98 of 121 DOCUMENTS The Boston Globe December 30, 2000, Saturday ,THIRD EDITION JACK LEVIN Jack Levin is the Brudnick Professor of Sociology and Criminology and director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University.; THE PATH WE CAN CHOOSE TO REDUCE CRIME BYLINE: By Jack Levin SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A17 LENGTH: 803 words THE GREAT CRIME DROP IS OVER. STATISTICS RELEASED LAST WEEK BY THE FBI SUGGEST THAT IN THE FUTURE WE CAN NO LONGER EXPECT SIGNIFICANT DECREASES IN THE CRIME RATE. For seven years, the national crime rate plummeted to a level not seen since the 1960s. But in the first half of 2000 national reports of rape and aggravated assault rose, while most other serious offenses leveled off. The Boston statistics were even less encouraging, as crime went up in almost every major category including murder, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. Attempting to explain the end of an era, criminologists have suggested that we have already done almost everything humanly possible to make our cities safe. We have locked up millions of citizens, tried more children as adults (even those who commit property offenses), built community centers and recreational areas, increased after-school programs, provided more summer jobs, and sent armies of resource officers and volunteers into the schools. We have cleaned the streets of guns, crack, and ugly graffiti. What more is there to be done? Actually, there are many poliies and programs that would easily make our crime rate plummet again, if only we had the collective will to try them. Here's a partial list: Outlaw all guns. We continue to lead the Western industrialized world when it comes to killing one another with firearms. Gun control measures - waiting periods, gun locks, background checks - might make some difference in the crime rate, but not much. If we outlaw guns, we wouldn't need any gun control policies. We would also see gun-related deaths plummet. Many Americans would agree, however, that we would also be destroying the essence of the Second Amendment, which gives us an important right to bear arms. Eliminate poverty. Since 1970, we have seen a gradual increase in income inequality and a shrinking middle-class. There are now simply more very rich and very poor Americans, with fewer in between. Bring back the welfare state, wage an effective war on poverty and you automatically reduce crime. With prospects of a rising unemployment rate on the horizon, the effort becomes even more important to achieve. Many Americans would agree, however, that income inequality may be bad, but socialism is strictly un-American. Equalize educational opportunities. The residents of European countries may not go to college, but they can at least read, write a grammatical sentence and add and subtract. The number of functionally illiterate Americans is unacceptably high. Equalize the quality of education between the cities and suburbs, between rich and poor. Not only will you increase MCAS scores, but you will also reduce criminal behavior. Many Americans would agree, however, that even if wide educational disparities continue, local schools deserve to have local control by local residents. Supervise all of our youngsters. Right now, 50 percent of our teenagers and children lack full-time parental supervision. Because of divorce, dual-career families, and impoverished single moms, we need to provide more after-school programs, day care, and community centers. We could theoretically also eliminate divorce and shorten the work week, giving parents more time to spend with their children. Adult supervision is essential in reducing juvenile crime, and many of our youngsters simply do not have it. They are therefore free to do whatever they want including the commission of assault, rape, and murder. Many Americans would agree, however, that parents too should be free to do whatever they want whether that means working full-time or legally breaking up with a spouse with whom they are not getting along. Realistically, Americans are not about to outlaw guns, eliminate all poverty, equalize educational opportunities, and see that all children are supervised. Such policies sound outrageous, radical, too extreme because they severely reduce our personal freedom to make personal decisions. And they certainly would require such drastic changes in our culture and social structure that we would be living in a vastly different kind of society. And that is precisely why we should be pessimistic about further reducing crime. Based on maintaining effective reforms to the present system, the best we can hope for is to keep the crime rate where it is. Moreover, under the impact of the president-elect's "compassionate conservatism," there is reason to see some backsliding as well. We can still make up the difference by increasing our involvement in the lives of our youngsters. The worst we can do now is to rest on our laurels. It is not that we Americans are wedded to violence. But crime is an important symptom; it is the price we pay for our love affair with individual freedom. LOAD-DATE: December 31, 2000 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company |