"Lock up all black people" was a shitty policy regardless of how much we knew about lead poisoning.
It may have been a shitty policy, but it was shitty policy black leaders, supported by the black population, agreed with, to start with.
"Lock up all black people" was a shitty policy regardless of how much we knew about lead poisoning.
It's not implausible at all to think that they could have caught it earlier. Sure, it's not a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't really make a difference to the central argument of my post. I talk about how empathy should be there for all the victims as well, for everyone, and how it's even more abhorrent that they decided to be tough on crime instead of focusing on mental help and rehabilitation, if some of these people were poisoned. The "this is even more justification" obviously wasn't solely referring to the "could have caught it earlier", so focusing purely on that aspect is discussing in bad faith really.err, it doesn't have nothing to do with your post, I was literally addressing a point you raised. But as for your point here -- yes, the tough on crime policies were wrong, and as I noted in my edit above the author isn't really defending "tough on crime" as the necessary policy prescription for reducing violent crime (particularly because, as the author notes, locking up black men left right and center wasn't what brought down the violent crime rate anyway!). But you also can't say, the focus should have been on mental health services and rehabilitation rather than something like mandatory minimum sentencing, because nobody was drawing that cause and effect between violent crime and lead poisoning until much later. How they could prescribe treatments for a problem that they hadn't diagnosed or understood until years later?
edit: also, I don't think this article is a defense of tough on crime policies at all, he criticizes the disparity in crack vs. powder cocaine laws, the explosion of prisons, and the general uselessness of it all as these policies weren't what contributed to the decline of violent crime going into the late 90s/00s.
So that's what happened. Crime skyrocketed. People were quite naturally scared to death. Politicians responded. Plenty of mistakes were made along the way, and racial animus surely played a role in that, but the motivation was basically simple: to reduce crime and get violent criminals off the streets. It is historically ignorant to pretend that this all happened for no particular reason at all—or for purely racist reasons.
The real question now is: what are we going to do? We know what caused the crime spike, and we've fixed that. Crime is now down to 1970 levels. So when are we going to get our laws back to 1970 levels too?
It may have been a shitty policy, but it was shitty policy black leaders, supported by the black population, agreed with, to start with.
I can't help but feel like this is an attempt to inoculate some politicans from some bad decisions. Lots of black people were opposed to those laws at that time. People were asking for jobs and help not to have their kids do life in prison. Here
Yes, he explains why it happened. There was a violent crime epidemic. People got (rightfully) scared and politicians responded. It made sense back then. However, being tough on crime does not make sense now. Crime rates have dropped, because there is less lead poisoning (it is still around though and that should be fixed). So we should abandon the tough on crime approach/legislation.
Biden and Sanders both voted for the bill!
In Bernie's defense, he criticized the bill before voting for it because of the Violence Against Women Act. Also, he also said that the bill's tough on crime laws weren't the right solution.
In Bernie's defense, he criticized the bill before voting for it because of the Violence Against Women Act. Also, he also said that the bill's tough on crime laws weren't the right solution.
It's been used as a cudgel for the past 3-4 years. It's a really dumb argument to be having instead of focusing on what policies should be now.And yet Biden is the one who cowrote it is still defending it.
The central argument for your post, as I understand it, is that the public response in the 80s and 90s to upticks in violent crime fueled by widespread lead poisoning should not have been with tough on crime policies but with mental health treatment services. Assuming that's right, my point (and I think the point Kirblar was making too) is that nobody knew at the time that the violent crime was caused by lead poisoning. There wasn't empathy for victims of lead poisoning because it wasn't known that that's what was happening in the first place. Why would you prescribe mental health rehabilitation services if, as far as people knew then, the problem had nothing to do with mental health? The lead link was discovered after the fact, many years later, not in the moment.It's not implausible at all to think that they could have caught it earlier. Sure, it's not a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't really make a difference to the central argument of my post. I talk about how empathy should be there for all the victims as well, for everyone, and how it's even more abhorrent that they decided to be tough on crime instead of focusing on mental help and rehabilitation, if some of these people were poisoned. The "this is even more justification" obviously wasn't solely referring to the "could have caught it earlier", so focusing purely on that aspect is discussing in bad faith really.
Well it's not a line item vote.In Bernie's defense, he criticized the bill before voting for it because of the Violence Against Women Act. Also, he also said that the bill's tough on crime laws weren't the right solution.
It's been used as a cudgel for the past 3-4 years. It's a really dumb argument to be having instead of focusing on what policies should be now.
If you think the article is an argument for a continuation of "Tough on Crime" you haven't read the article.
This is the closing of the article:I don't think that, I think that it's a carefully timed screed which is meant to make excuses for their favourite presidential candidate. And again, Biden still thinks that the bill was great so I'm not sure we can trust his policy-making chops going forward either.
This is not an argument for a simple continuation of the status quo.The real question now is: what are we going to do? We know what caused the crime spike, and we've fixed that. Crime is now down to 1970 levels. So when are we going to get our laws back to 1970 levels too?
What with this article -- it's totally defensive of the tough on crime laws. "We can understand now" because they were so afraid at the time? What nonsense is that. People with lead poisoning, you know, were poisoned, and they punished em for it. That makes it worse, not better or more understandable. The problem lies not in the fact that they wanted to tackle the problem of crime altogether, the problem lies wholly in how they did it.
For the reason I stated in the post your quoted: for the Violence Against Women Act.
I don't think that, I think that it's a carefully timed screed which is meant to make excuses for their favourite presidential candidate. And again, Biden still thinks that the bill was great so I'm not sure we can trust his policy-making chops going forward either.
This is the closing of the article:
This is not an argument for a simple continuation of the status quo.
If Biden still thinks the bill is great, then how does this make excuses for him, when they are clearly saying the bill is not great?
Ah, there's the real objection.Again, I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying it's an attempt to paint the 1994 crime bill as the right choice at the time because of a theory which is completely unprovable, and is actually pretty gross because it tries to hand-wave the actual social causes of crime and blame biological ones.
Biden still stands by the bill so it's fair game to criticize him for it. Also I don't think the lives and communities that his bill destroyed are all thinking "well that's in the past now".It's been used as a cudgel for the past 3-4 years. It's a really dumb argument to be having instead of focusing on what policies should be now.
If you think the article is an argument for a continuation of "Tough on Crime" you haven't read the article.
I mean, if you can look at the link between de-leading and violent crime reductions starting ~20 years from that date in multiple countries, cities with iron pipes having lower violent crime rates than ones with lead ones, that lead poisoning causes brain damage to parts of the brain responsible for judgement and impulse control, along with many other studies and come away from this going "Nah, it's all wrong because it challenges my pet theory" I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had.I have a lot of objections actually, that would be a very major one which we can discuss if you'd like.
You are making a link with empathy for victims of lead poisoning specifically, where I was talking about victims of the tough on crime laws, both innocent and guilty. The addition of lead poisoning only serves to strengthen the ethical stance of a focus on rehabilitation and mental health when dealing with crime, because it further removes intent and control from even guilty criminals. Being tough on crime withpeople who are more aggressive because of lead poisoning (assuming that this is true) is worse than being tough on crime with people who are not poisoned. This, compared to looking at "tough on crime" laws without taking lead poisoning in consideration.The central argument for your post, as I understand it, is that the public response in the 80s and 90s to upticks in violent crime fueled by widespread lead poisoning should not have been with tough on crime policies but with mental health treatment services. Assuming that's right, my point (and I think the point Kirblar was making too) is that nobody knew at the time that the violent crime was caused by lead poisoning. There wasn't empathy for victims of lead poisoning because it wasn't known that that's what was happening in the first place. Why would you prescribe mental health rehabilitation services if, as far as people knew then, the problem had nothing to do with mental health? The lead link was discovered after the fact, many years later, not in the moment.
This quote from the article sort of reveals the intent to at least defend the legislation and/or the legislators in some way. The first claim is that the legislation was horrific because it was pointless, and then it continues on to say that "we know now" that the crime wave was caused by lead poisoning. Clearly implying that if it wasn't for the lead poisoning, that it wouldn't be as horrific, when it's the other way around. There's a clear implication here, and the implication is the other way around. So the implication is at least insincere, you can feel the bias, because if you don't have that bias, you would notice that it's reversed.The truly horrific part of all this has nothing to do with any particular piece of legislation. The horrific part is that it was mostly pointless. As we know now, the huge crime wave was caused mostly by lead poisoning of children from car exhausts.¹ When the lead went away, so did the crime.
Again, I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying it's an attempt to paint the 1994 crime bill as the right choice at the time because of a theory which is completely unprovable, and is actually pretty gross because it tries to hand-wave the actual social causes of crime and blame biological ones.
See above.
I mean, if you can look at the link between de-leading and violent crime reductions starting ~20 years from that date in multiple countries, cities with iron pipes having lower violent crime rates than ones with lead ones, that lead poisoning causes brain damage to parts of the brain responsible for judgement and impulse control, along with many other studies and come away from this going "Nah, it's all wrong because it challenges my pet theory" I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had.
The theory is not saying that lead is the only cause of crime. It's saying that it's a massive contributor to the uptick in crime we've seen across the board, especially once leaded-gas run cars and urbanization combined to pump massive amounts of lead into the air. You will still have crime in any place. The argument is that you'll get more crime if that place has lead pipes.
The New York Times today has a long piece about Joe Biden and his support for crime legislation back in the '80s and '90s. It starts out like this:
Wait. How could that be? Biden had close ties with law enforcement but African American leaders liked him too? If you listen only to the activists of today, who grew up in an era of low and declining crime, it hardly seems possible that both of these things could be true at once. But 50 years ago they could be. Here is Josh Marshall:Mr. Biden arrived in the Senate in 1973 having forged close ties with black constituents but also with law enforcement, and bearing the grievances of the largely white electorate in Delaware.
Except it's not arguing it as the "right choice."
It's explaining to young liberals and leftists why the law was passed, beyond the usual "they just want to throw non-white people in jail."
Isn't the lead thing still a hypothesis? Not that I don't believe it, I'm just curious if there is a consensus among the scientific community.
When the correlation repeats itself over and over and over in completely different contexts and time periods, at a certain point you can draw causation when the evidence gets overwhelming. "Correlation is not causation" is a caution, not a hard rule.Next time you could just say "I don't understand correlation vs causation" and save yourself the trouble.
Also the idea that social causes are at the root of most crime is not my "pet theory", it's a longstanding academic belief supported by decades of studies. You know, actual studies, not crank junk science like the lead theory.
Yes, I think even if there is a sort of justifiable reason for the crime bill's existence beyond just white people hating black people, it fits into a history of Joe Biden supporting or writing policies that were seemingly well-intentioned at the time but ended up having disastrous consequences over the long term. Like the Iraq War. Like the bankruptcy bill. And even more irritating than his support for things like the crime or bankruptcy bills at the time are his doubling down on them today!I don't think that, I think that it's a carefully timed screed which is meant to make excuses for their favourite presidential candidate. And again, Biden still thinks that the bill was great so I'm not sure we can trust his policy-making chops going forward either.
When the correlation repeats itself over and over and over in completely different contexts and time periods, at a certain point you can draw causation when the evidence gets overwhelming. "Correlation is not causation" is a caution, not a hard rule.
This is a tiny bit ahistorical as the "tough on crime" became a popular policy position right after the civil rights eraYes, I think even if there is a sort of justifiable reason for the crime bill's existence beyond just white people hating black people, it fits into a history of Joe Biden supporting or writing policies that were seemingly well-intentioned at the time but ended up having disastrous consequences over the long term. Like the Iraq War. Like the bankruptcy bill. And even more irritating than his support for things like the crime or bankruptcy bills at the time are his doubling down on them today!
His refusal to apologize or reflect on their failings may be better for him politically — certainly Hillary Clinton did not win any goodwill for acknowledging past mistakes or growing from them — but it's not exactly the quality I'm looking for in a candidate.
Next time you could just say "I don't understand correlation vs causation" and save yourself the trouble.
Also the idea that social causes are at the root of most crime is not my "pet theory", it's a longstanding academic belief supported by decades of studies. You know, actual studies, not crank junk science like the lead theory.
You literally just explained why social causes is a more rational explanation than lead.
There is not consensus, it's never been studied and it never will because it would involve poisoning people for decades to reach a conclusion.
I don't think I agree with lead poisoning being the root cause of crime in inner cities. Fucking over a whole class and generations of people and packing them into the projects (out of sight out of mind) horrible school systems, and putting people in situations they should never have to be in while living in America (you're on your own, fight for your life)
We know where the crack came from.
Lead didn't force those conditions on people
Lead poisoning didn't prevent people from being able to provide for their families.
Lead didn't cause people to pump drugs to feed their families. I mean what the fuck do you let your family starve in a racist world that won't hire you? Nah you sold drugs and took care of your family.
You broke? You Rob, how else where you making money? McDonald's? While your other friends have nice things because the illegal life was the only option (despite it being a lifestyle that can end in jail or death) for survival?
Rich, powerful white politicians caused all that and people are still trapped and feeling helpless in 2019.
I'm sure lead didn't help but point the finger at the real cause. Racism embodied by those in power.
I'm not glorifying violence, or saying half the crime done was justified. But some people where forced to make choices they knew was wrong....but what do they do? Starve? Get kicked out on the street? Put yourself in their shoes, strip away your paychecks and your privledge. No ERA to ask for help or support. You had....your block and that's it.
The US government, the cities and mayor's. Fucked up bad. They didn't want to help, but you know who did (or gave of theusion they did?) The Supreme's, AZ's and Fat Cats of the world. So yeah no shit crime skyrocketed, it wasn't black people's fault though. Of course they got blamed for it and a majority of stereotypes today are birthed over problems the rich and powerful caused.
Edit: yikes, sorry for the rant
I did no such thing. The idea that it's "rational" to ignore countless studies on the topic is absolutely ridiculous. The argument is not that lead is the primary originator of crime, it's that it's a force multiplier.You literally just explained why social causes is a more rational explanation than lead.
I was born in 92 but I had family that lived in Manhattan in the late 80's early 90's so lemme just say this.wtf
I was only 9 or 10 in 1993 but I don't recall crime being so bad as to turn you racist, jeez.
Yes I'm sure 1960s """moderates""" would've suddenly done a 180 on racism because facts proved them wrong.Have you considered the social issues may be the root of much crime, but lead poisoning caused a jump in crime that allowed severe tough on crime policies pass with the support of people who'd otherwise never back them? If we'd stayed at 1960 levels of crime (as we're getting close to getting back too), moderates never would've signed on to tough on crime bills, because they wouldn't have constituents throwing insane crime stats back at them.
I can't help but feel like this is an attempt to inoculate some politicans from some bad decisions. Lots of black people were opposed to those laws at that time. People were asking for jobs and help not to have their kids do life in prison. Here
NYT said:This presented black lawmakers with a dilemma: Defeating the bill might pave the way for something even more draconian down the line, and lose critical prevention funding still in the bill [edit mine: most of what they wanted was gutted anyway]. Ultimately, 26 of the 38 voting members supported the legislation. But those who broke ranks did so loudly
MJ said:The 1994 crime bill was supported by most black members of Congress, and in any case was a compromise bill with some of its most punitive measures added by Republicans
The hipotesis you bring doesn't explain why black people who lives in big cities are more easily taken to make crimes
Than in smaller cities. They both feel the same problems, but act differently in the face of the same problems.
This is a interesting idea. Lead polution may case people to act more instinctively than they would on a normal circumstance. Besides, led polution increase the number of sick people.
Anyway, this is an interesting theory. It may need more studies.
Okay while I understand the correlation between exposure to lead and crime rates, but the author doesn't make a convincing argument (and admits as much) that can explain that worldwide crime rates have been dropping since the turn of the millennia/century, and that you can't really explain that using lead levels
It also fails to really paint a point that the crime bill was a necessity/obligatory and that black people for the most part supported it. Someone else linked a counter point article exploring that line of thought.
Lastly, framing radical criminal justice/policing theory as thing black leftists discovered in the past five years is disingenuous as hell.
Yes I'm sure 1960s """moderates""" would've suddenly done a 180 on racism because facts proved them wrong.
That goes back to the original Nevin study . Other countries that deleaded gas saw the same dropoff pattern we did starting two decades later. But it hasn't been a universal even pattern because different countries did this at different times- central America didn't fully de-lead gas until the turn of the millenium.Okay while I understand the correlation between exposure to lead and crime rates, but the author doesn't make a convincing argument (and admits as much) that can explain that worldwide crime rates have been dropping since the turn of the millennia/century, and that you can't really explain that using lead levels
It also fails to really paint a point that the crime bill was a necessity/obligatory and that black people for the most part supported it. Someone else linked a counter point article exploring that line of thought.
Lastly, framing radical criminal justice/policing theory as thing black leftists discovered in the past five years is disingenuous as hell.
This is a tiny bit ahistorical as the "tough on crime" became a popular policy position right after the civil rights era
Definitely a reactionary to the civil rights era and coincided with the complete deindustrialization of black communitiesNixon and his advisors were the pioneers of that shit and it was most definitely rooted in racism
Nixon and his advisors were the pioneers of that shit and it was most definitely rooted in racism