4. In order to prove their theory, Levitt and Dubner include counter arguments in their writing. The first counter claim they included in their writing was the effect that the strong economy had on the crime drop. They wrote, “Homicide fell at a greater rate during the 1990s than any other sort of crime, and a number of reliable studies have shown virtually no link between the economy and violent crime” (120). Despite the drop in crimes with direct financial motivation, the boosting economy was proven to have no link with the drop in violent crimes. The next counterclaim was the increased reliance on prisons. Imprisonment explains one- third of the drop in crime in the 1990’s. As evidence, the authors wrote, “A 1977 academic study called ‘On Behalf of a Moratorium on Prison Construction’ noted that crime rates tend to be high when imprisonment rates are high, and concluded that crime would fall if imprisonment rates could only be lowered” (122). Imprisonment, Dubner and Levitt say, played a key role in lowering crime rate during the 90’s. The increased use of capital punishment, according to the authors, did not play an influential role in the crime drop because the death penalty is seldom practiced for crimes other than homicide. The two biggest counter claims that were made had to do with innovative policing strategies and an increased number of police on the streets. They wrote, “Not only did all those police act as a deterrent, but they also provided the manpower to imprison criminals who might have otherwise gone uncaught. The hiring of additional police accounted for roughly 10 percent of the 1990s crime drop” (126). During the months prior to Election Day, a study was put in place to test and see if the additional police helped lower crime rate. Mayors hired more police during those months and then those crime rates were compared to the cities that did not hire more police. They came to the conclusion that the increased number of police played a significant role in the crime drop. Lastly, they note the impact that new, unique policing strategies had on the crime rates. In New York City, it was noted , “Homicide rates fell from 30.7 per 100,000 people in 1990 to 8.4 per 100,000 people in 2000, a change of 73.6 percent. But a careful analysis of the facts shows that the innovative policing strategies probably had little effect on this huge decline” (128). Levitt and Dubner listed these reasons, plus tougher gun laws and changes in crack and other drug markets, however after elaborating on each one they re-introduced abortions role in the crime drop. At first, I did not …show more content…
At the end of chapter 4, the authors close the argument by summarizing the impact of the legalization of abortion has had on the crime drop since the 1990s. The legalization of abortion was proven to have the strongest impact, over any other reason previously stated in the chapter, for the decline in criminal activity. I think the argument’s conclusion was affected because they used facts and told the audience how they obtained their information. For example, prior to the end of the chapter, authors’ wrote: “There are roughly 1.5 million abortions in the United States every year. For a person who believes that 1 newborn is worth 100 fetuses, those 1.5 million abortions would translate- dividing 1.5 million by 100- into the equivalent of a loss of 15,000 human lives. Fifteen thousand lives: that happens to be about the same number of people who die in homicides in the United States each year. And it is far more than the number of homicides eliminated in each year due to legalized abortion”