1. In economic terms, what was Nicolae Ceausescu’s rationale for banning abortion in Romania, i.e., how did he see banning abortion befitting the Romanian economy?
Banning abortion in Romania would (in theory) bring more people to be the future of Romania and increase the economy of the future.
2. Describe the incentives Ceausescu used to increase the birth rate in Romania.Were these incentives effective? Explain.
Beside making abortion illegal Ceausescu would have many work places take weekly to monthy pregnancy test on all of the female employees and if they were not pregnant they risked losing their job. Out of fear this did work the population of Romania grew.
3. As a result of Ceausescu’s policies, what happened to the average quality of life in Romania? Provide an economic explanation for the change that occurred.
Because of the increase in population the quality of life dramatically decreased. While the increase of people sounded good in theory the resources, goods, and services didn't change making life harder.
4. Describe the general behavior of the crime rate in the United States between 1970 and 1999, i.e., indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
Crimologists thought a 80% increase in crime was going to happen by 1999 when in fact it decreased.
5-6. List each of the explanations of the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s that are evaluated by Levitt and Dubner. Of the explanations you identified in the previous question, which ones do not appear to in fact be valid? Which ones do appear to in fact be valid?
Innovative policing strategies/Increased number of police
The strong economy boost in theory did decrease the crime rate of nonviolent crime like robbery, car theft, and burgalry based on the theory that criminals didn't need to steal. However, it did not explain the 40% decrease of violent crimes like homicide, assault, and rape.
8. What rationale do some criminologists offer for the argument that imprisonment rates should be lowered as part of the effort to reduce crime in the United States? Was their logic sound? If not, what fallacy did they commit?
The arguement is that crime rates are high when imprisonment is high while crime rates are low when imprisonment is low. This is called the "Moratorium" arguement and doesn't make much sense. It costs $25000 dollars to keep one person in prison for a year and it doesn't get to the root causes of crime but that doesn't justify setting criminals free.
9. What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on prisons is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
The increase in prison reliance did keep criminals off the street but it was the increased sentencing of the court systems that kept them there.
10.What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on capital punishment is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
The cost of keeping a prisoner locked up is costly and never really fixes the problem of why they were put in prison in the place but it does keep them off the street from commiting more crimes more more lives in danger.
11. Explain how an increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline. Does the evidence support this explanation of the drop in crime in the 1990s? Explain.
More police would mean more inforcement of the law but why the increase in police may not be for the crime rate. Politicians wanting your vote may hire more police officers to show how much he cares about your safety and he want to "clean up the neighborhood." However, that doesn't change the fact that inforcement of the law does decrease the crime rate.
12. Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the adoption of innovative policing strategies. Focusing on the experience in New York City, what do the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing is not a good thing? Why or why not?
In New York City, the crackdown on small crime was key. Someone who jumped the subway turnstile was not punished would see the opportunity to commit a more serious crime later on. A person who urinated in the streets doesn't have the respect for the people around him and may rob or steal later on. This was dubbed the "broken window" theory. Not only were small crimes being enforced more harshy but policing was also introduced to more technology and instead of having a chain of command it was more a accountability among everyone to keep the city safe.
The takeover of turf, killing for power, and other crimes around the selling on drugs decreased because of the cheapest of the drug itself and lack of profit.
Banning abortion in Romania would (in theory) bring more people to be the future of Romania and increase the economy of the future.
2. Describe the incentives Ceausescu used to increase the birth rate in Romania.Were these incentives effective? Explain.
Beside making abortion illegal Ceausescu would have many work places take weekly to monthy pregnancy test on all of the female employees and if they were not pregnant they risked losing their job. Out of fear this did work the population of Romania grew.
3. As a result of Ceausescu’s policies, what happened to the average quality of life in Romania? Provide an economic explanation for the change that occurred.
Because of the increase in population the quality of life dramatically decreased. While the increase of people sounded good in theory the resources, goods, and services didn't change making life harder.
4. Describe the general behavior of the crime rate in the United States between 1970 and 1999, i.e., indicate whether it was increasing or decreasing from year to year.
Crimologists thought a 80% increase in crime was going to happen by 1999 when in fact it decreased.
5-6. List each of the explanations of the drop in the crime that occurred in the 1990s that are evaluated by Levitt and Dubner. Of the explanations you identified in the previous question, which ones do not appear to in fact be valid? Which ones do appear to in fact be valid?
Innovative policing strategies/Increased number of police
- The decrease in crime also showed an increase in police officers on the street.
- The police that were on the street had resources, training, and experience.
- It's true that crime decrease naturally showed an increase in prison population but it was the new court system that kept criminals behind bars.
- In the 1990s law enforcement was takind the selling of drugs more seriously. That along with less lenient court system (which can down hard on drug issues) did in a way increase crime. However, the drug business was and is still a very big business.
The strong economy boost in theory did decrease the crime rate of nonviolent crime like robbery, car theft, and burgalry based on the theory that criminals didn't need to steal. However, it did not explain the 40% decrease of violent crimes like homicide, assault, and rape.
8. What rationale do some criminologists offer for the argument that imprisonment rates should be lowered as part of the effort to reduce crime in the United States? Was their logic sound? If not, what fallacy did they commit?
The arguement is that crime rates are high when imprisonment is high while crime rates are low when imprisonment is low. This is called the "Moratorium" arguement and doesn't make much sense. It costs $25000 dollars to keep one person in prison for a year and it doesn't get to the root causes of crime but that doesn't justify setting criminals free.
9. What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on prisons is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
The increase in prison reliance did keep criminals off the street but it was the increased sentencing of the court systems that kept them there.
10.What does the available evidence have to say about whether increased reliance on capital punishment is a viable explanation for the drop in crime in the 1990s?
The cost of keeping a prisoner locked up is costly and never really fixes the problem of why they were put in prison in the place but it does keep them off the street from commiting more crimes more more lives in danger.
11. Explain how an increase in the number of police officers could cause the crime rate to decline. Does the evidence support this explanation of the drop in crime in the 1990s? Explain.
More police would mean more inforcement of the law but why the increase in police may not be for the crime rate. Politicians wanting your vote may hire more police officers to show how much he cares about your safety and he want to "clean up the neighborhood." However, that doesn't change the fact that inforcement of the law does decrease the crime rate.
12. Many observers maintained that the drop in crime in the 1990s was at least in part due to the adoption of innovative policing strategies. Focusing on the experience in New York City, what do the data tell us about the viability of this assertion? Should we then conclude that smart policing is not a good thing? Why or why not?
In New York City, the crackdown on small crime was key. Someone who jumped the subway turnstile was not punished would see the opportunity to commit a more serious crime later on. A person who urinated in the streets doesn't have the respect for the people around him and may rob or steal later on. This was dubbed the "broken window" theory. Not only were small crimes being enforced more harshy but policing was also introduced to more technology and instead of having a chain of command it was more a accountability among everyone to keep the city safe.
13.What percentage of homicides in the United States involve a gun? How many guns are there in the United States compared to the number of adults? Based on your answers to the previous two questions, formulate a hypothesis regarding the relationship between the crime drop in the 1990s and laws such as the Brady Act and initiatives such as the various gun buyback programs that were implemented around the country.
Two-thirds of United States homicides involve a gun. If you were to give a gun to everyone in the world you would run out of people before you run out of guns. Gun buyback programs do not take in enough guns to have any drop in crime. The Brady Act keeps guns out of the hands of citizens while criminals buy their guns off the equally as thriving black market.
14.What do the data tell us about the viability of the assertion that tougher gun laws contributed to the drop in crime in the 1990s? What helps to explain this finding?
Based on imprisoned felons, most guns are bought by licensed dealers even the ones used in crimes.
15. Summarize the findings of economist John R. Lott Jr. regarding the relationship between “right-to- carry” gun laws and crime. Have other scholars been able to produce similar findings? What does this say about the reliability of Lott’s findings?
If criminals think that most of the law-biding citizens are carrying weapons then criminals will be less likely to commit crimes. However, these results could not be produced multiple times.
16. Is there evidence to suggest that the “bursting of the crack bubble” contributed to the crime drop in the 1990s? If your answer is yes, explain how it happened.
The takeover of turf, killing for power, and other crimes around the selling on drugs decreased because of the cheapest of the drug itself and lack of profit.
17. Did the “graying of America” help bring down the crime rate in the 1990s? Why or why not?
The aging of America had nothing to do with the crime rate drop, also the increase of youth didn't have anything to do with either.
18. Summarize the argument by Donahue and Levitt regarding the relationship between the drop in crime in the 1990s and the legalization of abortion as a result of Roe v.Wade.Your summary should focus on such factors as the characteristics of the average criminal (e.g., average age, home life), what happened in states that legalized abortion prior to the decision in Roe v.Wade, and the type of woman who is likely to take advantage of Roe v.Wade.
The increase in abortion decreased the crime rate because there was fewer people to commit the crimes. The homes and lifestyles that they would have been born into would have set them up for failure.
o
ReplyDeleteYes I agree
ReplyDelete