+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Technology (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-27.html)
+--- Thread: Did cell phones reduce violent crime? (/thread-5550.html)
Did cell phones reduce violent crime? - pbrower2a - 06-03-2019
It’s practically an American pastime to blame cellphones for all sorts of societal problems, from distracted parents to faltering democracies. But the devices might have also delivered a social silver lining: a de-escalation of the gang turf wars that tore up cities in the 1980s.
The intriguing new theory suggests that the arrival of mobile phones made holding territory less important, which reduced intergang conflict and lowered profits from drug sales.
Lena Edlund, a Columbia University economist, and Cecilia Machado, of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, lay out the data in a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. They estimate that the diffusion of phones could explain 19 to 29 percent of the decline in homicides seen from 1990 to 2000.
“The cellphones changed how drugs were dealt,” Edlund told me. In the ’80s, turf-based drug sales generated violence as gangs attacked and defended territory, and also allowed those who controlled the block to keep profits high.
The cellphone broke the link, the paper claims, between turf and selling drugs. “It’s not that people don’t sell or do drugs anymore,” Edlund explained to me, “but the relationship between that and violence is different.”
....................
Edlund and Machado are not the first to suggest that phones could have played a role in the decline. Among others, the criminologists Erin Orrick and Alex Piquero were able to show that property crime fell as cellphone-ownership rates climbed. The first paper on the cellphone-crime link suggested that phones were an “underappreciated” crime deterrent, as mobile communications allow illegal behavior to be reported more easily and quickly.
But cellphones are far from the only possible explanation. Any measurement that was going up in the ’90s correlates with the decline of violence. Thus, there are probably too many theories out there, each with limited explanatory power. One commonsense argument that’s been made is that certain police tactics (say, stop-and-frisk or the “broken windows” approach) or the explosion of incarceration rates must have been responsible for the decline, but most careful reviews have found little evidence to suggest that they had more than a marginal impact.
from The Atlantic
(I am tempted to believe that the cell phone is one of the best deterrents to crime because it makes reporting a crime easy. I once used one against a drunk driver).
RE: Did cell phones reduce violent crime? - pbrower2a - 09-24-2020
In view of much of the civil unrest of 2020, I might suggest that cell phones in the hands of peaceful protesters who might have expected to use the cameras therein to document police brutality may be more likely to document rioter brutality and other criminal offenses (such as looting). Civil unrest of the type that one associates with Detroit or Watts in 1967 may be less likely to degenerate into assaults, looting, and property destruction when video of such offenses becomes evidence in courts of law.
RE: Did cell phones reduce violent crime? - Classic-Xer - 10-10-2020
(09-24-2020, 02:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In view of much of the civil unrest of 2020, I might suggest that cell phones in the hands of peaceful protesters who might have expected to use the cameras therein to document police brutality may be more likely to document rioter brutality and other criminal offenses (such as looting). Civil unrest of the type that one associates with Detroit or Watts in 1967 may be less likely to degenerate into assaults, looting, and property destruction when video of such offenses becomes evidence in courts of law.Why would peaceful protestors be there during a riot and why would peace protestors stick around and watch and place themselves in harms way during a riot? If the protestors that WE ALL SAW (Whether you saw them or not and cared or not doesn't change what we saw or how we feel about what we saw either) were peaceful and opposed to violence then why were they there during the rioting and looting while buildings were burning and people were being hurt and the cops were getting injured left and right.
RE: Did cell phones reduce violent crime? - pbrower2a - 10-11-2020
(10-10-2020, 03:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(09-24-2020, 02:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In view of much of the civil unrest of 2020, I might suggest that cell phones in the hands of peaceful protesters who might have expected to use the cameras therein to document police brutality may be more likely to document rioter brutality and other criminal offenses (such as looting). Civil unrest of the type that one associates with Detroit or Watts in 1967 may be less likely to degenerate into assaults, looting, and property destruction when video of such offenses becomes evidence in courts of law.
The people who are there to record police brutality won't care about recording all the other violent stuff going on because that's why they're there and recording all the other violent stuff would defeat their purpose for being there. You have a choice. Would you prefer to be arrested by a cop or executed on the spot by someone like me? Cops have rules to follow, we don't have rules to follow when there are no rules. The rules of the old Forum were anything goes when it came to removing people the Liberal crowd didn't like or viewed as a political threat. You weren't around, you arrived after I changed the rules by wiping out the folks who were doing it and offering no quarter or SPECIAL considerations to those who were foolish enough try it themselves. Keep in mind, Tim McVeigh took it upon himself and accepted the consequences for his own actions. In terms of American 4T, Tim McVeigh would be viewed as a hero. Thank God, we aren't there yet but that appears to be where the radical Democrats want to go right now and they're going to be surprised when America doesn't care what the color of there skin is or what's between there legs or whether they have Asperger's or their Bipolar or spent to many years breathing sea water mist and so forth. The fact is, they should be wise enough not to undermine the will of America and ignore natural law and place themselves above us because America has the power and authority to destroy them right now because that power comes from God. Do you have anything to do with God? I suggest that you remove the words you chose to use from the Declaration of Independence because what it states and represents doesn't apply to you or the Liberals these days.
Wrong. There are plenty of conservatives who endorse Black Lives Matter while despising crime. Black Live Matter does not have as its objective giving a free pass to criminals. The idea is that black people who are arrested are to survive the encounter with police.
I don't see how you could lawfully execute someone. If you are talking about killing in self defense, then I excuse you. Think carefully about what you have just said. Lawful executions follow some legal proceeding and are performed in accordance with a set procedure prescribed by law... and then only in jurisdictions that allow capital punishment. Minnesota does not have capital punishment.
I dannot imagine any criterion by which anyone could see Timothy McVeigh as a hero. He committed one of the largest mass murders in American history.
Finally you cannot express what the "American will" is. It can be Elijah Muhammad or it can be Robert Welch (founder of the John Birch Society).
Otherwise you have an incoherent rant.
RE: Did cell phones reduce violent crime? - David Horn - 10-11-2020
(10-10-2020, 03:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The people who are there to record police brutality won't care about recording all the other violent stuff going on because that's why they're there and recording all the other violent stuff would defeat their purpose for being there...
The entire point of average citizens recording the violent acts of people in authority is simple: if not them then who? The authorities record the rest all the time.
RE: Did cell phones reduce violent crime? - pbrower2a - 10-11-2020
(10-11-2020, 09:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:(10-10-2020, 03:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The people who are there to record police brutality won't care about recording all the other violent stuff going on because that's why they're there and recording all the other violent stuff would defeat their purpose for being there...
The entire point of average citizens recording the violent acts of people in authority is simple: if not them then who? The authorities record the rest all the time.
This is no longer Detroit or Watts in the 1960's. Cameras are everywhere, and the same camera that can record an event worthy of celebration cheaply can also focus on criminal behavior. If one is out in the open or in an open place one surrenders privacy. Thus if your pants fall down at Wal*Mart and you failed to put on underwear... whoops!
So suppose you parked your car a couple blocks away... and you see someone torching a car. That could be your car instead! Peaceful protests are expressions of law and order which implies the right to peaceful assembly for redress of grievances.
I want peaceful protests to remain peaceful, and anyone who exploits one of them for an opportunity to loot or to do violence is not exercising any Constitutional right.