Lead (that's right, lead) is primary cause of crime

[Deacon923]

You should read this. It is pretty mind-blowing.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

I know it is Mother Jones, but the article is straight up science reporting, not muckraking or trying to blame problems on evil rich people. Really really interesting stuff.

"Put all this together and you have an astonishing body of evidence. We now have studies at the international level, the national level, the state level, the city level, and even the individual level. Groups of children have been followed from the womb to adulthood, and higher childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with higher adult arrest rates for violent crimes. All of these studies tell the same story: Gasoline lead is responsible for a good share of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century."

"The gasoline lead story has another virtue too: It's the only hypothesis that persuasively explains both the rise of crime in the '60s and '70s and its fall beginning in the '90s. Two other theories—the baby boom demographic bulge and the drug explosion of the '60s—at least have the potential to explain both, but neither one fully fits the known data. Only gasoline lead, with its dramatic rise and fall following World War II, can explain the equally dramatic rise and fall in violent crime."

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I've heard people throw that theory around before. The problem is that it provides another excuse for personal responsibility whether it is valid or not. Don't blame me, it was the lead, I was possessed.

 

[Deacon923]

I've heard people throw that theory around before. The problem is that it provides another excuse for personal responsibility whether it is valid or not. Don't blame me, it was the lead, I was possessed.

but what if it is actually true?

 

[ConnorEl]

Understanding some factors that do or may contribute to criminality isn't the same thing as excusing bad behavior. Pretty sure the reality of any particular act is more complex than the ______ made me do it.

Anyhow, the lead theory is interesting.

 

[Les Grossman]

haven't you guys seen freakonomics? the drop in crime is directly related to the legalization of abortion.

 

[Deacon923]

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/01/14/lead-and-crime/

By the way, I should say that my thread title is intentional hyperbole. The science does not actually claim that lead is the "primary" cause of crime.

 

[sailordeac]

So, then AteLedCommie accounts for all those mass murders?

 

[Deacon923]

here's a more critical look. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/01/08/does-lead-exposure-cause-violent-crime-the-science-is-still-out/#.UjsJqdJQGB8

basically, the internetz consensus seems to be "the correlation is really strong and this deserves further study".

 

[ImTheCaptain]

thanks, Obama

 

[ConnorEl]

Well now. If this isn't a perfect example of why we need to be freed from the stupidity of our oppressive government. We just keep marching forward regulating our benevolent businesses into extinction. Oh such insanity.

Damned EPA.

 

[WFFaithful]

 

[KickballDeac]

Really fascinating article. It reminds me of another one I read several months back that discussed the field of epigenetics and how it might explain some criminal actions; specifically, how the children of child abuse victims, who were not exposed to abuse themselves, were more likely to suffer from mental illness and/or turn to crime as adults, like their formerly abused parents. (It's available as a Kindle download or from its publisher, Matter, for $0.99. Side note--the monthly articles they publish are just fantastic)

It's pretty clear that biology and environment has a lot to do with our behavior, but this view does not require us to excuse anyone who commits a crime. I see no contradiction between an acceptance that "personal responsibility" is at least partially a mirage (you don't get to choose your genes or your environment) and the existence of our criminal justice system. But if such a view were more widespread I believe it would demand a significant shift in our penalty system, from retributive punishment to a greater emphasis on rehabilitative punishment. (And yes, rehabilitation still involves removing someone from society and restricting his freedoms)

 

[WakeandBake]

I've heard people throw that theory around before. The problem is that it provides another excuse for personal responsibility whether it is valid or not. Don't blame me, it was the lead, I was possessed.

When a person is walking down the sidewalk and a car comes up behind them and runs them over, I bet you say:

"well, shoulda been looking over his shoulder for errant cars. I mean, you don't see me getting run over, do ya?"

 

[Kent]

When I saw the thread title, I thought we were going to discuss one of my favorite topics. Bullet control.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

When a person is walking down the sidewalk and a car comes up behind them and runs them over, I bet you say:

"well, shoulda been looking over his shoulder for errant cars. I mean, you don't see me getting run over, do ya?"

Not usually, but if the person is walking in the street instead of the sidewalk then that would be an appropriate response. Lead very well may cause crime, I don't know. The potential problem is that (a) someone who does have lead-related causation will throw up a lead defense even if it had nothing to do with the drime committed; and (b) some people who have no lead-related issues will claim that lead caused them to do it. I agree that the issue should probably be investigated further, but recognize that a series of additional problems comes along with that. As opposed to simply letting the lead decrease for the accepted reason that it is bad in general as it is currently doing.

 

[Deacon923]

Not usually, but if the person is walking in the street instead of the sidewalk then that would be an appropriate response. Lead very well may cause crime, I don't know. The potential problem is that (a) someone who does have lead-related causation will throw up a lead defense even if it had nothing to do with the drime committed; and (b) some people who have no lead-related issues will claim that lead caused them to do it. I agree that the issue should probably be investigated further, but recognize that a series of additional problems comes along with that. As opposed to simply letting the lead decrease for the accepted reason that it is bad in general as it is currently doing.

several problems with this post: except in cases of actual insanity or mental handicap so severe that the person can't tell right from wrong, low iq or mental issues are never an excuse for crime in our system. Just like being drunk or on drugs doesn't excuse a criminal. So, even if it were incontrovertibly proven that a given criminal's mind was affected by lead, that would not be a defense unless the effects were so severe that the person could not know right from wrong. The idea that the lead hypothesis takes anything away from personal responsibility for crime is a red herring, an example of ideology trumping science. It's the same red herring commonly used in the drug legalization debate: if drugs were legal, violent criminals would go unpunished because they'd just say the drugs made them do it!1!11! Uh, no. Not how it works.

Second, part of the problem is that the lead is apparently NOT decreasing. It is in the soil, and when the soil gets dusty can be inhaled. And it's in the paint in old houses, like mine. My house is well maintained and not full of chipping paint, but that's not true of the housing stock in poor urban neighborhoods. That was the most alarming part of the article for me, the bit about the soil. Makes me want to get my soil and house tested to make sure my kids aren't getting exposed. I have the means to do that, fortunately.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

several problems with this post: except in cases of actual insanity or mental handicap so severe that the person can't tell right from wrong, low iq or mental issues are never an excuse for crime in our system. Just like being drunk or on drugs doesn't excuse a criminal. So, even if it were incontrovertibly proven that a given criminal's mind was affected by lead, that would not be a defense unless the effects were so severe that the person could not know right from wrong. The idea that the lead hypothesis takes anything away from personal responsibility for crime is a red herring, an example of ideology trumping science. It's the same red herring commonly used in the drug legalization debate: if drugs were legal, violent criminals would go unpunished because they'd just say the drugs made them do it!1!11! Uh, no. Not how it works.

Second, part of the problem is that the lead is apparently NOT decreasing. It is in the soil, and when the soil gets dusty can be inhaled. And it's in the paint in old houses, like mine. My house is well maintained and not full of chipping paint, but that's not true of the housing stock in poor urban neighborhoods. That was the most alarming part of the article for me, the bit about the soil. Makes me want to get my soil and house tested to make sure my kids aren't getting exposed. I have the means to do that, fortunately.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Basically this hypothesis is creating the idea that people with high lead levels cannot tell right from wrong. Otherwise, their incidents of crime would not be disproportionate to the population as a whole. The study isn't saying that there is something about lead that causes muscle fibers to swing up and down with an axe; it is saying there is something about lead that causes people's brains to disregard laws - in other words, not be able to tell right from wrong. It is a necessary tag-along of the hypothesis and is creating the legal escape.

 

[Deacon923]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Basically this hypothesis is creating the idea that people with high lead levels cannot tell right from wrong. Otherwise, their incidents of crime would not be disproportionate to the population as a whole. The study isn't saying that there is something about lead that causes muscle fibers to swing up and down with an axe; it is saying there is something about lead that causes people's brains to disregard laws - in other words, not be able to tell right from wrong. It is a necessary tag-along of the hypothesis and is creating the legal escape.

i don't think that is right at all. Even if you don't buy the theory that society wide crime rate is driven by leaded gas, it is proven beyond doubt that lead lowers IQ and has other bad impacts on the brain. So does doing crack, so does being an alcoholic, so does being born dumb. Those things do not excuse criminal acts.

The interesting thing about your approach to this is that you don't seem to care how science could be used to make people's lives better, you instantly jump to the conclusion that somehow science could get in the way of punishing criminals and so you oppose the whole theory on ideological grounds. Quite telling.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I don't oppose the theory at all, I think it is intersting, and a fantastic environmental/biological breakthrough if true. However, I also see the legal system in action every day and know how this is going to play out in that setting.

 

[Deadbolt]

All life is is a series of chemical and mathematical equations underneath a layer of "reason." The Navy Yard shooter was probably certifiably insane, but that only means he's probably going to get solitary instead of a needle in the arm. I don't see the "lead defense" really getting anywhere...at least not in terms of getting people off the hook.