As a 74-year-old lifelong New Yorker, I once believed, as does the writer of the second letter, that crime is a "symptom of deeper problems." I remember being an undergraduate in Sociology 101 when a man was shot in the head on the subway and then-mayor Robert Wagner responded by ordering all police to be in uniform traveling to and from their posts. He essentially "flooded" the subways with police. I remember that my instructor at the time remarked that Wagner's response was an understandable political and practical one but presumably did not get to the "root" of the problem.
I have long ago stopped believing in "roots" and believe that the cause of crime is essentially criminality. This is less of a tautology than it might at first seem. Criminal behavior for most is a choice and most people make a conscious choice not to use criminal means. And this applies to people of all classes, races, and social backgrounds. Criminal behavior involves making choices as to means of obtaining societally valued objects or symbols and people are generally free to make other choices unless they have guns to their heads in the choice process.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that the proper response to violent crime is some sort of repression. I have lived through crime-filled and relatively crime-free periods in New York City and am clear as to what I prefer.
While economic factors can never be fully ruled out, most poor people do not engage in criminal behavior and most poor people do not engage in violent crime. Economic factors are always present but still, most people do not choose to be criminals.
You raise an interesting point. I am not certain how this could be studied directly. You ask, "What of it?" I have no answer to that. If you can ask that question, we are operating on different wavelengths. If you do not believe that people are free to choose between alternatives, then we are making fundamentally different assumptions about homo sapiens.
Completely disagree. If all impoverished people or even the majority engaged in crime (especially violent crime), I think that you would have a point. I am not saying that all choices are the same, but only that they are there for almost everyone. Unless we agree that people are capable of making choices and understanding the implications of those choices, one of the fundamental functional prerequisites of living in any society is rendered moot.
As a 74-year-old lifelong New Yorker, I once believed, as does the writer of the second letter, that crime is a "symptom of deeper problems." I remember being an undergraduate in Sociology 101 when a man was shot in the head on the subway and then-mayor Robert Wagner responded by ordering all police to be in uniform traveling to and from their posts. He essentially "flooded" the subways with police. I remember that my instructor at the time remarked that Wagner's response was an understandable political and practical one but presumably did not get to the "root" of the problem.
I have long ago stopped believing in "roots" and believe that the cause of crime is essentially criminality. This is less of a tautology than it might at first seem. Criminal behavior for most is a choice and most people make a conscious choice not to use criminal means. And this applies to people of all classes, races, and social backgrounds. Criminal behavior involves making choices as to means of obtaining societally valued objects or symbols and people are generally free to make other choices unless they have guns to their heads in the choice process.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that the proper response to violent crime is some sort of repression. I have lived through crime-filled and relatively crime-free periods in New York City and am clear as to what I prefer.
While economic factors can never be fully ruled out, most poor people do not engage in criminal behavior and most poor people do not engage in violent crime. Economic factors are always present but still, most people do not choose to be criminals.
You raise an interesting point. I am not certain how this could be studied directly. You ask, "What of it?" I have no answer to that. If you can ask that question, we are operating on different wavelengths. If you do not believe that people are free to choose between alternatives, then we are making fundamentally different assumptions about homo sapiens.
Completely disagree. If all impoverished people or even the majority engaged in crime (especially violent crime), I think that you would have a point. I am not saying that all choices are the same, but only that they are there for almost everyone. Unless we agree that people are capable of making choices and understanding the implications of those choices, one of the fundamental functional prerequisites of living in any society is rendered moot.