Third Way: An Unstable Social Order Versus Violent Crime Rates
South_agency
Since the mid-90s, the crime rate in the United States was sharply decreasing, creating what many liked to call the safest era in our nation’s history. This national perception led to experts investigate further to develop theories behind the rapidly declining crime rate. These theories ranged from a decrease in lead exposure due to its removal from gasoline and paint products to economic conditions improving and thus lowering the crime rates. However, many of these theories had several clear flaws. For instance, one leading explanation stated that crime rates declined due to a greater incarceration rate. Yet in states that lowered their incarceration rates during this period, their crime rates still fell as well.
In response to these flawed arguments, historian and demographer Neil Howe, who studies generational trends, proposed that that the reason that crime rates declined was due to generational change. Howe argues that crime rates declined as Millennials entered the age group that is typically responsible for violent crimes. As a generation, millennials have been more sheltered than the previous generations, which Howe argues has led to a decline in several kinds of risky behaviors that the generations before them engaged in, not just crime.
A Rising Crime Rate
In the last year, however, the violent crime rate across the US has risen at a striking rate. In a preliminary report, the FBI found that the homicide rate rose by more than 25% in 2020, in wake of a period marked with significant decreases. Larger and smaller cities alike experienced similar increases in crime and homicide increases, which shows that this is not merely an urban issue. While the rate of violent crime only increased by 3%, a seemingly small number, it is important to note that this is still an increase after decades of this rate decreasing.
If, as Neil Howe stated in 2015, a generational difference between Millennials and those before them was responsible for the decline in crime rates, it is possible that it is also responsible for the current increase. An Urban Institute study found that “adults between the ages of 18 and 24 were the most likely to be arrested for violent crime.” Millennials are no longer that age group. Instead, the next generation, Generation Z, which consists of anyone born after 1997, are now between 18 and 24. Following Howe’s proposed theory, there may be some difference in the way that they were/are being raised to account for this uptick in violent crime rates.
One large difference in the way that these generations were raised is that Millennial grew up in an economic boom while Generation Z’ers grew up in an economic recession. This means that the average Millennial was more likely to live in a stable home environment and less likely to have a parent unemployed or struggling to find work, which puts stress on families and their children. Millennials are also viewed to be a more entitled generation, possibly due to the spoiled way in which many of them were raised. As a generation who does not seem to be in want of anything, Millennials might not have felt the need to act out in violent ways. If they have always been able to have everything that they needed or wanted, they have less of a reason to engage in homicide or other violent crimes. In contrast, more Generation Z’ers might not have had a stable home life or grew up in urban or more impoverished neighborhoods - which are known to be more prone to violence - because their parents could not afford elsewhere. However, these differences have not been largely studied.
How a Destabilized Country Contributes to Crime
While this might contribute to the increase in the current crime rates, a more prevalent theory is that the destabilization of the country has led to this increase. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, it felt as if the entire country shut down. All of the institutions that people relied on to exist as a safe space or a place of support, such as schools, jobs, libraries, and community centers, were suddenly closed. While not everyone became violent or more aggressive in the wake of these closures, it is safe to say that we all felt some sense of disconnect or loneliness. This means that at-risk people who are more prone to violent tendencies are now lacking the support system that they had previously relied on to help prevent them from performing violent acts.
Several prominent demographers and criminal justice researchers also attribute George Floyd’s murder and the protests and police violence that followed after to the rising crime rate. While many people, conservatives especially, have blamed the Black Lives Matter protests for inciting violence and causing this increased crime rate, these scholars take a slightly more nuanced approach to the matter. Patrick Sharkey, a professor at Princeton University, argues that yes, the protests partially contributed to the rising crime rates, but both of these things are just a function of an unstable social order. He states that this unstable social order stems from people either neglecting to call the police in and cooperate with them during incidents after police’s integrity is questioned, or from police pulling back their involvement due to criticism and mistrust. Either way, the protestors themselves are not to blame for the increased crime rates. Instead, this simply shows us that there is an unstable social order at play that must be fixed first before the rest can be resolved.
This is not a new trend, however, as similar arguments were put forth in the wake of Michael Brown’s shooting in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. In the years following, there was an 11.4% increase in the homicide rate nationwide, which was the largest increase since 1968. This led to the proposition of the “Ferguson effect”, in which high-profile incidents such as police shooting an unarmed Black man cause a more unstable environment, which results in street justice to increase as the public feels alienated from the police. However, this theory was only studied in certain cities. Therefore, it is unclear how applicable this effect is or how it would affect an entire nation’s crime rate.
Biden’s Plan
In light of this violent crime increase, most of which involve gun violence, Biden has set forward a plan to try and curb the violent crime rates. Biden is encouraging state governments to draw from their coronavirus relief package in order to bolster their law enforcement systems. This could consist of hiring new and more police officers as well as supporting community based anti-violence groups. Biden is also encouraging states to use the money for organizations that take preventive measures for at-risk youth. This plan also includes a provision to revoke the licenses of any gun dealers who do not run background checks without giving them a warning first. Hopefully, this will prevent some people who should not own guns from being able to purchase them and harm others with them.
Biden’s plan marks a strong first step in addressing the nation’s increasing crime rate. However, I would argue that state and federal governments need to dive deeper into the issue in order to truly solve it. As violent crime has been steadily decreasing for decades, more studies need to be done in order to see if this year is just a momentary pause on the decline or if the crime rate will continue to rise in the following years. Since there is also no clear conclusion as to why this crime rate has increased, psychologists, demographers, and criminal justice researchers should work together to try and understand why the crime rate is increasing. Only once we know the actual reasons behind it will we be able to truly solve the issue.
