Plummeting crime rates were front-page headlines throughout the 1990s, but criminologists have yet to provide
a satisfactory explanation for this historically unprecedented decline. This new text fills that gap by using published
research and available data to assess the various explanations offered by law-enforcement officials, political
leaders, and criminologists in the New York Times during the 1990s.
Why Crime Rates Fell also assesses the validity of the explanations offered in the newspaper for the decline in
crime rates. Hypotheses put forth by political leaders, law-enforcement officials, and criminologists are assessed
using published research and available data. The author's goal is to provide understanding of why crime rates fell
in order to point the way to measures that can save more lives and property.
This new text will teach undergraduates what criminologists have discovered about the causes of crime and show
them how research can be used to understand a social phenomenon that has received extensive media coverage in recent
years. One reviewer describes it as "�a much needed breath of air in criminology. It is well-written, extremely
timely, academically sound, and statistically documented--the manuscript addresses the major topics and issues
surrounding fluctuations in crime rates. The examples are good and the text challenges critical thinking skills
and objectivity of the reader."
Features
Begins with an introductory chapter that explains the failure of criminology to offer timely, empirically supported,
and compelling explanations for the precipitous decline in crime rates in the 1990s.
Develops four crime indicators--the per capita rates of homicide, robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft--and
establishes a method for looking at variations in these rates over time (Ch. 2). Uses four indicators to help figure
out why crime rates dropped.
Considers the reciprocal effect of crime rates on levels of policing and reviews the research on the relationship
between crime rates and the number of officers per capita (Ch. 4).
Chapter 6, "Drugs and Falling Crime Rates," examines research on the relationship between drugs and
crime to determine if changes in crack use caused the decline in crime rates.
The concluding chapter (Ch. 10) weighs the relative significance of the various explanations for the decline
in crime rates and argues that criminological research and theory should be evaluated explicitly in terms of how
well they make sense of changes in crime rates.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.
2. The Decline in Crime Rates in the 1990s.
Measuring Crime.
Crime Indicators.
Relative and Absolute Change in Crime Rates.
Crime Trends 1960-1999.
New York City's Contribution to the Decline in National Crime Rates.
The Failure to Report and Record Crime.
Crime Cycles.
3. The Politics of Falling Crime Rates in New York City.
The Dinkins-Brown/Kelly Administration.
The Giulani-Bratton Administration.
The Giuliani-Safir Administration.
4. Did the Police Reduce Crime?
Crime and the Number of Police Officers.
Crime and What the Police Do.
5. Did Increased Incarceration Reduce Crime?
Crime and Incarceration in the New York Times.
Research on the Crime-Incarceration Relationship.
6. Drugs and Falling Crime Rates.
Drugs, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System.
Drug Use and Crime rates in the New York Times.
Drugs and Crime in the 1990s.
7. Firearms and Changing Crime Rates.
Firearms and Crime in the New York Times.
The Firearms-Crime Relationship.
Firearms and Crime in the 1990s.
8. Age and Crime.
Age and Crime in the New York Times.
Have Changes in the Age Structure Affected Crime Rates?
9. Changing Institutions and Falling Crime Rates.
Lafree's Theory of Institutional Legitimacy.
Crime and the Family.
Crime and the Economic System.
Crime and the Political System.
Crime and Religion.
Crime and Community.
10. Why Did Crime Rates Fall in the 1990s?
The Police.
The Prisons.
Drugs.
Firearms.
Age Structure.
Institutions and Community.
Understanding the Causes of the Decline in Crime.
