Slashdot Mirror

Sorry... The evidence that the "get tough on crime" chest thumping changed everything just isn't that compelling, even if it has been politically expedient for some. Much more plausible explanations are found in our increasingly sedentary youth and the legalization of abortion, as asserted in Freakonomics.

There is a discussion of the relatively low typical rewards and relatively high typical risk in the book Freakonomics:

http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3

What about teenagers who, as shown by the laws against letting them smoke, drink, etc. aren't expected to know better?

What about them? So just because they make a bad choice that gives them the right to kill? (and not to mention make another one that may haunt them for life) Is that what you're saying?

  Teenagers know better and that smoking is bad, etc. The laws are written because society believes they are not responsible enough to make that decision. Yet, we think teenagers are responsible enough to have an abortion without a parent even knowing. See anything wrong with that logic?

I very strongly disagree on two counts. First of all, I believe forcing women to work for society in that way is slavery. Second, I believe this might enlighten you a bit.

Force is kind of a strong word, I really meant if anything, not allowed to kill. Force is the words used by pro-choicers.

  First count : Do you believe that a criminal who also made a bad choice and is made to work for society is slavery? Perhaps it is. I would rather criminals work of their debt instead of watch cable and learn how to be bigger criminals from their buddies anyway. More so, when she kills the child she is actually killing a bit of society. Even more, slavery is forcing me to pay taxes for your abortion and the "necessary" government oversight when so many families want to adopt. Perhaps you think outlawing suicide is slavery. I think that someone wanting to abort is as sick and needs as much help as someone who is considering suicide. There are better ways. But out of laziness we would rather not own up to our failures in society and try to use them to justify killing the unborn. That thinking is why we are in this situation in the first place, trying to justify killing.

  Second Count: That was enlightening, if only to help me understand my own ideas even better. Thanks.

Summary: unwanted children are not loved by their parents, who treat them like crap, and they, unsurprisingly, tend to become criminals more often.

This should be I would think an obvious statement. I see in no way how this justifies killing "unwanted children". All it implies is that we need to get unwanted children out of the hands of those that do not want them and into the hands of those that do.

  Michael Vick may not like his puppies very much, but that doesn't mean we should kill the puppies because he may mistreat them.

Parents who do not want kids are probably criminals more often and teach their children to be. So because you are a criminal we shouldn't let you have children? Oh, no we shouldn't say that, unless you do not want them, then it is ok. This is basically what you are saying. That is unless you think it is ok to keep criminals from having children. I am not sure if you really want to go toe to toe with me on that one. I am not sure that I do. I would hope you get why that is setting us up for to say the least... insanity.

before now making the wrong one

What about teenagers who, as shown by the laws against letting them smoke, drink, etc. aren't expected to know better?

I think if most mothers who want to abort simply because they couldn't make the right decision (before now making another wrong one) to begin with were forced to be a mother, society would be better off

I very strongly disagree on two counts. First of all, I believe forcing women to work for society in that way is slavery. Second, I believe this might enlighten you a bit. Summary: unwanted children are not loved by their parents, who treat them like crap, and they, unsurprisingly, tend to become criminals more often.

As has been mentioned, the real issue is seeing. The time difference to reach a person over a thirty meter distance is negligible. This is mostly because you don't jump in and swim across the pool. You walk quickly to the closest approach, and then - only if there is no alternative - you jump (not dive) into the pool.

When I taught lifesaving, the most important principle was this: don't turn a single drowning into a double drowning by acting rashly. Things can very easily go wrong. Which is more dangerous in the home, a gun or a swimming pool?

I worked as a lifeguard for five or six years, mostly two-hour stints for indoor pools. I never worked a shift alone - if only one lifeguard showed up, the pool closed (or did not open). Normal complement was three, so that we were covered for things like trips to the restroom. The other standing rule was that you didn't sit down - not in the elevated chairs, and not in a chair at the side of the pool. We were expected to walk the pool. roughly opposite. The rationale was not distance to potential problems, it was so that we would see what was happening.

One guard might be sufficient if there are only a few people swimming, say four or five. I'd be disinclined to work such a pool, though.

I mean for one thing, a lot of crime really doesn't pay well. Sometimes even less than a minimum wage job.

Steven D. Levitt addresses this in his book, Freakonomics. Chapter 3 is titled Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?

I've heard the correlation between crime decline and X argued, where X was:

• Wars (forget where I heard this one). The theory being that the population group that does most of the crime (poor young males) are busy carrying rifles overseas.
• Low unemployment (The consensus reason I hear from "experts" on the radio and TV).
• Roe v. Wade (Steven Levitt's Freakonomics). The somewhat ugly idea being that the 90's is when we would have seen the first kids who were aborted after Roe reach the age where such people start committing crimes.
• More police on the streets (Levitt again, although in this case he didn't present any backup so I'm suspicious)

Perhaps legalizing abortion led to less children who were unwanted, less children being babysat by tv and video games might lead to less crime.... Abortion was legalized in 1973.
- freakonomics

Actually according to some researchers (mainly Sudhir Venkatesh, who's heavily quoted in Freakonomics ), most drug-gang members make far sub-minimum wage -- they'd make more money working at McDonalds, if that was the goal. And your chances of getting killed while dealing much higher than they are in Iraq (1 in 2000 as opposed to allegedly 1 in 4 if you're dealing crack, although the latter sounds a little high). The best explanation I've heard for gang activity is psychological; it's a prestige job, one you do for respect and a lack of attractive alternatives, not one you do for money.

While an Army private doesn't get paid hugely well, they don't do horribly either, particularly when you consider that their salary is almost entirely "take-home pay" (they're not paying for food/rent/healthcare). Plus, it's just not that easy to spend money when you're deployed, which is also when you make the most bonus pay (and get some decent tax breaks -- in an unusual show of decency by the government, combat pay is tax free). Although the pay-per-hour isn't great, it's not unusual to come back from deployment with a sizable amount of savings.

Is soldiering as profitable a career as borrowing money to get a business degree and working for a corporation? Not nearly. But it's not as bad as it's sometimes made out to be, if that's what you really want to do. The problem with the military right now is that they've basically tapped out the supply of 'risk junkies' who actually want to do the job, and have started to deploy people who are only in the service because they thought it was an easy way to get a college education (and who had no real interest in being in the military outside of that). IMO, this is why there are far worse morale problems in the Army than in the Marines -- the Marines were always fairly clear in their recruiting what you were signing up to do, and drew people who actually want to do 'crazy Marine shit;' the Army (until recently) was billing itself as a disaster-relief and college scholarship program, leading to accusations of a bait-and-switch.