because of imprisonment rates. They could imprison the criminals who would have gotten away with the crimes had there not been an increase of police. Also, with more police comes more risk. Therefore, criminals lose their incentives to commit crimes because the risks are higher. The evidence that it contributed to the 1990 drop is the example about the crime rates dropping int he cities with increased police for elections. It also states that there was a 10% crime drop relating to incrased police.
12. Based on the evidence in New York City, the smart policing did not contribute much to the decline in crime. The smart policing did not come into effect until 1994, when crime rates were already well on its way down. This does not demonstrate that smart policing is a bad thing, it meerly shows that it did not contribute to the 1990 national drop in crime.
8. How do criminologists make mistakes like that? It's a really nonsensical prediction, especially considering that this is their job.
Delete12. I kind of understood this question, but didn't know how to answer it: your answer was really clear.
4. I agree that the crime rate did increase, but did Ceausescu have anything to do with it?
Delete5 and 6. Good list but why did these effect the crime rate?
8. You are correct but, what was the reason for the criminologists to make that mistake?
9. You are correct that capital punishment did not have that much effect.
12. I agree that smart policing didn't have such a huge effect but, what did cause the crime rate to drop?
1. Nicolae banned abortion in Romania because he wanted the size of the population to increase. He thought that a population would also increase the power of Romania.
ReplyDelete2. Ceausescu banned abortion, contraceptives and sex education. He also had the Mentrual Police give extra taxes to women who weren't pregnant. He only allowed communist women with at least four children to be exceptions for this law. By doing this, he doubled the population of Romania
3. Babies who weren't born into the Communist elite or into Ceausescu's clan had a bad life. They couldn't get a good education, they couldn't get good jobs, and they were more likely to become criminals. They were basically given no chance in life. This caused the living standard in Romania to decrease drastically.
4. In the 1970s the crime rate in America started to rise, eventually it rose to about 80% above what it was before. In 1989, the crime rate reached its peak, the year Ceausescu got killed. After his death, starting in 1990 the crime rate began to plunge.
5. The Strong Economy, Increased Reliance on Prisons, The Increased use of capital punishment, Innovative policing strategies, Increased number of police, Tougher gun laws, Changes in crack and drug markets, Aging of the population, Abortion.
6. a. The Strong Economy (Not Valid), Increased Reliance on Prisons (Valid), The Increased use of capital punishment (Not Valid), Innovative policing strategies (Not Valid), Increased number of police (Valid), Tougher gun laws (Not Valid), Changes in crack and drug markets (Valid), Aging of the population (Not Valid), Abortion (Valid).
1. Exactly. He thought if there were more people, that meant more people to do work and create economic output in his manufacturing jobs.
Delete2. Only thing to point out was that it doubled the birth rate, not the population. Good answer though.
3. Yup. The population already had very little wealth, so adding even more people meant drastically lowing quality of life.
4. Good answer.
5. Again, good answer. These questions are kind of just lists, so not much to say.
Good work.
1.) Banning abortion in Romania would bring more people to be the future of Romania and increase the economy of the future.
ReplyDelete2.) Ceausescu have many work places take weekly to monthly pregnancy test on all of the female employees and if they were not pregnant they risked losing their job. Out of fear this did work. The population of Romania grew.
3.)Because of the increase in population the quality of life dramatically decreased. While the increase of people sounded good in theory the resources, goods, and services didn't change making life harder.
4.) People thought a 80% increase in crime was going to happen by 1999 when in fact it decreased after Ceausescu
5-6) Innovative policing strategies/Increased number of police
-The decrease in crime also showed an increase in police officers on the street.
-The police that were on the street had resources, training, and experience.
Increased reliance on prisons
-It's true that crime decrease naturally showed an increase in prison population but it was the new court system that kept criminals behind bars.
Changes in crack and other drug markets
-In the 1990s law enforcement was taking the selling of drugs more seriously. That along with less lenient court system (which can down hard on drug issues) did in a way increase crime. However, the drug business was and is still a very big business.
7.)The strong economy boost in theory did decrease the crime rate of nonviolent crime like robbery, car theft, and burglary based on the theory that criminals didn't need to steal. However, it did not explain the 40% decrease of violent crimes like homicide, assault, and rape.
8.) The argument is that crime rates are high when imprisonment is high while crime rates are low when imprisonment is low. This is called the "Moratorium" argument and doesn't make much sense. It costs $25000 dollars to keep one person in prison for a year and it doesn't get to the root causes of crime but that doesn't justify setting criminals free.
9.) The increase in prison reliance did keep criminals off the street but it was the increased sentencing of the court systems that kept them there.
10.)The cost of keeping a prisoner locked up is costly and never really fixes the problem of why they were put in prison in the place but it does keep them off the street from committing more crimes more more lives in danger.
11.) More police would mean more enforcement of the law but why the increase in police may not be for the crime rate. Politicians wanting your vote may hire more police officers to show how much he cares about your safety and he want to "clean up the neighborhood." However, that doesn't change the fact that enforcement of the law does decrease the crime rate.
12.)In New York City, the crackdown on small crime was key. Someone who jumped the subway turnstile was not punished would see the opportunity to commit a more serious crime later on. A person who urinated in the streets doesn't have the respect for the people around him and may rob or steal later on. This was dubbed the "broken window" theory. Not only were small crimes being enforced more harshly but policing was also introduced to more technology and instead of having a chain of command it was more a accountability among everyone to keep the city safe.
1. More people to be the romania of tomorrow and to increase Romania's strength.
Delete2. They not only risked fear of loosing their jobs (Im not sure that was in there) but they definitely risked the celibacy tax.
3. I like how you included that what they had didn't change but how many people had to share it did change. I believe that made the point exactly.
"5-6". I personally believe that the innovative police strategies falls closely with the increased reliance on jails because the innovate police strategies (At least in new york) included arresting people on less severe crimes hoping to stop more severe ones in the future, growing the prison numbers.
1. More people will also, in theory, give Romania more power, although in reality, it just made them less smart.
Delete2. He also gave extra taxes to women who weren't pregnant and banned sex education and contraceptives.
3. Maybe go into a little bit more depth explaining your answers next time. It also decreased the happiness in life for people who weren't born into his clan or the Communist Elites.
5&6. I agree with what you said, but you are missing a few points that also had an affect.
1. When monitoring the birthrate in a decreasing manner to that extent can really diminish the education quality because of the moderation.
Delete2. He also gave extra taxes to women who weren't pregnant and banned sex education and contraceptives. But at the same time gave extra privileges to women close to him.
3. The happiness in life for people also decreased who weren't born into his clan or the Communist Elites.
5&6. I agree with what you said, but you are missing a few points that also had an affect. Like arresting people on less severe crimes hoping to stop more severe ones in the future, growing the prison numbers.
7. The robust economy seems like a valid explanation, but it does not explain everything. It does explain why small crimes like robberies and car thefts and break in, but it doesn't explain the crime drop in larger crimes like murders and rape.
ReplyDelete8. The argument states that the higher the imprisonment rate then the higher the crime rate. This was wrong because they failed to realize that the reason that imprisonment rates were high was because there were more dangerous criminals, not the other way around.
9. The evidence shows that increased reliance on prisons accounts for 1/3 of the crime rate to decrease. This didn't keep the criminals off the streets, but it took them longer because of the increased court systems.
10. Putting criminals in prison is costly and it doesnt fix anything, but what it does do is it keeps the criminals off of the streets so they don't commit more of the same or even worse crimes.
11. The increase in police officers and law enforcement could increase the imprisonment rate because there would now be more police officers to cover more area which would cause a higher imprisonment rate because the officers could respond and help others more quickly. The evidence states that there was a 10% crime drop relating to incrased police.
12. The evidence in New York City says that the smart policing did not do much to help the decrease in crime. The smart policing did not come into effect until 1994,and by that time the crime rates were already drastically declining. This does not demonstrate that smart policing is a bad thing, it meerly shows that it did not contribute to the national drop in crime.
2. It wasn't both it was one or the other they were either part of the Communist Elite, because Romania being a communist country at the time everyone was a communist there, or if they had 4 children already, if they were both it was jet circumstantial and they met both requirements.
Delete3. They also had a bad life because the mothers who had them neglected them because they didn't really want the kids, they were forced to have them.
4. I don't know about the crime rate plunging but it did start to decline.
7. Except for that there was no drop in crimes like rape and murder because they remand the same for a bit longer than "non-violent" crimes.
10. I wouldn't call putting people in prison capital punishment, because capital punishment is you know execution, and the reason that doesn't work is because it sort of justifies someone killing someone else, because hey if the government says it's okay to kill me because of what I did it's okay for me to kill someone because they can do it cause they have a reason.
1. The Romanian dictator banned abortion because he believed that the fetus was the property of society, it was a life, and when someone aborts them they are pretty much a murderer. I don't really think he was looking for economic value, he was a dictator, he wasn't the most reliable leader. He did tax people who didn't have babies.
ReplyDelete2. If someone had children, then they get to continue to live with less government problems. If you didn't you get taxed for a lack of children. And if you abort, you get shunned and punished. Therefore, children seemed to be the best option.
3. The quality of Life in Romania dropped. The extra people demanded more food, and when hte demand increased the supply went down, because the Romanian dictator said that if fed they would be like worms and want more. The extra people made demand for stuff increase.
4. Between 1970 and 1999, the peak of crime ended and it started to drop at a rapid rate.
5. 1. Innovative policing strategies
2. Increased reliance on prisons
3. Changes in crack and other drug markets
4. Aging of the population
5. Tougher gun control laws
6. Strong economy
7. Increased number of police
8. All other explanations (increased use of capital punishment,
concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks, and others)
6. The tougher gun control laws did not really affect the drop at all, but increased punishments and prison usage affected the drop by around 1/3rd of the drop.
7. THe data says that for a 1% drop of unenployement, a 1% drop in NON violent crimes happens. However, a 40% drop in NON violent crimes happened, and an even greater drop in voilent crimes happened.
8. Criminoligists thought that there were more crimes commited becasue of the increase in prison usage. In basic logic, that means that with less prison usage less crimes would be commited. That means that you should jsut release all the criminals from prison, right? The Fallacy is pretty much just not using basic logic.
9. The increased use of prisons in the 1990s made crime seem more undesirable, because punishment would seem likely. So people decided that crime wasn't worth it. Or at least some people did.
10. The increased rate of capital punishemnt didn't help drop crime that much. Capital punishemnt may have been quadrupled, but only around 450 executions occoured. And if every execution stopped 7 murders, then even then the drop was insignificant.
11. The increased amount of police officers did help the drop of crime, because more cops means a higher rate of getting caught commiting a crime. In 1990, the amount of cops wasn't raised much, but in the areas where cops were raised, crime did drop.
12. The data in New York did conclude that more police officers resulted in less crime. This means that smart policing is a good factor to crime dropping, because it cacthes the criminals who do crimes and it increases the costs of preforming a crime, making crime undesirable.
1. I disagree about him not having an economic incentive or motive. When your country's population increases, theoretically, so does your power and influence as a leader. His plan was solid but his execution failed.
Delete7. Would this mean that drops in unemployment rates affects non violent crime rates AND violent crime rates?
8. I agree. I did not understand their reasoning on that. It defies common logic.
10. I don't understand the last sentence: are you talking about the drop in murders or the drop in executions.
12. I think this needs to be worded differently; the first sentence makes the data sound inconclusive, but then you draw a conclusion from that...
1. he banned abortion because he wanted Romania population to increase and thought if it did then its power will too and i think it had economic incentives.
Delete12. i agree that smart policing didn't have a big impact on the drop of drop but i dont understand your explanation
8. i agree with you all the way, it does not make sense at all what they were thinking, if u leave the criminals to go they will go do more crime.
10. i do not understand your answer, can you explain our word different
6. i agree but you didn't talk about the other ones, which place do they fall in
1. He also banned abortion so that he could, in his mind, make Romania stronger.
Delete2. IM not sure they ever talked about what happened -if- you aborted, but i image it would involve prison time.
3. The Romanian Dictators wife actually said that i believe.
4. You aren't very specific about that time period, when did it go up exactly? when did it begin to go down?
6. You only covered about 3 of the things you needed to go over
1. Great perspective on the whole ban on abortion it coincides with what the book says and there's really no way to argue against it.
Delete2. Another incentive might have been the fact that abortions were really dangerous to get at the time because it was basically a back ally deal and the woman had a very high risk of death for doing that so it was almost worth it to have the baby and save your life.
3. I wouldn't say that the quality of life dropped because of just a lack of food but also the higher crime rates because of these kids who's parents really didn't care so they didn't have someone watching over them and making sure that they didn't do things that would get them in trouble.
9. I don't think the increased use of prisons made crime seem undesirable so much as it took repeat offenders off the streets.
10. The numbers on the stopping of 7 murders was wrong anyway.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) Nicolae Ceau_escu saw that banning abortion will benefit the Romanian economy by increasing its population so that Roman will become a strong country with lots of people, it says in the chapter that he wants to rapidly strengthen Romania by boosting its population.
ReplyDelete2) the incentives Ceau_escu used to increase the Romanian population was to ban abortion, and not use contraception and sex education and have the woman's who where not pregnant continuous after the police officers checked and checked they where told to pay steep “celibacy tax", also the only woman who where free from this was the women's with four children's already and women's with significant standing in the Communist Party. this incentives were effective because the Romanian population started to double.
3) the average quality of Romanian life was miserable, less education, test low in school, less success in the labor market, and was proved to be come criminals. all of this would happen to a child who did not belong in the Ceau?escu clan or the Communist elite. this affected their economy because they didn't get money and their labor market was low because the kids where not well educated.
4)in 1989 when Nicolae Ceau?escu dead crime was just about at its peak in the United States and in the pervious 15 years the violent crime had rises 80%. then the crime rate begin to decrease in the early 1990, the decreasing of crime from that time was to the level of crime forty years earlier.
5) Innovative policing strategies
Increase reliance on prisons
Changes in crack and other drug markets
Aging of population
Tougher gun control laws
Strong economy
Increased number of police
increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks, and others)
6)Invalid
Strong economy
increased use of capital punishment
Tougher gun control laws
Aging of population
Innovative policing strategies
Valid
Increase reliance on prisons
Increased number of police
Changes in crack and other drug markets
7) the robust of economy in 1990s would be a good explanation for the crime rate but its not valid because there is not a good link between them, when the economy was doing well so was the violent crime and the studies done showed that an unemployment declined of 1 % accounts for a 1 % drop in nonviolent crime and during 1990s the unemployment rate fell by 2% and nonviolent fell roughly 40%. Homicide fell at a greater rate in the 1990s than any sort of crime and after some studies they found out the economy and nonviolent crimes were not a match.
8)criminologists argue that because the imprisonment is high that is why the crime is high but its its wrong because its the other way around because the crime rate is high that is why imprisonment is high so the criminologists argument is wrong.
ReplyDelete9) the evidence that is available is that reliance on prisons has caused 1/3 of the decease in crimes. the evidence that there is would be the 1960 when crime was increased because there was a low conviction. the incentive became low to make crime.
10) the evidence given is that even though capital punishment quadrupled within a decade, there was only 478 executions in the United States during 1990s and is not very deterrent plus its only counts for a small amount of the drop in crime. capital punishment is not a very good explanation or logic for the drop in crime rates.
11) the increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline because there will be a increase in the imprisonment because the police officers will capture the criminals doing the crime. Also the increase in polices gives the criminals risks to take because they know with more polices there is a greater chance of getting bought, so their incentives will decease with the increase of polices. the evidence front he chapter will be the decrease of crime in the cities due to the increase of polices and the chapter says there was a 10% drop in the crime because of the increase in the police.
12)smart policing didn't contribute much to the decease of crime in the 1990s based on the evidence. Also its started way after the crime rate started decreasing. Just because it didn't contribute big to the decrease in crime does not make it a bad thing, all it shows is that it was just not the big contribution that decrease the crime rate in 1990.
1. The reason that Nicolae Ceausescu banned abortion in Romania, was because he wanted to grow the population of the country to make it stronger.
ReplyDelete2. Nicolae Ceausescu banned abortion and sex education. A large incentive to have children was to fine non pregnant women. This fine scared women into having children so that they would not have to pay the fine.
3. The average quality of life in Romania dramatically increased. As a result of the over population, kids were given poor education and were not likely to end up with a good career.
4. The crime rate dramatically increased starting in the 1970s. However, after Nicolae Ceausescu was killed the crime rate dropped down to about where it was before 1970.
5. Some of the reasons that the crime rate dropped in1990 were as follows: more intense laws on weapons, more people relying on the prisons, change in the drug market, more police officers, and a better economy.
6. I consider more intense laws on weapons, change in the drug market, and more police officers to be valid, because they are proven to impact the drop. However, I consider more people relying on prisons and a better economy to be invalid, because there is no proof for these statements.
7. One can make the argument that a better economy caused a drop in small crimes. However, what the argument of the better economy causing the drop does not explain, is the drop in larger and more violent crimes.
8. The criminologists argued that if the imprisonment rates are high then the crime rate is low and that this is also true if the rates are low. However this is not true because the rates were based on more dangerous criminals.
9. The increased reliance on prisons did intact reduce the crime rate. Criminals preferred higher risks for committing crimes and therefore reduced there criminal acts.
10. To say that capital punishment decreased the crime rate, would not be a very reasonable argument. Criminals weren't easily deterred from this punishment, and even though the number of executions were high, it didn't change their opinion.
11. The increase in crime rates decreased from an increase in police officers. With more police around the streets, criminals were at a much higher risk of imprisonment. This greatly deterred them form committing crimes.
12. In New York, the crime rates were dropping. By the time smart policing came into effect, the crime rates were already low. However, this does not conclude that smart policing is ineffective, but rather it says that it was ineffective at the time. In my opinion, smart policing is effective and does lower the crime rate.
1.) and overall make the economy larger and more powerful/better
Delete2.) they also risked in losing their jobs
3.) Also the resources, goods, and services didn't change making life harder.
5.) The police that were on the street had resources, training, and experience.
6.) Also it was the new court system that kept criminals behind bars.
1. To Ceau_escu, banning abortion had more pros than cons since less abortions would mean more people in Romania. The more people there were, the more support one’s country had theoretically. Economically, this was also a plus since the higher the population of Romania was, the more jobs that were done in that country. Ultimately that would make it possible for Romania’s government to have more money since there were more people to give jobs to.
ReplyDelete2. One huge incentive that was used was a tax. If a woman was not pregnant for a while, she was forced to pay a ‘celibacy tax’. With that said, a lot of women found it easier to get pregnant and have children rather than having to pay extra money for not having kids.
3. Since there were more people to take care of in Romania, the quality of life was less luxurious. The amount of kids who stayed in schools and could maintain jobs were lower since the demand for such things was so high that not everyone could live with the comfort of both. This resulted in a lot of people born in that era to become criminals since they had no other way of getting a profit.
4. In the 1970’s, crime was at a high rate—almost 80 percent higher than previous years. This rate remained almost consistent until the 1990’s, when the United States economy was improving a lot. At that point inhistory, people mostly saw no need to steal or do illegal things since they were getting their share of sustenance.
5. The first reason stated above was the rise in economic status, when people didn’t need to commit crimes anymore. Some other examples listed are amendments to some laws that made it harder to commit crimes such as tougher gun control laws. There was also a time when one could sell their gun for a significant amount of money, which also lowered crime rates. From time to time, usually in between office elections, there would be stricter policing laws in a town so that a person that was running for a second term in office would look more responsible to their people. The supply and demand for illegal things changed at times as well, making the appeal to sell them illegally not very high.
6. One valid explanation would be the change in demand for illegal items such as drugs, since the whole reason hat they are sold at such a high price is because it is illegal and not many people are willing to sell illegal things. However, once there are more sellers, the price of crack or cocaine is bound to go down since sellers want their product to be sold, no matter what it is.
A less valid point in my opinion would be the tougher gun control laws. To me it seems that the price of a gun would go up if it became illegal to carry one, not down.
2. The whole celibacy tax and HAVING to have at least four children makes me really frustrated. I understand it's a dictatorship, but THIS much control over your citizens lives is crazy.
Delete4. I think this is a good explanation of the how the change in economy and crime occurred.
5. I believe that that is the best option for stopping crime and keeping up on safety, implementing reasonable amendments to laws that allow police officers to effectively do their duty.
6. I'm a bit torn on your reason explained in six, mostly because I believe that gun control laws helped crime rates to go down.
7. People usually steal to supply their lives with the bare minimum. In order for so much people to have hard access to the basic needs in life, there is probably some corruption or weakness in an areas economy. So, when the economy is doing well somewhere, there is no longer as much motive to commit crimes, therefore no more crimes are committed.
ReplyDelete8. What the criminologists had said was that putting the right people in jail was what had made all the difference in lowering crime rates. If all criminals were put in prison, there would obviously be less crime since other people wouldn’t be influenced to commit crimes as well.
9. Increased reliance on prisons did help lower crime rates overall, but it was more specifically the prison sentences that kept criminals in prison.
10. Although it is more expensive to keep a criminal in jail, it does pay off over all, since eventually not as much money would be spent on caging up criminals because they’d all be in jail.
11.Theoretically, the more police are hired, the less crime that was committed in an area. However, the reason that some police were hired in an area wasn’t solely for the reason of lowering crime rates. Often times when a politician is in the middle of a two-term election, they hire more police to make them look better to the general public.
12. Crime rates did decline in the 1990’s, but it was more due to the fact that the overall economy was doing good in the United States. Sure, police kept areas more insured from crime, but the bigger reason was the country’s booming economy at the time.
1. I agree that no abortion would lead to a higher economy, but resulted in poor living conditions.
Delete2. This was the result of the ban. The government may of been happy, but the people were not.
5. I agree that the higher economy led to less crimes, but a stronger police force could have also had an impact.
10. I agree that it is worth the money to lock up prisoners in order to keep people safe.
12. I agree the police did help but the economy was the main cause.
1. He saw banning abortion would produce Romania's population, which meant more who would join the Communist party or a greater work force for the economy.
ReplyDelete2. Ceausescu used the incentive of prohibiting abortions and banning all contraception and sex education. These were effective incentives as then people had no birth control available for them nor knew much about it and the birth rate had doubled in a year.
3. The average quality of life in Romania had dropped. This happened because a woman, no matter whether she had the money to care for a child, had to take of their new child. Families had less money to care for their children so they received lower education and failed in the labor markets, becoming criminals and thus rising crime.
4. indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
Crime rate rose from 1970 up to 1989. In the early 1990's, the crime rate began falling to 1999.
5. Innovative policing strategies, increased reliance on prisons, changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun-control laws, strong economy, increased number of police, and others.
6. Invalid: Strong economy, capital punishment, policing strategies, gun laws, aging population
Valid: Reliance on prisons, number of police, change in drug markets
7. The data explains that the strong economy for a part of the drop in crime, but not for the large percent in how much of the drop.
ReplyDelete8. The rationale was that crime rates are high when the imprisonment rates are high, so crime would be low if imprisonment was low. Their logic was not sound because the crime rates don't actually correlate with imprisonment rates.
9. The increased use of prisons made crime unappealing to commit with the greater chance of being incarcerated. Overall, though, it was not a viable explanation for the drop in crime.
10. The reliance on capital punishment was also not a viable explanation for the drop in crime because while more people were being sentenced to death row, very few get executed for many years, therefore not affecting the crime rate.
11. The number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline because there would be more police to see crimes and stop them. The evidence, however, isn’t the explanation for the large drop in crime in the 1990’s because many times this happened during elections for mayors and they would hire more police officers as a show to garner support.
12. The data from New York City can’t explain the drop of crime in the 1990’s because it had only started in the mid-decade when crime had already been dropping and was happening in more places than just New York. Smart policing, however, is a good thing and is something to be adopted by all of society because it was an innovative solution that did have positive effects and proved to lower crime.
1. Nicolae Ceausescu’s rationale for banning abortion was that it would help Romania’s population increase. And more people means more money.
ReplyDelete2. Ceausescu was able to increase birth rate in Romania because he banned ALL types of contraceptives. Sex education was also banned. He also made women get tested like every month to see if they were pregnant, and if they weren’t they had to pay a celibacy tax.
3. Within a year of the abortion ban, life became miserable for Romanians. The babies that were born after all this were destined to have miserable lives. Their lives were horrible unless they were apart of Nicolae’s clan or the Communists Elite. These kids were more likely to test lower in school and to become criminals.
4. Fifteen years before, crime had risen by 80%. It reached it’s peak when Ceausescu was shot and killed. The crime rate began to fall in the 90’s. It fell back to the levels of forty years previous
5&6. Innovative policing strategies- invalid
Increased reliance on prisons- Valid
Strong Economy – Invalid
Increased reliance on prisons- Valid
The increased use of capital punishment- Invalid
Tougher gun laws- Invalid
Changes in crack and drug markets- Valid
Increased number of police- Valid
Aging population- Invalid
Abortion- Valid
7. The strong economy seems like it would be a valid explanation for the drop in the crime rate, but it isn’t. The 1% unemployment drop only accounted for 1% of the crime rate drop. But the crime actually dropped by 2%. But in the 1960’s, when crime was very high, so was the economy. So there is no correlation.
8. The criminology people say that the crime rates are higher when imprisonment is high. And crime rates are low when imprisonment is low. And this is actually backwards because the imprisoned rates were high because of the dangerous criminals committing crimes.
9. The available evidence shows that increased reliance on prisons accounts for 1/3 of the crime rate decrease.
10. Executions quadrupled between the 1980's and 1990's, but there were still 478 executions in the U.S in the 1990s. This shows that capital punishment does not drive down crime rates at all.
11. More police officers would mean that there are more people to patrol the streets and watch out for criminal behavior. They would also enforce the law a lot more. The incentives for the criminals to commit crimes would go down because they know that there are more eyes watching them.
12. The evidence in New York City shows that the smart policing didn’t do much to help decrease the crime rate. The smart policing did not come into effect until the mid 1990’s, and by then the crime rates were already decreasing. So smart policing may not be a bad thing, it just didn’t help decrease the crime then.
1. more people doesn't exactly mean more money he just thought it would make Romania more powerful
Delete2.I practically answered the same.
3. How does that describe quality of life.
4. About the same answer as i put.
5. The way you organized your answer makes it very easy to understand and know what your talking about.
1. He banned abortion because he wanted the population to grow and become larger, so Romania would become more powerful.
ReplyDelete2. After banning abortion, contraceptives and sex education Ceausescu had placed a fine on women. If you didn’t have any children there was a large amount of money you had to pay. Women didn’t want to have to pay this fine, so they had children to get out of it.
3. The average quality of life went down for many people. The amount of kids that stayed in school and had a job also went down. The demand for jobs was high, and with such a large population, there were not enough to go around. Many children born in that time grew up to be criminals because they needed a way to get money from not having a job.
4. The crime rate in 1970 had increased by 80% and had reached its peak by 1989, around the time when Ceausescu had died. In 1999 the crime rates had started to drop because Americas economy was doing well and people didn’t see the need to commit crimes if they were getting the money they needed.
5. Innovative policing strategies, Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun control laws, stronger economy, increased number of police and all other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks and others)
6. VALID : Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in crack and other drug markets, increased number of police and all other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks and others), Innovative policing strategies.
INVALID : aging of the population, tougher gun control laws, stronger economy.
7. Although the argument is strong, it does not explain everything. It stated that when unemployment rates go down, the amount of nonviolent crimes would also go down (1% drop in unemployment = 1% drop in nonviolent crimes). But, the amount of nonviolent and violent crimes dropped a drastic amount (nonviolent was a 40% drop, violent was even more)
8. They said that the amount of imprisonments were high, because the amount of committed crimes was also high. This is incorrect because the high amount of crimes would make the imprisonment rates high. And, if somebody were in jail it would be practically impossible for them to commit a crime, which would make the amount of crimes drop.
9. The increased use of prisons lowered the amount of crimes by 1/3. The incentives for committing the crime became less desirable because it was likely that you would end up in jail.
10. This would not be a valid reason because it is very expensive to keep a person in jail. Although the capital quadrupled in a decade, there were 478 executions in the 1990s, which would not drop the rate that much. Also, it would be worth it because if you have 10 criminals in jail, that’s 10 less criminals you have to find, and the amount of money used to find them would go into keeping them in jail.
11. The crime rate would drop because if there are more police in the streets, then more areas can be covered at one time to catch the criminals. Also, the incentives for the criminal to commit the crime would be less, because there would be a higher chance that they could be caught and put in jail. Evidence shows that there was a 10% drop in crimes committed when the amount of police was increased.
12. By the time the police had started to use smart policing, the crime rates were already beginning to drop. Although the evidence didn’t directly say that it was a good or bad thing, it just means that these tactics were not useful at the time. Personally, I think a large amount of police and smart policing would help the crime rates stay low.
1) Seeing your answer for number 2 made me think a little more about the taxes on women in Romania. What if a woman was not able to conceive simply for the fact that she wasn't fertile enough? What if a woman was too old to have children? What age limit was there to this tax?
Delete2) I disagree with part of your answer for number 6. if increased reliance on prisons resulted in tougher gun-control laws, then how is that an invalid reason for crime rates to drop?
3) I think you explained number 8 very well. I initially didn't understand the reasoning behind the question, so thanks!
4) For number 10; True, but aren't executions expensive as well? If there were so much executions in the 1990's how did that help the country economically?
5) I agree with your answer on nubbier 12. However, it does seem that in most cases, crime rates dropping are a good thing since there are less people to worry about hurting society.
1) The purpose of banning abortion in romania was to increase the population. Abortion was very common in romania and he thought the more people, the more money the country will make.
ReplyDelete2) The incentive was to ether have a kid or to pay a really steep tax. That incentive worked. After a year the birth rate nearly doubled.
3) The average life quality in romania went down. Since there was a sharp increase in population, demand for goods rose and there wasn't enough supply. More kids got a little education since there was a high demand and few resources to back it up. So down the road those kids ether became homeless, a criminal, or had a low paying job since they didn't get the education.
4) The crime rate dropped from the 1970s through 1999. As the year progressed, the crime rated dropped so fast and sudden that it shocked a lot of people.
5) There were many contributors to the fall of the crime rate. Some contributors where better policing strategies, strong economy, and tougher gun laws.
6) One contributor that doesn't seem valid is a strong economy. I think just because the economy is better doesn't technically mean crime right will go down. If people are more wealthy crimes like armed robberies and what not will still take place. One that does seem valid to me is the tougher gun laws. When guns and other weapons are hard to get, criminals won't have nothing to use so crimes will go down.
7) When there is a bad economy, there is a high crime rate since people would want to live and how the would survive is to fight for the scarce resource. On the other hand, if an economy is doing good and everyone has good paying jobs, they won't need to rely on crime to support themselves.
8) Criminologist thought that the crime rates were high because the imprisonment rate was high. So they concluded that if they lowered the imprisonment then the crime rates will be lowered. That thought process was wrong.
9) Increased in reliance on prisons did help lower crime rates. When more criminals are put in the street, people will tend not to commit as much crimes because they do want to be locked up. What really kept them in the prisons were the sentences.
10) Increased reliance on capital punishment isn't a viable explanation for the drop of crime rate in 1990. First of all, it is very rare and a long process to get one executed so a criminal shouldn't be deterred by it.
11) In theory, yes it would make sense that more police officer would mean less crime rates. But at time police will be hired just to make it seem like everything is going good but in real life it isn't.
12) In new york, smart policing didn't really have a impacted. It did have some good to the community but the real reason why crime rates went down was because of the economy not smart policing
1.
ReplyDeleteThe fewer abortions, the more children born during his reign. This would mean they would grow up as his followers and regardless of whether he was in power or not his legacy would live on. Also it meant more people in manufacturing, an industry he highly favored.
2.
There was the celibacy tax, which was effective. The abortion ban was effective and making contraceptives and sex education illegal, were also effective. Within a year of enacting these policies the birth rate doubled.
3.
As a result of this steep jump in births the already iffy quality of life in Romania went down significantly. The result of more people in an already soft economy was an increase in unemployment. Also more people meant more places to house people. The cheapest way was to put them in sub standard housing.
4.
It went down by 40% in the 90’s following a sharp spike in crimes in previous years.
5.
1. Innovative policing strategies
2. Increased reliance on prisons
3. Changes in crack and other drug markets
4. Aging of the population
5. Tougher gun control laws
6. Strong economy
7. Increased number of police
8. All other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks, and others)
6.
The strong economy is semi-valid because robbery and other financially driven crimes went down, but violent crimes were relatively unaffected.
Tougher gun laws is invalid as is the aging population, capital punishment and innovative policing strategies. Although they sound nice and rational, none of them are actually valid.
The valid ones include increased police presence, changes in the drug market and increased reliance on prisons
7.
The article notes the positive correlation between unemployment and percentage drop in nonviolent crimes. During 1990s unemployment fell 2% while non violent crime fell by 40%.
8.
The “Moratorium” noted that crime rates were higher when prisons were more full. The logic behind this is not sound strictly because of the correlation fallacy stating that correlation does not equal causation.
9.
The more prison was used, the more tangible being sent to prison seemed to potential felons. Although some saw it as a reason not to perform crimes, others didn’t.
10.
When the use of death row increased people may have feared that they would not only be convicted, but also be executed. However, people learned that the amount of people actually executed was small. So some decided it was safer in prison than on the outside and as a result took a gamble on whether they would actually be executed or not.
11.
It did help, however, the amount increased didn’t help as much as where the amount was increased. In other words the police stepped up their presence in areas know to have high rates of criminal activity with the thought that with more of them they would be able to catch more crimes.
12.
It’s a bit of a toss up. On one plane it wasn’t that effective because as they started using their innovative technique crime was already declining. On another plane it was effective because it could have thwarted many more violent crimes. A person with criminal tendencies is more likely to escalate their crime from graffiti to something more serious like rape with the rationale that not respecting someone or their property is okay.
1. Ceausescu thought that if there weren't abortions the population would increase and the economy would become stronger.
ReplyDelete2. Ceausescu increased the birthrate in Romania by banning abortion, contraceptives (birth control) and sexual education. He also placed "celibacy taxes" on women who weren't pregnant.The only exceptions were Women with 4 children already.
3. The average quality of life in Romania decreased, unless you were in the Communists elite or in Ceausescu's clan. The abortion bans made the future generation test lower in school and they were much more likely to be criminals. There were more people and not enough jobs to support the growing population.
4. In the 1970s the crime rate in America started to rise, it rose about 80% above the previous crime rate. The crime rate reached its peak in 1989, the year Ceausescu got killed. Once he died, starting in 1990 the crime rate started to slowly decrease.
5 and 6.
a. The Strong Economy (Not Valid)
b. Increased Reliance on Prisons (Valid)
c. The Increased use of capital punishment (Not Valid)
d. Innovative policing strategies (Not Valid)
e. Increased number of police (Valid)
f. Tougher gun laws (Not Valid)
e. Changes in crack and drug markets (Valid)
g. Aging of the population (Not Valid)
h. Abortion (Valid)
7. The book stated that when unemployment rate goes down, the amount of nonviolent crimes would also go down (1% drop in unemployment = 1% drop in nonviolent crimes). The drop in nonviolent crimes went down by 40%, and the unemployment rate did not go down by 40%, so that doesn't make sense.
8. Criminologists argued that because crime rates were high when imprisoned rates were high, then the imprisoned rates should be lowered to decrease the crime rates.
9. Some criminals say it as a reason not to commit crimes, which is why some believe the crime rate lowered in the '90s.
10. The amount of executions multiplied by 4 between the 80's and 90's, but there were still 478 executions in 90's. This shows that capital punishment did not lower the crime rates at all.
11. The increase in the number of police officers could help drive the crime rate down because criminals would be more afraid of getting caught because there would be more people looking for them/on the job.
12. Smart policing wasn't the main reason that the crime rate went down in New York, the economy increasing and doing better was the main reason that the rate went down.
Good job with the list on questions 5 and 6. Perfect combination
Delete1. He wanted to strengthen Romania by rapidly increasing its population.
ReplyDelete2. He got rid of sex education and made women take pregnancy test, and if she repeatedly continued to not be pregnant se would have to pay a tax for it. This means you had to give more of your income to the government when you had a low quality life and a low paying job while taking care of family and kids you possibly were forced to have earlier.
3. People were forced out of their homes and to abandon agricultural jobs to work in factories and live in unheated and cooled apartments while raising probably multiple kids they were forced to give birth to.
4. The crime rate increased from the 1970’s to 1990.
5. “Innovative policing strategies , increased reliance on prisons, changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun control laws, strong economy, increased number of police, and all other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks, and others)”
6. All appear to be invalid except for increase in police and change in police tactics. But these had little effect.
7. The unemployment rate fell by 2 percent when the crime rate started decreasing. The economy didn’t do much and in the strong economy of the seventies crime rate was increasing.
8. Prison has helped drop crime rates by one third before. But their logic was not sound. Their fallacy was you were more likely to die on the street than on death row and similar to the daycare incentives it wasn’t a big enough negative incentive.
9. The reliance on prisons did not help, if there were executions there were so few and a huge delay that it wasn’t really effective.
10. There was no capital incentive for the criminal caused its paid for them to be there sand once again they are more likely to die on the streets than on death row.
11. Police numbers helped crime rates drop because there were more cops to catch more crimes so the big crime or felony could now be handled while a smaller one that would originally go unnoticed could be handled as well.
12. It helped some but was not the reason for the huge drop in crime. Smart policing is a good thing though because the weird guy pissing on the street corner could be robbing a bank later that day because when people think they can get away with small things they go bigger but if they get corrected while its small they hopefully won’t go any higher and just stop doing bad things all together.
3) You gave more of the living conditions rather than how life changed through an economic view
Delete4) The crime rate decreased fromt the 1970's-1990's because of the good economy
6) Just because the police rise in numbers doesn't mean that it will drop the crime rate.
7) You need to give more information in your answers. Also try to answer all parts to the question rather then leaving some out.
12) I like your response. You gave a good example and supporting details
1. I agree with you that he want to strength Romanian but you didn't answer the question fully.
Delete1. In economic terms, what was Nicolae Ceau_escu’s rationale for banning abortion in Romania, i.e.,how did he see banning abortion befitting the Romanian economy?
ReplyDelete2. Describe the incentives Ceau_escu used to increase the birth rate in Romania.Were these incentives effective? Explain.
In Romainia, if you did not conceive for x amount of time, you had to pay a “celibacy tax”
3. As a result of Ceau_escu’s policies,what happened to the average quality of life in Romania?
Provide an economic explanation for the change that occurred.
The people lived miserable lives. The children born in this time often lacked many skills, like in school, and normally became criminals.
Looking at it economically, the school building capacity was probably too high and the teacher to student ratio was probably out of hand.
4. Describe the general behavior of the crime rate in the United States between 1970 and 1999,i.e.,
indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
Crime rate began to rise, but as the 90’s came there was a ‘dramatic’ drop in the crime rate.
5. List each of the explanations of the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s that are evaluated
by Levitt and Dubner.
1. Innovative policing
2. Increased reliance on prisons
3. Changes in crack and other drug markets
4. Aging of the population
5. Tougher gun controls
6. Increased number of police
7. Strong Economy
8. All other explainations
6. Of the explanations you identified in the previous question,which ones do not appear to in fact be valid? Which ones do appear to in fact be valid?
The ones that seem to have had the most impact are 1, 5, and 6.
2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 do not seem as if they would have had much effect.
7. The argument linking the drop in crime to the robust economy in the1990s would seem to be quite strong. Provide a brief explanation of what the data have to say about the viability of this explanation.
The data shows that though yes, the economy improving and the crime rate may have some correlation, more so looking at the nonviolent crimes, that they do not in fact have much more in common. Generally, if unemployment decreases by 1%, so do crime; unemployment decreased by 2% and crime decreased by 40%.
This shows that the economy probably did not have much to do with the drop in crime rate.
1. By banning abortion, he believed that he could increase the Romanian population and strengthen Romania and the communist party with more supporters.
ReplyDelete2. An incentive he created was called the “celibacy tax”. If a woman failed to conceive, she would have to pay a fine. He also banned sex-education, along with contraception. These incentives were effective, because he was able to double the birth rate within a year.
3. Another part of his policy was that the communist elite did not have to have children. As a result, the lower-class was having babies, and the lower-class led a very miserable life. Children were doing worse in school and had poor living conditions. The elite population would have stayed essentially the same, whereas the low-class population would have increased dramatically.
4. Between 1970 and 1999, crime had risen 40%, then, when the crime-rate peaked, it quickly fell way down.
5. 1. The Strong Economy - invalid
2. Increased Reliance on Prisons - valid
3. The Increased use of capital punishment - valid
4. Innovative policing strategies - invalid
5. Increased number of police - valid
6. Tougher gun laws - invalid
7. Changes in crack and drug markets - valid
8. Aging of the population - invalid
9. Abortion - valid
6. Leniency on capital punishment is not always a factor in drops in crime rates. For example in the previous chapter, it was shown that a drug dealer is more likely to be killed on the streets than on death row, thus making death row more appealing.
Their first explanation was the weak economy. Increases in unemployment have been linked to decreases in non-violent crimes. A very clear explanation was the number of criminals being sent to prison in the 1990s. Sentences were lengthened, and four times the number of people were in prison by 2000, compared to in 1972.
7. A robust economy in fact does not guarantee a drop in crime. Increases in unemployment have been linked to decreases in non-violent crime.
8. Criminologists argued that because more people were in prison while more people were committing crimes, less people should be sent to jail in order to decrease the crime-rate. However, they had their connection backwards: they believed that more people were committing crimes because more people were in jail, but it was the opposite. More people were in jail because more people were committing crimes.
9. The evidence showed that increased reliance on prisons has a strong connection to decrease in crime. When the imprisonment rate went up in the 90s, the crime rate dropped drastically.
10. An increased reliance on capital punishment is not a viable reason for the drop in crime, even if the punishment is more harsh. It was explained in the last chapter that a drug dealer would be more likely to die on the streets than on death row. Therefore, death row is a step up, rather than a danger.
11. An increase in police could lead to a higher imprisonment rate, which has been shown to lower the crime rate. In the 90’s, it was shown that 10% of the drop in crime was related to an increase in law enforcement.
12. Smart policing, in a way, led to the idea that higher imprisonment rates led to lower crime rates (because of the broken window theory). However, smart policing was not shown to be a direct cause of lower crime rates. The smart policing was only starting in New York, however crime rates were dropping all over the country. Smart policing is not a bad thing, and isn’t a waste of time, but in the 90’s, it didn’t do anything to lower crime-rates.
8. What rationale do some criminologists offer for the argument that imprisonment rates should be lowered as part of the effort to reduce crime in the United States? Was their logic sound? If not,
ReplyDeletewhat fallacy did they commit?
Some believed that the lack of people imprisoned would provide fewer motives for people to commit crimes, because the crime rate was high around this time. This did not make much, and policemen are not going to release convicted prisoners and sit by and wait for crime rates to drop.
9. What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on prisons is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
Reliance on prison punishment and low crime is a good way to explain why the rate of crime decreased. Higher punishments give people less incentive to commit a crime.
10.What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on capital punishment is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
Increased reliance on the capital punishment is not a good explanation because it was hardly ever carried through.
11.Explain how an increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline.
Does the evidence support this explanation of the drop in crime in the 1990s? Explain.
People generally assume that more police means less crime. Though, this is not always true; the data show that an increase in police can also mean an increase in crime. Some mayors may hire police leading up to Election Day to show that they will add protection for their community.
12.Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the adoption of innovative policing strategies. Focusing on the experience in New York City,what do the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing
is not a good thing? Why or why not?
Yes advances in policing are a good thing, but in the case of New York City, it didn’t play that much of a role in their crime rate drop.
It is a good thing, and it will assist and should be encouraged though.
Keeping our protectors ahead with most up to date tactics and gadgets will aid in the fight to stop crime.
1. Nicolae Ceausescu declared abortion illegal in Romania in the late 1980s, crushing the largest form of birth control in the country; for every baby born, there were 4 others aborted. Nicolae believed that with a bigger population he could have a bigger and therefore more powerful country. These extra people are more hands to do labor and if someone was not getting pregnant they would have to pay a huge celibacy tax, largely increasing the country’s income either way.
ReplyDelete2. There were a number of different incentives for Romanian women to get pregnant, one being a moral incentive to continue their race and culture. Another would be an economic incentive to have more babies so that the government could have more workers and benefit from their labor and tax revenue. A social incentive arises in a non-expecting woman to try to become pregnant because they would not fit in with other women otherwise. These reasons altogether form a strong argument to increase reproduction rates.
3. When Ceausescu’s policies were enacted to increase birth rate, the average quality of life decreased dramatically. With many more children to take care of, citizens paid more all over in expenses and spent more time caring for children than making money. With this plethora people to provide fro, the country, as a whole, struggle to hold their heads high and were at a major economic low.
4. From 1970 and beyond, crime rate in America was rising drastically; by 1988 it increased by 80%. In 1989, Ceausescu was executed and crime rate vastly dropped in America. Throughout the 90s crime kept dropping gradually.
5.
• Innovative policing strategies
• Increased reliance on prisons
• Changes in crack and other drug markets
• Aging of the population
• Tougher gun control laws
• Strong economy
• Increased number of police
• All other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapons laws, gun buybacks, and others)
6. In the 1990s, crime rate in America dropped dramatically for a few reasons. One, the ruler of Romania was executed. Two, there was an increase in police office population. Three, the crack market crashed in the mid 1990s which, in turn, reduced a 15% of violent crime, no to mention the illegal trading of crack cocaine. Also, when abortion was legalized less unhappy children were born and less crime was present.
I think you could have used less words, but the questions still got answered very well.
Delete1) I like how you gave all the needed information, it was to the point.
Delete4) When you said that Ceausescu was excuted and the crime rate dropped in the US, it sounds like they had a direct influence on each other. Next time you should just answer the question and not point in unneeded information.
5) I like how you listed the points and how it's easy to understand.
6) Just because there is an increased amount of police officer doesn't mean the crime rate will drop.
7) In the 1990's the crime rate dropped because of the good economy.
5. I like how you have list all the explanation.
Delete7. The argument including the correlation between the good economy and the decreased crime rate cannot logically be counted for because in the 60s there was a crime rate decrease during an economic recession. A+B=C is not the same as A+(-B)=C
ReplyDelete8. Criminologist argue that the amount of criminals housed in prison should decrease because they believe that because when crime rates are high, prison rates are high, so if prison rates are low, then crime should be low. There explanation did not work out, however, because they did not include the order of cause and effect, just the outcome (combination).
9. As police became more reliant on prison, criminals committed less crime because there was more of a risk of them getting caught and being sent away to repay the government for their wrongdoings.
10. According to the evidence, whether or not people are being executed with capital punishment, it does not deter criminals. For one thing, less people died from the death penalty than from gang wars and drug violence. Also, capital punishment was only given to people that committed serious crimes like homicide, it practically didn’t even affect the minor criminals in their judgment to go forth with their actions.
11. When the number of police is increased (like it was around 1990), the crime rate in that area goes down. This happened in the 90s when police staff grew by roughly 40%, studies found this lead to a 10% decrease in crime rate. The crime probably dropped because there were more incentives for criminals to not commit crimes: like a better chance they will get caught and prosecuted.
12. In New York City, at around 1994, Mayor Giuliani was elected, and hirer his handpicked police commissioner, William Bratton. Mr. Bratton had ideas for strategic smart policing mainly including using the broken window theory. New York police started cracking down on every little crime they saw, and overall crime rate in the city did fall dramatically. This would conclude that smart policing is a good thing; except that other major cities experienced the same crime rate decline and didn’t follow the same policing strategies, arguing that smart policing is not the cause for the crime drop.
7. Yep. They also disproved most of the studies that correlated the unemployment rate with the crime rate.
Delete8. Exactly, they assumed that the correlation just happens rather than the prison rate being high BECAUSE criminals are being caught.
9. Nice and to the point. As the government began to actually punish people for crimes, people were deterred from committing them in the first place.
10. Yes, and also, barely anyone is actually executed. Like you said, you have to commit some seriously bad crimes for it to happen, and it happens to so few people that it doesn't have all that much of an impact.
11. Good answer... nothing much else to say.
1.More people would mean more taxpayers, more potential military candidates, and a better opportunity to be actually seen by the international and more specifically the communist community.
ReplyDelete2.Well the major thing he did was outright ban abortion. Aside from that he made his “Menstrual police” go to business and such and round up women and do pregnancy tests and if they repeatedly fail they would have to pay a celibacy tax (That was the actual incentive.. The rest is just backstory). The celibacy tax was effective because a lot of the people where poor, so saving them from an expense would be amazing. Also it saved them the embracement of being rounded up.
3.The average quality of life went down in Romania due to his policies. With more people it made job competing hard as well as the same amount of wealth being spread around a much larger population. Added to this he tried to industrialize the country and forced many to move into cities and cramped apartments (Which would make me have a sad day…)
4.The crime rate in that period went up for a period (1980’s) and then in the 1990’s and early 2000 it fell. The crime increasing had to do with a lax court system and Crack Cocaine.
5.Innovating police strategies, Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in crack and other drug markets, Aging of the population, Tougher gun control laws, Strong economy, Increase in number of police, capital punishment, concealed-weapon laws, Gun Buybacks, and legalization of abortion.
6.Ones that appear to not be fact: Innovating police strategies, Aging in the population, Tougher Gun control laws, Strong Economy, Capital punishment. Concealed weapon laws, and Gun buybacks. Fact: Increased reliance on prisons, Changes in crack and other drug markets, Increase in the number of police, and legalization of Abortion.
7.The data said that the increase in jobs and such only affected crimes such as robberies where one party wants money. It didn’t have so much of an affect on violent crimes.
8.The evidence given for this is that when prison rates where high there was more crime and assumed when prison rates where low crime was low, he saw the wrong type of correlation in this.
9.The data shows that increased prison numbers equates to about 1/3 the crime drop. This is viable because during the 80’s prison reliance was low and crime was high but that changed in the 90’s when reliance on prisons was high and crime rate went down.
10.The available evidence on this is that 1, executions are far apart from each other and 2, there is a very small amount of people getting convicted and even killed by capitol punishment every year. No one is scared of being killed by capitol punish when they commit a crime because you can go 20 years without being punished.
11.If there are more police around and thus a higher chance of getting caught you think twice about committing a crime, and that also leaves more police to pursue other things and help imprison more people. The hiring of extra police accounted for roughly 10% of the crime drop in the 1990’s.
12. The data tells us that crime rate was already going down in New York before the “Innovative” tactics where used. The tactics did help though, put more people in prison and the higher prison numbers did help to lower the crime rate. Mainly the data tells us that the increase of police hiring done by the major before Giuliani was the major factor that helped decrease crime not the innovative policing. In conclusion it is and it isn’t, the innovative policies put more people in prison but the hiring of more police had a bigger impact. In the end since the innovative tactics helped put more people in prison it did contribute to the decline of the crime rate.
Very good. Nice job restating the question too.
Delete1. You made it very clear you know what your talking about when you answer this question.
Delete1. He felt that abortions removed people from being able to join the workforce of the country and in turn make the country grow so banning abortion was him trying to make Romania grow.
ReplyDelete2. I really don't see what incentives he had, but whatever ones he had weren't very effective because it made Romania a hole of a country and he got shot so clearly it didn't work.
3. Life in Romania went down the tube, the change occurred because first there were more people to worry about and that large growth of the number of children just put a drain on the infrastructure because it wasn't ready for that exponential growth, and abortion being the number one form of birth control before the ban caused the birth of many kids that the mother ended up not caring for.
4. It was increasing the whole time because there hadn't been enough time for roe v wade to remove all the "bad eggs" from the bunch that would cause all the crime.
5. Gun laws and the crack bubble burst, and larger police forces and better police work.
6. The number of police seemed to have an affect on crime but the other are all just ideas someone came up with that sounded like it would clearly have something to do with the growth or fall of crime.
7. The data and the viability tell two different stories, the data showed that street crime fell but it said nothing about violent crimes which actually increased with the economy boom.
8. I don't really remember.
9. The evidence shows that locking up more killers doesn't drop the homicide rate as predicted.
10. It didn't really make a drop in crime, it was more of an empty threat because you have only a 2% chance of vein executed if you're on death row.
11. I couldn't find the reason to be clear but it wasn't really the fact that more police were being hired was what was happening, it was the fact that there was a mayoral election recent that caused the number of more police so that the candidate would get the law and order vote.
12. Looking at the data you find that they were really more in the middle of the pack as far as the percent in crime reduction so smart policing isn't really a good thing it's a waste of money because it isn't at all effective, it has more to do with other factors than the change in policing habits.
1. Nicolae banned abortion in Romania because he wanted the size of the population to increase. He thought that a population would also increase the power of Romania.
Delete2. He only allowed women who already has 4 children or women who stood at a certain rank in the communist party. He also banned sex education and had government agents force women to take pregnancy tests. Any women who say otherwise had to pay a tax. Because of these things, the birth rate in Romania doubled.
3. Babies who weren't born into the communist elite weren't able to get a good education, a good job, and were most likely able to become criminals. So, they weren't successful in the labor market, and the crime rate would go up.
4. In the 1970s the crime rate in America started to rise, eventually it rose to about 80% above what it was before. In 1989, the crime rate reached its peak, the year Ceausescu got killed. After his death, starting in 1990 the crime rate began to plunge.
5. Higher rates of innovative police strategies, Increased number of police, imprisonment, strict gun laws Changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population,
6. The in factual crimes drops are innovative police strategies, strict gun laws, and the crack changes. The high imprisonments, and increased number of police.
7. The strong economy boost in theory did decrease the crime rate of nonviolent crime like robbery, car theft, and burglary based on the theory that criminals didn't need to steal. However, it did not explain the 40% decrease of violent crimes like homicide, assault, and rape.
Nice job answering the questions, but try to condense your answers into one giant comment. Other than that, it's fine
Delete8. Crime rates would be high if prison rates were high, and crime would be lowered if prison rates were lowered. The logic was so
ReplyDelete9. The increase in prison reliance did keep criminals off the street but it was the increased sentencing of the court systems that kept them there.
10. The number of executions quadrupled in between the 80's and 90's, but there were still 478 executions in the U.S in the 1990s.
11. The increased amount of police officers did help the drop of crime, because more cops means a higher rate of getting caught commiting a crime. In 1990, the amount of cops wasn't raised much, but in the areas where cops were raised, crime did drop.
12. Crime did drop according to the evidence. Homicide rates fell from about 31 for each 100,000 to 8 per 100,000, Cops' population grew 45%, and when other states did this, they got the same results. Smart policing, based on the evidence is definitely a good thing.
8. You might want to explain who's logic this is instead of just stating it; you need a subject for a complete thought.
Delete9. Your answer is nice and short, very easy to follow.
10. These are just pure facts, there is no explanation of the information.
11. Your explanation is fine for the police raise part, but you did not include the incentives of criminals to not do crimes, instead of more criminals getting caught, there will just be less crime.
12. You have a well written answer but overall, it's wrong. The same or better criminal drop results occurred in other cities proving that the new policing strategies have nothing to do with it.
12.I also agree with Phillip, what you described above is for more police officers.
Delete1. Nicolae knew that banning abortion would result in a higher population. I believe that he thought this would benefit the economy by having more people working, and in turn having more money spend. In the long run, this might have improved the economy.
ReplyDelete2. Ceausescu used a couple of incentives to increase the birth rate in Romania. One of these incentives was to ban all contraceptives and sex education. Another incentive was to tax all women who did repeatedly failed to conceive. These incentives did produce a higher birth rate. Within two years, Romania’s population had almost doubled.
3. As a result of Ceausescu’s policies, the average quality of life went down drastically in Romania. A reason for this might be because there was a large increase of people in Romania. This would mean that there would be fewer resources for everyone. Less jobs, or food would result in a lower quality of life for the citizens of Romania.
4. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the crime rate was increasing. In the early 1990’s, the crime rate fell at a surprising rate.
5. Levitt and Dubner believed that these reasons caused the drop in crime in the early 1990’s: Innovative policing strategies, more reliance on prisons, changes in the drug market, aging populations, stronger economy, and more police numbers.
6. In the end, changes in the drug market, more reliance on prisons, a higher number of police, and a stronger economy were all valid reasons. While policing strategies, gun laws, aging populations, and capital punishment really didn’t have an effect.
7. In the 1990’s the unemployment rates fell, the economy was booming, and nonviolent crime rates fell. There wasn’t a valid connection between the violent crimes and the economy.
8. Criminalists' believe that when imprisonment rates are high, so are crime rates. They also believe that if imprisonment rates are lowers, the crime rates will go down. There rationale is not sound because if the imprisonment rates are high, more criminals will lay low.
I like how your questions are to the point but elaborate on the point.
Delete1. Your explanation is nice and to the point; when you state your answer, however, try to be more assertive and instead of saying "might", replace it with "will".
Delete2. Your answers were right in general, but the examples were not "incentives", they were actions. Incentives are more like affects from actions.
3. These reasons are well put. Another might be that because children were not aborted, they were neglected because their parents did not want them.
4. Your answer is exactly what is asked for. Nice Job.
6. Your answer is well written and almost right, but we can't tell that the strong economy helped the crime rate lower because in the sixties the crime was well-decreased but the economy was down much.
9.The available evidence shows that the increase reliance on prisons accounts for a one-third of the drop of the crime during the 90s. This is because harsh prison terms are shown to be a deterrent to criminals. Other criminals would see this and not commit crimes.
ReplyDelete10. The evidence shows that capital punishment isn’t a viable explanation for the crime in the 1990’s. Capital punishment doesn’t act as a deterrent to criminals. Many inmates on death row are never executed. Also, some criminals may believe that death row is actually safer than being out on the streets.
11. The increase in police officers should act as a deterrent to criminals. It should also help police officers catch or prevent crimes in progress. A higher number of police officers would explain the drop of crime in the 1990’s. The increase in police accounted for a 10% drop in crime in the 1990’s.
12. The data shows us that the New York policing strategies were an innovation in policing. While these techniques were being used, the homicide rates fell 73.6%. Crime rates also started to fall before these techniques were implemented. This was pretty surprising. I would conclude that smart policing is a good thing because it keeps crime rates low, and it kept criminals off the streets.
12. I agree with you that smart policing is a good thing but in the book it doesn't say that smart policing kept crime rates low. What you described above is for more police officers.
Delete1. Ceau-Escu’s ban on abortion was done because he believed boosting Romania’s population would help to both strengthen the country and maximize economic output. He figured that the more people there were, the better the country’s economy would be.
ReplyDelete2. One of the main incentives was that, if women didn’t conceive, they were forced to pay very expensive taxes. He also eliminated all contraception and sex education. It did work for what he was doing; Romania’s birth rate ended up doubling, but quality of life for those kids was terrible.
3. Quality of life decreased immediately after the abortion ban—kids born after the ban did noticeable worse in school and in the labor force, and were much more likely to become criminals. This was mostly due to the fact that almost all of the country’s wealth was held by a few people, so doubling the birth rate meant dividing already-scarce resources among even more people.
4. The crime rate in the U.S. was rising steadily between 1970-1990. It had risen 80% from 1974-1989.
5. The listed causes included innovative policing, increase in prisons, changes in drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun laws, stronger economy, more police, and then other reasons.
6. The ones that don’t appear to be valid would be tougher gun control laws, more police, innovating policing strategies, and increase reliance on prisons. The ones that do appear to be valid are changes in the drug market, aging of the population, and stronger economy.
7. The main thing pointed out in the chapter was that, as unemployment began to fall in the 1990’s, crime fell roughly 40%, which doesn’t follow what the “studies” said at all. On top of this, there is no correlation between violent crime and the economy. Basically, the economy really doesn’t have any effect on crime.
8. They basically believe that higher imprisonment rates correlate to higher crime rates, and vice versa, but this isn’t actually true, as lower imprisonment rates have been shown to cause an increase in crime.
9. The available evidence shows that this is actually a very plausible reason for the decrease in crime. The chapter cited that the increase in crime between 1970-1990 was largely due to the fact that the government became much more lenient on crime. When they began to crack down, they plummeted, and that just so happened to be around 1990.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1) How would more people strengthen the country. There are countries with lots of people and small/weak armies,our army isnt strong because we have a huge one compared to our population it is strong because the ones in it are highly trained and speialized
Delete2) Kids and families that lived on farms were also forced to move to the city where they would live in crappy compartments and work at factories.
3) Kids also were living poorly because lots of parents mistreated them and they werent properly cared for because they were unwanted.
8) the reason inprisonment rates might increase crime is because since there are less people being put in jail there are more out of it to cause more trouble and commit crimes.
9) one of the reasons they were more lenient on crime is because they wanted to host the olympics and get a lot of attention in the country.
1) i think it might have been able to work if he also provided the jobs and health care necessary to maintain the large population.
Delete2) Well this guy pulled out all the stops didn't he. I wonder if there are anymore extreme steps that could have been taken, like lowering the marriage rate so that teenagers confused about "love" would get together and have more kids.
4)Why did it raise 80%? All you said was that it raised somehow. Was it because people just turned bad, were the police corrupt before then, or was the a recession causing people to lose jobs and start committing petty crimes to survive.
7) I like how you cleared up and answer questions that could be asked by some of your previous answers. saying the economy don't have a correlation with crime clears somethings up but still keeps people wondering and intrigued.
8) i can understand how lower prison rates can increase crime rates. With more people out on the street running around that should be in prison there should be more crime.
10. This one is the opposite, it likely doesn’t have much of an effect on the decrease in crime. This is because there are not many executions carried out in the first place. On top of this, statistics show that capital punishment doesn’t even reduce all that many homicides annually anyway, so it’s really not having that large of an effect on the crime rate.
ReplyDelete11. The logic here is pretty similar to the prison argument. Basically, more police = more people to catch criminals and put them in jail. The huge increase in manpower in the 1990’s is part of what helped to increase in imprisonment rate, and in turn lowered the crime rate.
12. Based on the evidence from New York City, the innovating policing strategies idea may have just been another idea that didn’t really have an effect. First of all, the crime rate was already falling before it was instituted, and also, it led to a huge amount of hiring on the police force. So really, it was just evidence of how more police lowers crime, rather than how the innovative policing strategies worked.
1. Nicolea Ceau_escu’s banned abortion in Romania in order to strength Romanian by boosting its population. He banning abortion befitted the Romanian economy by force women who failed to pass the pregnancy test to pay “celibacy tax.”
ReplyDelete2. Ceaue_escu banned abortion to increase the birth rate in Romania, within a year he was able to double the birth rate of the Romanians but he plan of strength Romanian failed because the babies end up having miserable life than those before them.
3. The average quality of life in Romania was miserable and the kids that born because of him banning abortion protested against his policies. Once he realized he was shut down he tried to escape with $1 billion dollar but got captured.
4. The crime rate in the United States was at it is peak during 1989 but early 1990 the crime rate decreased.
5. The explanations for the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s were innovative policing, increase in prisons, changes in drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun laws, stronger economy, more police, increase use of capital punishment and etc.
6. The ones that do not appear to be fact valid is stronger economy, and innovative policing.
The ones that do appear to be fact valid were increase in prisons, capital punishment, and imprisonment.
7. As it was state in chapter 4 of the book, in 1990s strong economy didn’t affect criminal behavior in any significant way, unless the economy constructed in a broader sense – as means to build and maintain hundreds of prisons.
ReplyDelete8. They were misleading people to believing that by lowering imprisonment rates that it would reduce crimes. That was false statement because the higher rates of imprisonment did have a lot to do with the decrease of crime.
9. The available evidence from “On Behalf of a Moratorium on Prison Construction” states that crimes would fall if imprisonment rates could only be lowered.
10. The available evidence in book state that increased reliance on capital punishment doesn’t have any influence on crime rates.
11. Increased in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline because the extra police officers would have imprisoned criminals who might have otherwise gone uncaught.
12. Smart policing is not a bad thing but it doesn’t have a lot affect with reduce crime rates like more police officers. Smart policing have positive outcome like for example if the criminal was using unknown weapon and the police officer would have to be aware of the weapon before chasing the criminal
1. In economic terms,what was Nicolae Ceau_escu’s rationale for banning abortion in Romania,
ReplyDeletei.e.,how did he see banning abortion befitting the Romanian economy?
He thought that by banning abortion and later birth control, then the work force and the population would increase. This would make a bigger economy.
2. Describe the incentives Ceau_escu used to increase the birth rate in Romania.Were these
incentives effective? Explain.
By banning abortion the birthrate increase drastically. People were having more kids then they could care foor so the children were malnourished.
3. As a result of Ceau_escu’s policies,what happened to the average quality of life in Romania?
Provide an economic explanation for the change that occurred.
The quality of life decreased. This was because people could not afford to pay for all of their children to be healthy.
4. Describe the general behavior of the crime rate in the United States between 1970 and 1999,i.e.,
indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
The crime rate was increasing through the years.
5. List each of the explanations of the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s that are evaluated
by Levitt and Dubner.
innovative policing strategies, increased reliance on prisons, changes in crank and other drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun-control laws, strong economy, increased number of police, all other explanations (increased use of capital punishment, concealed-weapon laws, gun buybacks, and others)
6. Of the explanations you identified in the previous question,which ones do not appear to in fact
be valid? Which ones do appear to in fact be valid?
stronger economy and innovative police strategies were not valid. The others were valid.
7. The argument linking the drop in crime to the robust economy in the1990s would seem to be
ReplyDeletequite strong.Provide a brief explanation of what the data have to say about the viability
of this explanation.
The stronger economy did not impact the crime rate because the number of violent crime decreased greatly and the unemployment did not drop that much.
8. What rationale do some criminologists offer for the argument that imprisonment rates should be
lowered as part of the effort to reduce crime in the United States? Was their logic sound? If not,
what fallacy did they commit?
By putting people into the jail then other people will just fill their place in the real world. You are putting a new criminal behind bars but a new one will soon take their place.
9. What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on prisons
is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
They began to crackdown on crime so more people will stop doing crimes so that they do not get caught.
10.What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on capital
punishment is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
The increase in capital punishment rose from 14 to 66 in the United States. Not a high enough increase to create fear.
11.Explain how an increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline.
Does the evidence support this explanation of the drop in crime in the 1990s? Explain.
If there are more cops then more people are out catching crime.
12.Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the
adoption of innovative policing strategies.Focusing on the experience in New York City,what do
the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing
is not a good thing? Why or why not?
The crime rate dropped dramatically all over the United States. Not just in a few cities. Some cities had great police tactics and some do not. So that is not a valid police strategy. Smart policing is still effective. It does help decrease crime.
4. The crime rate initially increased, but began to fall drastically in the 1990s.
Delete6. The only valid explanations were shown to be more police and, to some extent, aging population.
8. I think the gist of this argument was that the criminologists got the correlation backwards.
9. This is true, but not entirely responsible for the drop of crime int he 1990s.
10. Not only this, but capital punishment is so rare that it has little power to dissuade criminals.
4. The crime rate rose, only to fall for "unspecified reasons"
Delete5. You forgot abortion
8. Criminologists never took statistics, and assumed that correlation implied causation
11. Also, more area is covered by the larger number of officers
1. He believed by banning birth control and abortion the population would increase. From the population increase, he believed the work force would increase, and eventually, the economy would improve.
ReplyDelete2. He eliminated any sort of sex education, and instituted very high taxes for any woman who didn't conceive. It did what he wanted it to, and increased the birth rate, but the lives of these children were very rough.
3. It dropped drastically. The children who were born to many of these families were unwanted, and the families could not pay for them. People could not afford these children.
4. The crime rate was rose steadily, by 80%.
5. Prison improvements, tougher gun laws, an improved economy, change in drug laws, and tougher and more policing as well.
6. The valid reasons were the drug market, stronger prisons and economy, and police regulations. The invalid ones included aging population, capitol punishment, and gun laws.
7. The unemployment rate and number of non-violent crimes both dropped, while the economy continued to boom. The good economy explained the drop in non-violent crimes (people no longer had a reason to steal). However, the great economy didn't explain the drop in violent crimes.
8. If a criminal goes in jail, another criminal will take his/ her place. So, even though a criminal goes in jail, it won't really make a difference, because another one will be there to take their place.
9. It is a viable explanation, but it only accounts for about 1/3 of the crime drop. Criminals were less willing to commit a crime if the punishments were harsher.
10. This is not a viable reason for the crime drop. Many criminals on death row are never actually executed. Many criminals feel that capitol punishment is more bark than bite.
11. It would make sense that an increase in the number of police officers would mean a drop in the crime rate, however, the evidence from the 90's does not support this. Statistics showed that an increase in capitol punishment really didn't reduce the crime rate.
12. The crime rate did drop, but not because of the policing. The crime rates had already started to drop, so there is no solid evidence that the policing is what made the crime rates drop so dramatically. In addition, these new police tactics and technologies required a larger police staff, so its really just evidence of how a larger police force decreases crime rate.
3. To tie this into economics further, it could be said that the increase in people led to increased scarcity.
Delete6. I think the economy was shown to be a nonviable explanation, and that aging was shown to be possibly viable.
8. Higher imprisonment rates will deter criminals, since more criminals going to jail could discourage existing criminals from committing more crimes.
11. The increase in police officers was in fact shown to be a cause for crime rate drops, just not the prevailing one in this case.
12. This is a good example of a correlation without causation, where two factors appear to be related but in fact aren't.
Very nicely done, well thought out, well put together. Overall a wonderful set of answers to the questions presented.
Delete@elizabeth is it possible to put all criminals into jails and then there for no one can reatke their place?
ReplyDelete@hamda why do you think the economy in the 90s didnt effect the crime rate?
@Mike Lipster-I like how all of your answers were short and to the point. I didn't have to search through a mountain of words to find the answers that were needed
ReplyDelete@Phillip Sanderell-Your response for number 7 was interesting. I liked the "equation" that your added in at the end
1. He wanted to increase the population in order to gain a more powerful workforce and build the country up.
ReplyDelete2. He banned abortion and instituted a celibacy tax, as well as ceasing sex education and contraceptive sales. These incentives proved enough to double the birth rate.
3. The increase in people without a corresponding increase in resources led to a great deal of scarcity. This made everything more difficult to obtain, and meant many people were unable to get basic amenities.
4. The American crime rate fell sharply starting in 1990, after a steady increase up to that point.
5. Innovative policing strategies
Increased reliance on prisons
Changes in crack and other drug markets
Aging of the population
Tougher gun control laws
Strong economy
Increased number of police
6. More police do in fact prevent crime, as well as the slight effect of the aging population. The rest hold little to no water.
7. Financially motivated crimes dropped at a rate in line with the rest, such as violent crime. This indicates that the crime drop was not linked to the economy, since all types of crime fell, not just economically motivated ones.
8. They reversed the cause, believing that higher crime rates were caused by higher imprisonment rates. They thought that since crime rates were high when many criminals were imprisoned, that having fewer criminals imprisoned would lower crime rates.
9. This was somewhat of a factor, but not as strong as the lack of available criminals.
10. This had very little impact on the crime rate, since chances of dying on death row were so small, even compared to those of dying in gang related violence.
11. This has a large effect, since police can prevent crimes and increase imprisonment rates. However, there was not much of an increase in police officers in the 1990s, so this is an unlikely cause.
12. Smart policing is never a bad thing, but it does not have as much of an effect as people predicted. There was also a relationship between smart policing and additional police officers, which could have been the true cause of the improvement.
1. In economic terms,what was Nicolae Ceau_escu’s rationale for banning abortion in Romania,
ReplyDeletei.e.,how did he see banning abortion befitting the Romanian economy?
He thought the country would be better off and more powerful with a larger populace.
2. Describe the incentives Ceau_escu used to increase the birth rate in Romania.Were these
incentives effective? Explain.
Increased taxes on non-pregnant women, mandatory pregnancy tests, sexual education and contraceptive ban. These were effective because the population spiked.
3. As a result of Ceau_escu’s policies,what happened to the average quality of life in Romania?
Provide an economic explanation for the change that occurred.
Because there were more people, quality of life decreased. There were more people competing for the same amount of resources.
4. Describe the general behavior of the crime rate in the United States between 1970 and 1999,i.e.,
indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
People thought it would increase majorly, but it suddenly dropped right when people thought it would increase sharply
5. List each of the explanations of the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s that are evaluated
by Levitt and Dubner.
Levitt and Dubner say that it was abortion that caused the drop in crime. I don’t agree with abortion, and so the fact that abortion is cited as the best anti-crime process possible is something I find sick.
6. Of the explanations you identified in the previous question,which ones do not appear to in fact
be valid? Which ones do appear to in fact be valid?
The one that the authors say to be valid is abortion. Suffice to say, I do not agree ethically. Though it may work, it is a sick way to stymie crime.
7. The argument linking the drop in crime to the robust economy in the1990s would seem to bequite strong. Provide a brief explanation of what the data have to say about the viability
of this explanation.
An entire generation of lower class males were off the streets. Since data shows that lower class males are the most likely to commit crimes, it makes sense that abortions being widely pushed for in the lower class communities years before would decrease crime rates years later.
8. What rationale do some criminologists offer for the argument that imprisonment rates should be
lowered as part of the effort to reduce crime in the United States? Was their logic sound? If not,
what fallacy did they commit?
Criminologists argue that since imprisonment is high, crime is high. They are implying that correlation implies causation, but in the wrong direction. Imprisonment is high because crime is high.
9. What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on prisons
ReplyDeleteis a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
The increased use of prisons made crime unappealing to commit with the greater chance of being incarcerated. It wasn’t a viable explanation for major crime drop though.
10.What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on capital punishment is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
This would not be a valid explanation because it is very expensive to keep a person in jail. Although the capital punishment rate quadrupled in a decade, there were only 478 executions in the 1990s, which would not drop the rate much.
11.Explain how an increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline.
Does the evidence support this explanation of the drop in crime in the 1990s? Explain.
The crime rates would drop because if there are more police in the streets, then more areas can be patrolled to catch criminals. The evidence shows that crime rates drop in areas heavily patrolled by officers of the law.
12.Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the adoption of innovative policing strategies. Focusing on the experience in New York City, what do the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing
is not a good thing? Why or why not?
By the time this was being implemented, crime rates were already starting to drop. If we kept smart policing and a large police force though, crime rates would greatly drop I personally believe.