Considering the intense debate over abortion, it is no wonder that this chapter in "Freakonomics" has received a great deal of attention and stirred a considerable amount of controversy. Using a number of positive and negative correlations, the authors attempt to show that there is an abortion-crime link, that the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade holding that women had a constitutional right to have an abortion, is directly correlated with the decrease in crime during the 1990s. While the statistics shown in the book strongly support the authors' argument, I do not think that the legalization of abortion had so strong an impact as Levitt and Dubner assert.
I agree with the authors that most abortions following Roe v. Wade would involve single, poor women. I also agree that children born into the lower class, to a single mother are more likely to remain poor throughout their lives, and as a result would resort to crime. This is not something I take on the authors' word alone. The summer after my first year in law school I clerked for a judge in the criminal court in Miami. Everyday the court calendar was filled with about 30 to 40 cases, with crimes ranging from a simple narcotics possession to burglary and armed robbery offenses. One thing that could easily be gleaned sitting in that court room for an hour on one of those days was how many defendants were homeless or in the lower class. Therefore, I would agree with the authors that Roe v. Wade did have a role in lowering crime.
Where I disagree with the authors is the extent to which they claim the legalization of abortion lowered the crime rate. They take several 1990s crime-drop explanations, such as tougher gun laws and increases in police numbers, and discount them to support their abortion-crime reduction theory. They state that there are no positive correlations between these explanations and the reduction in crime. However, some of these things did have a significant impact on crime. For instance, the book disclaims improved policing strategies in New York from playing much of a part in reducing NY crime, but in fact, the change in strategy during the 80s and 90s for which Rudy Giuliani takes credit for during his tenure as district attorney (even though much of the crime reduction is attributed to police commissioner of that time, William Bratton) had a lot to do with it. Giuliani implemented a strategy (called "broken windows" strategy) that ensured that arrests would be made for small crimes, such as jumping a subway turnstile, with the expectation that arrests for small crimes would catch bigger crimes, such as the turnstile jumper illegally carrying a concealed firearm. Similar policing strategies were adopted in other cities as well. It would take too long to discuss every theory, but it is hard to believe that every one of those advanced by the authors had less of an effect than the legalization abortion.
My point is, I think Levitt's theory is strong and is well supported by the statistics. However, the extent of the effect of abortions on crime is overstated. Many other things were certainly instrumental in the decimation of crime during the 90s. What we could take from this chapter, whether we agree with Levitt or not, is that we should always dig deeper for answers to a problem and not dismiss the most remote possibilities. I would have never linked abortion to crime reductions, but I am certain that there are many things that can be explained by similarly obscure theories.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gabe,
Man alive...you are always so well written!
I agree with you that there has to be some correlation between the legalization of abortion and a lower crime rate.
What I question is...why did Levitt put this in his book? Is he trying to persuade people to become pro-choice or is he simply trying to state a "fact." Writers often have their own agenda in their articles, book, and publications. In several other post, I have expressed my disagreement with the suggestion that I think Levitt is alluding to in that we should keep abortion legal for the sole purpose of reducing the crime rate. Condemning people to death before the crime is committed is against our justice system's saying of "you are innocent until proven guilty."
I would like to build on what you said, Gabe, about how we should always dig deeper into the data and facts of different statements. I would like to add, "we should always look at the other side of the issue and always question (in some manner and to some extent) what people give us as fact." (Kind of the same thing you said, actually, but in different words.").
Gabe,
I think you take a very interesting and analytical approach to Levitt and Dubner's discussion on abortion and falling crime rates. As I stated in my comment on Lindsay's blog, I definitely think that they present strong evidence that Roe v. Wade factored in to the decrease in crime in the 90's, but its tough to tell to what extent. I agree with you that abortion was a factor, and a strong one at that, but believe they may have played down some of the other factors too much, or even overlooked a few all together. The one thing I will give credit for to the authors is in the way they present their findings as they did so in the most politically correct way possible, while at the same time not backing off their findings and thoughts on the issue.
It kind of sounded in the book that the authors were trying to convince the reader to become pro-choice, but maybe they were just stating facts and it sounded to me they were convincing. I am on the fence on the subject and would rather not ever be put in that situation where I have to choose.
Post a Comment