Kidding aside, this is an old pet peeve, but misusing statistical information is unfortunately a commonplace. There is an excellent article in Next American City entitled “Crime’s Bottom Line.” Though from the left, it seems to have some reasonable attempts at demonstrating that while poverty may not CAUSE crime, it is a very important CORRELATE of crime. Sometimes the author’s answers are unsatisfying, but he at least attempts an answer. The author also identifies Fairfax County as one of the wealthiest counties in the nation – with a benefit:

D.C. suburbs, such as Northern Virginia’s Loudoun County and Fairfax County, ranked among the nation’s wealthiest counties in 2004, while the District’s poverty rate, roughly one-fifth of the population, remained stagnant. In February, D.C. posted an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent, while in Fairfax County it was a mere 4.7 percent.

While this does not explain the cause of crime, I do believe it helps provide avenues for explaining Fairfax County’s lower crime rates in terms of index crime. A murder a year for each of 2006-8, while D.C. had 169, 181, and 186. Fairfax County has a little over a million people, and D.C. doesn’t quite make it to 600,000. The comparisons are just as startling for the other index crimes.

Still, Tom’s comments provide more in the way of foundational work to build answers on than does Ben Adler @ New American City. Moreover, your comments on beliefs about oppression and entitlement play a factor in Tom’s explanation as well. Mr. Grim’s comments on his grandmother’s aphorism, like mine, go at least part of the way toward explaining some of the beliefs and consequent actions people take. Recent immigrant stock, old immigrant stock, and slave stock will most certainly imbibe different cognitive structures from their families and environments.

By the way, I don’t find it offensive. I find it extraordinarily useful to help refine my thinking on these subjects. I tend to believe that a dispersed network of ideas will likely produce better results than single source ideas!

Thanks for the comments,
Steven.

As with most any topic I may comment on, it is not based on books, papers, statistics or common paradigms. It is instead an opinion formed purely on my observations of the society (a.k.a the people) I am forced to share this world with.

I would like to back things away from those who actually broke rules of sufficient stature to deserve punishment through our criminal justice system for a minute. Instead, I would like to point my pudgy finger at what I term “the rule-breakers”.

“Who are the rule-breakers,” you may ask?

Why, it is all of us. You, me, Hell just about anyone you may know qualifies as a “rule-breaker”.

Little things, Like parking in a fire zone whle you jump out to use the ATM. You know you’re not supposed to, but you do it anyway. Or driving 70 MPH on a 65 MPH zone. Bah, it’s a stupid rule anyway. Or throwing that candy wrapper in a nearby bush instead of shoving it in your pocket until you can find a garbage can. Meh, it’s paper, sort of, it’ll biodegrade.

Stupid little rules.

But rules nonetheless.

We know they exist. We know we should probably follow them. But we don’t. We choose not to.

Why?

Well, a certain friend of mine once said something to the nature of, “If I think a rule or law is stupid or unnecessary, I won’t follow it.” Please note that the quotes are to indicate dialogue and are not meant to indicate the statement is verbatim.

If a rule or law is indeed stupid or unnecessary, should we not, as a group, use our democratic process to change or repeal the rule or law? Is that not what our founders had in mind when they formed this nation?

I see others that break rules that rely completely on the notion of, “Well, everyone else is doing it, why can’t I?” Like my grandma use to ask me when I was a wee whelp, “If everyone else was eating dog shit, would you grab a spoon?” God, I miss my grandma sometimes!

Still others appear to just be so inconsiderate that they put themselves above everyone else and consequently, the rules as well. The same friend I mentioned above can attest to that. Something about a guy cutting in line, a fist fight and both combatants being removed from the establishment without being able to conclude the business they were there for to begin with.

In the end, I do personally believe that whether a hardened criminal or a simple “rule-breaker” it is indeed all about choice. You know the possible consequences of your actions, and weigh the risk versus the supposed gain. Then a choice is made and action is taken.

So, yes, crime is a choice by those that commit it. By I do believ Mr. Vail’s college professor at least clipped the head of the nail when he broght up the risk-taker factor. This entire nation was built upon taking risks. It is in our blood to do so. Hell, our greatest examples of the American Way were all huge risk takers. We view those that take big risks (and succeed) as heroes and we tend to view those that refuse to take risks as cowards.

But all in all, I believe it is all about personal choice.

People commit crimes because, in the end, they wanted to.

A Professor of mine, many years ago had a theory that there was more crime in America because we were a society made up of risk takers, outliers, and misfits. Those who ventured across oceans to come to America came because they were forced (slaves), deported, couldn’t do what they chose to do (practice an unacceptable religion, etc.), or their situation was such that they felt it was worth the risk to try something different, way different. He made the assumption that a very large part of our Society was made up of those who lacked a respect for ruling authority and law. Hence we had more people willing to risk going against that law and the society that supported the law. I tend to believe he is onto something.

I also believe that the breakdown of society is a big factor in crime. Most societies are constructed to maintain a certain order. Much of this is done through peer pressure. But, peer pressure will affect crime in two way, in my opinion. One, when there is sufficient peer pressure as in small towns where everyone knows one another, it is more difficult to break the societal norms (laws). Also, in big cities, there is more anonymity and fewer peers to apply the pressure to adhere to societal norms. Two, is the situation when there is peer pressure to break down societal norms (break laws) as occurs in gangs. As Jeff, above, comments, this can be a very big cause in antisocial behavior, law breaking.

I, too, believe Crime is a choice, but, pending the environment (rural, urban, gang, no gang) can be a simple case of risk taking (or avoidance of gang violence) or a more complex case of weighing risks and rewards.

To put it in fewer words: Crime seems to me to be as complex as any other human emotion, action, or desire. That is why it deserves study. That, and the fact that, by and large, we want our neighbors to act as we do and want to understand how to keep them from acting out against societal norms.

.-= tom Vail´s last blog ..National Referendum on Health Care? =-.

When I say poor, I mean they are at the lower end of the economic scale, not destitute. Allow me to run through a few more commonalities. They live in trailer parks, apartment complexes, or housing projects. They lack education and, in fact, view education as a sign of weakness. They hold the belief that their parents have been oppressed in some way, shape, or form. They are minority (more Latino than Black in Fairfax). About three-fourths of them are in, “chill with,” or glorify gangs.

The belief your people have been oppressed, whether it was truly believed or merely used as an excuse for mediocrity, contributes to a sense of debt. Someone owes you something. You don’t owe, THEY owe. And who cares about them, because they wronged you with oppression in the first place. And when you took back what they owed you, they did you another wrong by arresting you. Can’t they see you’re just getting back what’s yours?

Where does this belief that you’ve been oppressed get its momentum? I have my opinions on this. I’m sure you’ll find yours.

I apologize if this offends, but these themes run at very high percentages. The odd-man-out is the white kid who either huffed or did meth. Everyone’s got a very different story, but it’s akin to cooking different recipes from the same list of ingredients. It’s still all just bologna.

I’ll probably regret this tomorrow morning… back to my schoolwork.