Freakonomics+chapter+4

Post whatever you think will benefit this project and all that good stuffff. Remember that its due 11/29 (the day we come back) LEHH GOOO

pgs. 111-116; this was the best i could interpret it...
 * //__Introduction__//**:
 * Conviction rates increased-crimes go down
 * Criminals who would’ve previously been set free – for drug related offenses and parole revocation in particular – were instead locked up

__//**Narration**//__: -
 * 1977 academic study called “On behalf of a Moratorium on Prison Construction”- stated that crime rates are high when imprisonment rates are high; crime rates would fall if imprisonment rates were lowered
 * The increased use of capital punishment- drives down crimes
 * //__Proposition__//**:
 * Increased imprisonment, capital punishment
 * Increased police, policing strategies
 * //__confirmation__//**
 * Harsh prison terms act as a deterrent (for the would be criminal on the street) and a prophylactic (for the would be criminal who is already locked up)
 * 1980-2000: fifteen fold increase in the number of people sent to jail on drug charges
 * From 1960-1985 the number of police officers fell more than 50% relative to the number of crimes
 * This 50% decrease in police translated into an equal 50% decline in the chance a criminal would be caught
 * In 1990, additional police were highered-10% crime drop
 * //__refutation__//**
 * prison isn’t a cheap solution: $25,000 a year for one inmate
 * death penalty doesn’t exert any real influence on crime rates
 * //__digression__//**
 * //__conclusion__//**
 * it wasn’t capital punishment that drove down crimes
 * higher imprisonment rates did have a lot to do with it, however
 * increased number of police=reduced crime rate

~Christopher Delsoin


 * Pages 127-133**

This is all I could figure out for my pages.

__New York crime__ Intro Mayor vowed to fix crime situation. "The story played out most...crime hot spots” pg. 126-127

Narration Police in NY got stricter on small crimes & violent crime went down. “The most compelling....27 months” pg. 127-128

Proposition Innovative police strategies had little effect on this decline. “But a careful analysis...effect on this huge decline” pg. 128

Refutation Crime went down everywhere during 1990s, not just NY. “Most damaging to the...police force is accounted for” pg.129

Digression/Conclusion There is little evidence to support that the new police strategies were the reason for the drop in crime “It would be churlish...thousands of new police officers” pg. 129

__Guns__

Intro Gun advocates believe gun laws are too strict; opponents believe the opposite. “First the guns...disrupter of the natural order” pg.130

Narration Tough guy vs. not so tough guy in a bar High school girl vs. mugger “A gun scrambles...safest places in the world” pg.130

Propositions “Guns do not cause crime.” pg. 131

Confirmation Regulalation of a legal market is bound to fail when a healthy black market exists for the same product. “The most famous gun control...impact on the fall of crime” pg. 131-133

Refutation We need more guns on the street. “Then there is an opposite...don’t bring down crime” pg.133

-Cayla

**Pgs. 115-121**

**Introduction:**

__**Ceausescu in Romania Summary**__ In 1966 Nicolae Ceausescu became the Communist Dictator of Romania and made abortion illegal. The reason Ceausescu did this was to strengthen Romania by boosting its population. Abortion was the main form of birth control and contraception devices were also banned, which caused birth rate to double, but his plan to improve Romania had the opposite effect. The children born under this law were more likely to test lower in school, would have less success in the labor market, and were much more likely to become criminals. When Ceausescu began to lose control of Romania in the December of 1989, it was the children born under this law, now teenagers and college students, who encouraged the uprisings. Ceausescu realized his reign was over and tried to escape with his wife and $1 billion, but they were captured and executed on Christmas Day.

**Narration:**

On the day of Nicolae Ceausescu's death, the American crime rate was around its peak. Crime began to drop in the Early 1990's when criminoligists predicted it to become worse. Criminologists began spewing out hypotheses for the crime drop that none of them saw coming. ( chart of hypotheses available on pg. 119)

The strong economy hypothesis was not a reason for the crime drop.
 * Propositions: **

An unemployment decline of 1% only accounts for a 1% drop in nonviolent crime, and In the 1990's, unemplyment dropped 2%, and nonviolent crime dropped 40%. Homicide fell during the 1990's grater than any other crime, and studies have proven virtually no correlation between economy and and violent crime. In the 1960's the economy also went on a growth spurt, but violent crime did aswell, disrupting the strong economy hypothesis.
 * Confirmations: **

Although the strong economy may have minorly affected a drop in crimes with financial motivation.
 * Refutation: **

The strong economy hypothesis didn't affect criminal behavior in any significant way. - Jon //Klubak//
 * Conclusion: **

Proposition: Gun buyback was a way to keep guns off the street in the 1990s but did not help the murder rates decrease pg132

Confirmation: " The typical gun buyback program yeailds fewer than 1000 guns which translates into an expectation of less than one-tenth of one homicide per buy back. Not enough, that is, to make even a sliver of impact on the fall of crime." Pg133

Refutation: John R. Lott Jr. Wrote a book called More Guns, Less Crime where he argues that violent crime has decreased in areas where law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. PG 133

Digression: When he refers back to Romania in 1966. He leaves making his points about guns drugs and murders and reverts back to abortion and how it became legal in the United States. PG 136- 139

- Jaylin

Basically that chart of possible crime drop explanations on page 120-121 (in the hard cover book) is an outline of what explanations the authors analyze and CLASSIFY as to whether or not it was an accurate explanation of the crime drop. So I believe the arrangement is **Classification.** topics in which chapter is chapter is essentially divided into: -Innovating police strategies -Increased reliance on prisons -Aging of population -Gun control -strong economy -Increased number of police -Capitol punishment

as Jon said^ A strong economy (one of the possible explanations in the chart) was not one of the reasons for a drop in crime rate.

Increased relience on prisons is one of the explanations stated for the crime rate of the 1990s to have dropped. "It accounts for roughly one-third of the drop in crime" pg. 124, first paragraph

The increased use of capital punishment (death penalty) was not an accurate explanation for the drop in crime rate

Increased # of police-additional police substantially lowers the crime rate.

Innovating police strategies- "Innovative police strategies probably had little effect on this huge decline" shown by careful analysis of facts.

gun laws-homocide rate is high because guns are so easily available. So, looser gun laws-more homocides.

~Caleb C.