The Myth of Increasing Violence

[leo9]

He wasnt advancing this as proof that violent crime is decreasing: the evidence for that is in the statistics, which have been studied in great detail by a lot of people, all of whom have reached the same conclusion, that violent crime has been falling for as far back as detailed records go, with a year on year fall in recent decades.

Reporting crime is a good part of his argument and, as seen from the responses here, what people have put weight on.

As for the statistics, they concern Europe from about the middleages if I get him right, and they conclude that crime has decreased in 7 or 8 countries in Europe.

As for US his sources concern from 1945 and onwards ( conveniently after two world wars - a volume of violence unheard of on the world until then) and the un-govermental resources are 'from 1950 to the present.'

In other words, we can scale down the thing from 'the world' from G-H to present time, to Europe in medieval, and US and South America from 1945 and onwards.

Not that that is not important, and he may have a point, but it is quite hard to get an idea when he keeps going from wars to crime to laws as it suits his message. He has left out the two world wars and the present wars in his ideas - apparently they do not as much as 'blip'.

The only people who disagree with this are the campaigners for draconian crimimal laws (such as the expansion of the death penalty), who have an obvious reason to want to claim that crime is rising not falling.

I beg to differ, as it claims that if I disagree with him, I also go for draconian laws!
I do disagree with him on a number of issues, but I do not go for that kind of laws and never have, except that I feel that punisments for GBH and animal abuse are too low - 4 months prison for a 10 hours prolonged torture of a girl seems unreasonable to me. But I am not for draconian laws of death sentences, and I resent that kind of argumentation.

What he was discussing was the secondary but important question of why, if this is so, popular belief says the exact opposite - that violent crime is more prevalent than ever. And I agree that the main reason is media focus. Another reason is contrast. If your everyday life is a jungle of threats and minor tussles, the occasional killing is just the way it goes.

True, this talk is in the section of why, but you will note that the header is 'the myth of increasing violence', and that people respond to that more than to the statistics.

But one thing the original lecturer touched on, but which I think he underestimated, was the increase in life expectancy. "Expectancy" is an important word. In ages when a man in his '50s knew that he was living on borrowed time, that most of his contemporaries were dead of disease or violence and the Reaper would catch up with him soon, he had little motive to work for a better future. These days, a man of that age can realistically expect to see that future.

I do not see what this is an argument for? Do you mean that if you think you have a future, you do not do violence? I guess it depends. What is the life expectantcy in ghettos? Meaning you have to have a futture for the argument to hold.

What about wars? And if you scrape money together by way of drugs because you can retire early and have a good life, the argument works in reverse.

I have heard this argument before, and I do not really see it?

But I think the most important factor is the enlargement of the circle of what we consider "us" rather than "them." For example, it's been observed that anti-immigrant prejudice is not (as you might at first assume) highest in those areas that are having practical difficulties (housing, jobs, services etc.) with a large immigrant population. For real widespread biggotry, you have to go to places that never see a foreign face and get all their information through the media and gossip. The best cure for prejudice, always, is getting to know the Other: and the most continuous technological change throughout history has been improved communication. I think these two facts come together to suggest an explanation.

I am totally in agreement that the Us-Them waycan so ealisy pave the way to violence, depending on how violent the society already is. But I believe that you have to have more than 'screen-contact' with people to get out of that way of thinking. At least that is what I have seen around me. Butthere are face-to face encounters organised by people realising the value of it, only they are not so many as yet.

But of you start your attention on the 50's an onwards, it is hard to use that to explain the perptual decreasing of violent crime that is postulated.