What Criminologists Don’t Say, and Why

Monopolized by the Left, academic research on crime gets almost everything wrong.

The history of academic criminology is one of grand pronouncements that don’t often prove out in the real world. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, criminologists demanded that public policy attack the “root causes” of crime, such as poverty and racism. Without solving these problems, they argued, we could not expect to fight crime effectively. On this thinking, billions of taxpayer dollars poured into ambitious social programs—yet crime went up, not down. In the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s, as crime rates continued to spike, criminologists proceeded to tell us that the police could do little to cut crime, and that locking up the felons, drug dealers, and gang leaders who committed much of the nation’s criminal violence wouldn’t work, either.

  • From the article:

    “In other ways, though, criminologists’ lack of direct contact with
    subjects, situations, and neighborhoods—their propensity to
    abstraction—invites misunderstandings about the reality of crime.”

    Who would have thought that this would be a problem?

  • Drunk by Noon ✓

    Make the criminologists live in the ghetto for the entire time (roughly 6-8 ears) it takes them to get their PhD.
    Those that survive, maybe half of them, will avoid abstraction in their future theories.
    We know what works and who the criminals are.
    Did you know that if you removed all Blacks and Hispanics from NYC that murders would drop by 93%?
    The higher and harsher and more consistently applied the social controls are on blacks (think Jim Crow stuff), the more law-abiding Blacks become. Anybody who does not acknowledge that fact is just talking happy lies.
    It sounds absolutely horrible, but it is true.
    You are dealing with a race of people that have an IQ in the sweet spot of maximum criminality, along with low tolerance for frustration and poor impulse control.
    What works for YOU with your 105+ IQ, absolutely will not work for them.

    • WalterBannon

      again, the answer is biological:


      Its hard to fix inherently stupid, and its hard for them to compete, plus the left throws gasoline on this fire by fostering rage in them against white people (a racist hate crime against white people that is no different from the nazis blaming the jews for everything)

      • Maurice Miner

        Jared Taylor is a legend. Amren is one of my favourite sites, and it gratifies me that it is becoming more well-known.

  • Maurice Miner

    Interestingly, the violent crime rates peaked in the early 1990’s, and then fell off.

    Given that most violent crime is committed by males aged around 18 – 24 years, and disproportionately by African-American youth, the fall-off of violent crime in 1990-1991 is a statistical anomaly.

    Then again, we had Roe -v- Wade in 1973, so basically 17 years later (and onwards), there is a marked reduction in violent crime.

    • Drunk by Noon ✓

      Supposedly that wasn’t really true (I assume you are using the study included from the book Freakonomics) about the Roe v. Wade tie-in.
      The re-spun reasoning is that was about when the heavy and lengthy sentences for certain kinds of drug dealing (crack) and violent crime kicked in (three strikes laws) and these clowns just got hoovered out of society for the next 25-years.
      In California’s case, some of these ghetto rats went away for relatively minor offenses for 20-to-life for strings of petty semi-violent misdemeanors back in the 1990’s.

      • Maurice Miner

        Yeah, there are no firm stats regarding causation, but the correlation stands out. It will be up to the historians of the future to determine.

        At the present time, any academic research into the anomaly would be fraught with danger.

      • Martin B

        I’m sure the sentencing had a lot to do with it, but I wouldn’t be too quick to poo-poo the Roe Effect, for the reason that the greatly disproportionate rate at which young black men commit crime parallels the greatly disproportionate rate at which young black women get abortions.
        “Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (7.2 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 – 44 years) and ratio (121 abortions per 1000 live births) and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (27.0 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 – 44 years) and ratio (420 abortions per 1000 live births)”
        It’s hard for me to believe the effect isn’t real, given those numbers.

  • Brett_McS

    There is a criminologist in Australia, a Dr Wilson, I think, who was prominent on the TV back in the ’90s. Typical ‘save the criminal’ type, always coming out with pronouncements that the media would lap up.

    But then he suddenly changed. Perhaps he was mugged or robbed or something because he reversed his position to a ‘lock-em-up’ stance. Of course his TV career also went into reverse gear quick smart and I’ve never seen him again.

    • WalterBannon

      he must of had an epiphany after making the mistake of considering evidence instead of just emotion as the left generally does

  • Malcolm Y

    I can’t argue the question of abortion decreased crime. But here is Steve Sailer debunking it. http://www.unz.com/isteve/abortion-and-crime-sailer-responds-to/