Unintended Consequences, Lead And Crime
from the the-world-works-in-bizarre-ways dept
If you haven't yet, you owe it to yourself to read Kevin Drum's recent article for Mother Jones about the possible link between crime rates and leaded gasoline. The article makes a rather convincing case that the massive growth, and then subsequent decline, in crime over the last six decades or so was influenced quite strongly by the fact that automobile gasoline had lead -- and then went unleaded due to environmental concerns. The article cites numerous studies that all seem to suggest the same thing -- and carefully tries to get past the "correlation is not causation" issue by looking at multiple studies that tackle the same question from different angles (different time periods, locations, population types, etc.) to try to eliminate other possible explanations. One of the parts that struck me as most interesting was the data on big cities as compared to other regions:Like many good theories, the gasoline lead hypothesis helps explain some things we might not have realized even needed explaining. For example, murder rates have always been higher in big cities than in towns and small cities. We're so used to this that it seems unsurprising, but Nevin points out that it might actually have a surprising explanation—because big cities have lots of cars in a small area, they also had high densities of atmospheric lead during the postwar era. But as lead levels in gasoline decreased, the differences between big and small cities largely went away. And guess what? The difference in murder rates went away too. Today, homicide rates are similar in cities of all sizes. It may be that violent crime isn't an inevitable consequence of being a big city after all.The article has not gone entirely without criticism. Drum has distanced himself from the claim of the key researcher he relies on in the piece that 90% of the rise and fall of crime (not 90% of crime) is attributable to lead, suggesting that 50% might be a more reasonable number. Separately, Ronald Bailey has reasonably taken Drum to task for blithely making statements about "blindingly obvious" things concerning IQ and ADHD that turn out to be... not true. When you take those things out of the equation, some of the report relies on "aggressiveness" and "impulsivity," but as Bailey notes, there is no national data series on aggressiveness or impulsivity. And, having seen way too many "studies" on video games / violent media causing greater "aggressiveness" and "impulsivity," but always failing to show that those traits actually lead to more crime, it pays to be somewhat skeptical.
That said, the data is very interesting, and certainly worth much more research and better understanding. At the very least, it's a reminder of our complex ecosystem and economy, where understanding cause and effect is often incredibly complicated, and the end results may be quite surprising. It is all too easy to jump to conclusions about cause and effect (and, yes, we are just as guilty of this as others at times) -- but the real world is an impossibly complex mixture of inputs and variables, that rarely succumb to simple explanations that follow the initial "most obvious" rationale.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crime, lead, statistics, unintended consequences
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wonderfully stated
Recently I saw Freakonomics. The author makes a strong case for legalization of abortion dropping crime. You could apply that theory to the correlation of big/small city crime stats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?
Hey, I gotcher correlation right here, pal.
You know what happens when you put too many rats in a cage? They fight. Often brutally. They not only kill each other, they eat their own young. Not each others' young, their own.
Humans are the only animals that do this to themselves. On purpose.
Perhaps this should be eliminated as a variable before blaming crime on heavy metal poisoning. Sheesh.
The author has obviously been sniffing too many exhaust fumes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The majority of guns crimes involve a hand gun in cities with heavy gun control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
clearly murder rates will go down if every one dies of lung cancer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The data tallied has been done by a number researchers in different fields and they come to the same conclusion.
You might want to actually read the article. It even touches on your hypothesis of population density leading to increased crime. The data they collected shows that the per-capita crime rates between urban and rural areas were about the same with lowered lead exposure levels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marginal
Crime rises when criminal business opportunities increase and declines as they decline.
Take burglary for example. Go back to the 1930s and few homes have much in them that is worth stealing. The post war boom saw an increase in consumer durables - making burglary more attractive. This trend peaked in the 1980s when most homes had a video recorder - which was expensive enough to be worth stealing and easily portable.
Since then the price of these items has fallen - and the few remaining household items that are expensive are too bulky - so burglary has declined. In the meantime street robbery has increased due to the prevalence of expensive personal electronics!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really?
Hey, I gotcher correlation right here, pal.
You really ought to read the article in question. As I noted, they go beyond just correlation. Multiple studies from different angles -- ALL showing the same thing.
You know what happens when you put too many rats in a cage? They fight. Often brutally. They not only kill each other, they eat their own young. Not each others' young, their own.
Humans are the only animals that do this to themselves. On purpose.
Perhaps this should be eliminated as a variable before blaming crime on heavy metal poisoning. Sheesh.
And yet, if you read the article, the data says something different.
I dunno. I trust the data rather than your anecdotes.
Also: humans aren't rats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Marginal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wonderfully stated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
While there may be some sort of relation between lead and criminality I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the real point of the article is that if you torture data sets enough they'll say virtually anything and that a great deal of scrutiny is needed when presenting studies that intend to find causes for a determined behavior/fact. Right?
I think you can basically summarize the point of the article in:
At the very least, it's a reminder of our complex ecosystem and economy, where understanding cause and effect is often incredibly complicated, and the end results may be quite surprising. It is all too easy to jump to conclusions about cause and effect (and, yes, we are just as guilty of this as others at times) -- but the real world is an impossibly complex mixture of inputs and variables, that rarely succumb to simple explanations that follow the initial "most obvious" rationale.
Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Marginal
In the end it's a complex matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: wonderfully stated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except in the case of rats...as you mentioned...prior to your above statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wonderfully stated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wonderfully stated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leaded gasoline and crime
1. There is bound to be data on the conduct of, say, mice exposed to lead and mice not so exposed. Seems to me that would be highly relevant.
2. There is bound to be data on how much lead was put into the air. That should be relevant.
3. But the big problem is, that like Techdirt's blindness to data showing a possible correlation between video games and crime, even if it is for a small segment of the population. While it is easy to believe video games are not a significant factor (we just don't know) to say it is NEVER a
factor at all is a massive stretch of "faith", or bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Too bad the study dealt with relative values of crime, showing that they rise and fall with a 23-year lag time from when lead is introduced and removed from gasoline.
Perhaps next time you should review the research before jumping to conclusions. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's not what I got from it at all. The last part is good - scrutiny and skepticism is needed. But I didn't get an impression of tortured data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Leaded gasoline and crime
factor at all is a massive stretch of "faith", or bias.
I don't remember Techdirt ever claiming that it is never a factor. What they've written is that there is no reliable evidence linking violent video games to violent behavior. There's no faith involved, just a decision not to believe in something that doesn't have any evidence for it. Kind of the opposite of faith really. But if you have references to good data showing a correlation that Techdirt has ignored, that could be evidence of bias. Do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: wonderfully stated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: wonderfully stated
In addition, there is no disputing the fact that lead poisoning causes mental issues and therefore removing the source of said poisoning would be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Safety
Its seems counter intuitive but if you take Canada for example the largest cities have lower crime rates than smaller cities.
The more populous provinces of Ontario and Quebec have lower provincial crime rates that low density provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crime Rates were lower in the 50s and 60s with lead
New york city for instance banned paint in 1960, crime rates in new york city were low until the 1970s, obviously all lead paint was probably not removed and much was preexist ant but it does not support the theory.
Although lead does to an extent cross certain socio-economic barriers since old homes that could be owned by the wealthy can have lead, there does seem to be an increase in crime by those of lower income although whites who may have had some privilege also had crime increases back in the 1970s.
So while the theory has some valid reasoning, it doesn't really meet its mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Crime Rates were lower in the 50s and 60s with lead
The story is about atmospheric lead from leaded gasoline, why are you bringing in lead paint?
[ link to this | view in thread ]