"Is the world more dangerous for kids than it was 30 years ago?"

[FSogol]

X posted from GD

From a letter to Cecil Adams' "The Straight Dope" Column

Dear Cecil:

I am the parent of two young children. I was recently reminiscing with fellow parents about our youth and the freedom we enjoyed to play around the neighborhood without parental supervision. We all agreed we wouldn't allow our children to do the same given today's more dangerous world. That made me wonder: Is today's world really more dangerous for kids than it was 30 years ago? Have incidents of abduction and other assaults on children increased, or has the information age's constant news barrage given us the impression that predators lurk around every corner?


Cecil: No, today’s world isn't more dangerous. You grew up during the most crime-ridden period in modern American history. By objective measures the country is far safer now. But you and countless other parents think the reverse is true. What accounts for this delusion?

Too long to post, but an excellent analysis here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3231/is-the-world-more-dangerous-for-kids-than-it-was-30-years-ago

[SummerSnow]

1. Imo yes. The school I attended 30 years ago had 2 security guards....a man and a woman.No detectors.

Now, it is patrolled daily by the police department and have scanners and metal detectors.

[whatthehey]

2. So the sight of more security measures makes you think there is more risk?

Even though every single datum shows crime overall, and minor victimhood, are much decreased?

[SummerSnow]

7. Yes. The NYC Dept of Ed placed cops in school and detectors cause of the high crime in the schools

Lots of gangs in schools, drug selling, sexual assaults etc. and other acts of violence. Regular security guards weren't enough.

[jberryhill]

3. So what is "more dangerous" there?

[jberryhill]

4. No, it is safer by far

[Igel]

5. Tough call.

All the stats are down: The world is safer.

On the other hand, kids are monitored more closely and often have their range of freedom restricted: Parents engage in rather extreme risk-avoidance. This is a handy confound: Are there fewer risks in general or are kids just exposed to fewer risks?

I'd still argue that the world is more dangerous. I look at kids and they're simply unprepared for what's ahead. One set is often pampered and spoiled ("empowered," one kid put it--meaning that for them the world is Burger King, where a 16-year-old demands service and special orders but has to show no responsibility or respect). Another set is suspicious and paranoid, meaning in any situation they walk in ready to accuse and assuming the worst, and acting in accordance--meaning that immediately those in control of the situation (teachers, employers, etc.) need to start trying to enforce behavioral norms, which the kids see as immediately substantiating their suspicions and paranoia. (No, these two subsets do not include all or even most kids.)

[MicaelS]

6. No, I think there are just lots of fearful parents. n/t