Real Ways to Lower Crime

[Randall]

I've seen all sorts of posts and complaints on here about the current system, but I want some real solutions.

I've traveled to various Asian countries and seen how good things can be when people in a society do what they should, and I think the only way to fix our problems is to look at places with the lowest crime rates and copy them some.

The common crime of drunk driving- Bars and liquor stores are not the problem, the only problem is behind the wheel. Take the persons license for 1 year, assign 100 hours community service, impound and auction off the car they're driving (regardless of owner unless it's stolen) and impound all other cars registered to the drunk driver. That would be for the 1st offense and would probably really lower the number of 1st and 2nd offenses.

Violent crimes- Armed robbery, attempted murder, murder, hostage taking, breaking and entering with a deadly weapon and similar crimes that grossly threaten innocent peoples lives should all be a mandatory death sentence. It's extremely harsh and extremely effective. We would probably have 40,000 executions the first year, but after that we would see a drastic drop off.

Smaller felonies and some misdemeanors- Maintain same or lower prison sentencing, but also have corporal punishment like Singapore has. Caning is effective in deterring quite a few crimes, and it can also be used in place of some prison sentences.

Massive prison reform. The last 3 years in the pen should be intensive reform/rehab. Prior to those last three years the people in jail should be used as laborers. This allows them to help pay the cost of housing themselves and pay for their own rehab and training.

We also need to reform a lot of laws. Legalize gambling, prostitution and some drugs. This keeps our courts and jails freed up so they can deal with real problems.

These are just a few ideas that I know would work. So lets hear why you like or dislike them. Please try to stay educated and precise with your return comments, because anything less is just a waste of your time to type.

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. alot of those ideas are good

if you have no value to human rights or property

[Randall]

2. All these ideas are good

If you value human rights and property. This only keeps the criminals down and promotes a better society overall.

[7th_Sephiroth]

4. yeah right

til a cop on a bad day pulls you over and "whoops" you just lost your car(s) got violently beat and stuck in a 6X10 cell for a year (on edit) not to mention that the cops will see peoples cars as an extra $5-$30,000whenever they pull someone over

[Warpy]

9. All those ideas are rotten

We don't need that sort of Draconian solution. Death for property crimes? Crikey!

The one thing to do to reduce crime would be to bring back the progressive tax, institute a wealth surtax, raise the minimum wage to a level that would support a worker plus a child or two, and generally eliminate a majority of people who are kept artificially poor in a land of extreme plenty.

Another thing would be to eliminate the concept of the "victimless crime." Legalize and regulate drugs and prostitution. Given a reliable and affordable source of drugs, most addicts would rather work, pay taxes, and stop boosting car stereos (proven by the UK experiment). Put the gangstas, the pimps, and the CIA's black ops funding arm out of business. There goes a lot of the petty crime, right there.

Change the prison system. Demolish the buildings that encourage prison culture to flourish and build prisons that eliminate it. Prototypes are already in use, and they WORK. Encourage education, since that's the one thing that will prevent recidivism.

Lower the drinnking age and raise the driving age. Kids need to find out what alcohol does before they're allowed behind the wheel of a car. First DUI can be a mistake. Second one is the beginning of a bad habit, and THEN impound the car, sell it when the driver is convicted.

These are all practical solutions which will have a chance of working, and will not lead to totaltiarianism. If you want a totalitarian society, please go out into the world and find one. Most of us would prefer not to have it here.

[7th_Sephiroth]

18. i agree with you on everything ecept the driving age

at that age its really important for people to drive, it gives young teens some freedom and it allows them the ability to have friends and express themselves freely

[happyslug]

35. I disagree with you as to the age of Driving

Teenagers need to learn to get around WITHOUT an automobile. I did and enjoyed taking the Streetcar (I lived on the last Streetcar line in Pittsburgh) and the bus. I walked and rode a bike on the public roads. I am sorry, leaving teenagers learn to drive just encourages them to see the car as the ultimate means of getting around. They have to learn to do without so they can better understand how and when to use a car.

[Union Thug]

27. What Warpy said /eom

[jukes]

31. Warpy, mostly i agree w/ you

on the legalization of drugs/prostitution, let me add that they can be heavily taxed (the revenue then used to regulate the industries; ie, physical exams for STDs for prostitutes, quality control on chemicals) and still be cheaper than they are under the current "open" black market system.

added benefit of emptying the jails of MILLIONS of wrongfully incarcerated people (ashcroft locked up tommy chong for 9 mos for lending his name to a line of glassware), saving tax dollars & stopping the destruction of lives caused by a conviction for "possession".

until they quit executing primarily dark folks, i see no reason to discuss "capitol punishment"; it's merely a continuation of the US policy of racially motivated genocide.

well, except for corrupt politicians and robber barons. :evilgrin:

[randall3]

34. Sounds like socialism?

It sounds like you want a socialist society. One where 50% of the people work and the other 50% freeload. I suppose you also want to see tax brackets of 80-90% for the rich, because that would be fair, wouldn't it?

The Scandinavian countries still have a problem with property crimes, how do you resolve that issue? Take anything nice away from people to ensure no jealousy?

Many of us enjoy Capitolism and if you want a Socialist country, then go move to one.

[iverglas]

39. cute

Many of us enjoy Capitolism

My dictionary seems to be deficient here.

if you want a Socialist country, then go move to one.

What is this overweening arrogance that makes some of you folks think that you can just offload people onto the rest of us??

We socialist countries have borders and immigration officers and stuff like that too. USAmericans really can't just move here, any more than Mexicans can just move to Montana.

It sounds like you want a socialist society.
One where 50% of the people work and the other 50% freeload.

Ah, it sounds like you want the prize of the day; quick, claim it before you go!



http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Penal institutions were named "penetentiaries" in the 19th century because

the purpose of incarceration was moral, social, and societal. However, I have not read where there were notable programs within the prisons that "reformed" the inmates. It seems they were supposed to "get it" by living in a barren cell, like a monk.

Speaking for myself as habitually standing in the corner in my early childhood days, I did not reform. Rather I built up resentment. If I decided to change, it was on my terms, not theirs.

IMHO, there isn't enough money (even if there were, I doubt it would be committed) to individually counsel each prisoner/inmate in order to give him/her a new mindset, education and/or training, and a monitor after being released. I can't see anything changing close to Asia without institutional change.

[unblock]

5. i'm sure these harsh punishments would be meted out fairly in this country

southern blacks, for instance, can rest assured that the police would NEVER frame them or claim they saw a knife just so they get the death penalty.

also, i'm sure the caning would be done fairly and that rich kids would get the exact same pain to the exact same body parts as poor folks. and there certainly wouldn't be any framing or trumping up of charges for that sort of thing, because we all know how much the police and prison folks hate the idea of inflicting violence on suspects, especially blacks. oh, and gays.


sorry, your ideas on the whole are just plain reflective of a different culture, not america. caning? are you serious?

on the flip side, i must confess i do like the idea of getting more strict about drunk driving. in contrast to pretty much every other country, our drunk driving punishments are a joke.

[RC]

6. Look to the Scandinavian countries

if you want to lower crime.

Also how many "crimes" are really crimes that need the perpetrator locked up for 5-10-20 years? Smoke grass?

Who the president is and who controls Congress has more of an effect on crime than our laws & law enforcement do. Let's work on eliminating the root causes for crime and use some common sense instead of blaming the perpetrator for trying to survive.

[LibLabUK]

7. Summary executions..

Do away with lengthy trials, juries and judges....

Have police officers execute anyone they arrest... a la 2300AD's Judge Dredd (comic not film).

That way you would see a significant drop in crime.

Also, DNA and fingerprints should be collected and stored on a central register, and people should be fitted with radio tracking devices.. preferably at birth. Actually you could fit the tracking devices with a small explosive charge (0.1g close to the brainstem would probably suffice) so that criminals could be remotely punished.

Ahh.. if wishes were horses...

[Paradise]

8. How about this!

"Please try to stay educated and precise with your return comments, because anything less is just a waste of your time to type."??????

Don't even have to 'type'... educated enough to 'click' :hi: bye bye

[iverglas]

10. hey Mikey

Violent crimes- Armed robbery, attempted murder, murder, hostage taking, breaking and entering with a deadly weapon and similar crimes that grossly threaten innocent peoples lives should all be a mandatory death sentence.

I'll bet MikeyMoore (RIP) would like the idea. Even if this particular idea isn't being offered facetiously.

It's extremely harsh and extremely effective.

Effective indeed.

It should reduce those pesky minority / impoverished populations to a manageable number in no time at all. Particularly if you were to abolish that money-wasting legal aid system that allows some of them to evade their just desserts.

Of course, issuing licences to hunt those populations would probably be even more effective. Why the half measures??

[MrBenchley]

11. Some swell "freedom loving" from our RKBA contingent again...

No solution that might impact gun industry profits in the slightest can be considered aloud....

[Randall]

13. Sure.....

When crime drops off drastically, then gun sales will drop. I would have never bought a shotgun if crime was 20% of what it currently is. Get crime low enough, then you'll find it's easier to make gun ownership illegal. But unless you lower crime, a lot of people won't side with you.

But personal responsibility should be taught more. Don't blame guns for armed robbery, don't blame alcohol for drunk driving, don't blame McDonalds for obesity. Laying blame on inanimate objects just teaches immaturity and irresponsibity.

[MrBenchley]

14. Ah, "personal responsibility"....

Say, which industry was it that was trying to engineer special immunity from liabiltiy laws for itself? Why, it was the gun industry....

"Don't blame guns for armed robbery, "
Nobody fucking does. I blame the shitheels who sell guns, and the corrupt Republican party that shields them from responsibility, and the deluded fools who fight as hard as they can for things like the gun show loophole.

"don't blame McDonalds for obesity"
Why the fuck not? Who the hell else hired a clown to peddle grease and sugar to kids?

[Randall]

12. Just amazing

I find it amazing that so many of you blame all crime on the poor and minorities. The person that performs canings doesn't have to know who they are caning, so you can eliminate the favortisism aspect. If it can work in such a multi-cultural diverse wealthy nation such as Singapore it can also work here. There are less cops around in Singapore, less crime, better social programs, lower unemployment, better healthcare and just about everything else we should want in a country. It is the closest thing you will find on the planet to a utopian society, ask any of their citizens how they feel,>90% feel it is perfect.

Fixing things is a package deal, if we only improve education a lot of people won't 'reform' because it is easier to be a criminal. If we make prisons softer there's no motivation. If we have a president that tries to set an example it will never work either.
There are many victimless crimes that should not be be crimes, but there are many crimes with victims that need to be cracked down upon. We still need trials and evidence, but with harsh punishments you get less crimes and more time to devote to each trial. But there is no reason to have trials go on for 5-10 years.

There are other 'white collar' type crimes that I think whould also have extremely harsh punishments, but they are hard to write out easily. Large scale tax evasion (something clearly not an accident) I would also execute people for, it robs all Americans and should not be tolerated. Also illegal toxic dumping should not be tolerated.

[Rainbowreflect]

15. And what about the hundreds of Innocent people wrongly

convicted of crimes? Are you going to tell their families so sorry after they are dead.
Violence just begets violence. Killing people who kill people to show killing is wrong is completely illogical.
The only way to lower violent crime is to become a less violent society. That will not happen with state sponsored violence.

[Randall]

16. Provide proof.....

Singapore executes more people per captita than any other country on the planet. The cane people also. They also have the lowest crime rates around. So explain to me how their violent government causes more violence?

[MrBenchley]

17. It does seem like this plan

would be more at home in a primitive backwater like Saudi Arabia than in a civilized country...

[7th_Sephiroth]

19. he's right

if people think thier gonna be killed every time they see a cop, thier just gonna start killin cops

[Randall]

20. wrong again

While being a completely senseless idea, it is interesting. Cite some proof that happens anywhere, and I'll name a couple places where harsh punishments provide safety and people don't fear cops at all.

[iverglas]

21. don't be so coy

Cite some proof that happens anywhere, and I'll name a couple places where harsh punishments provide safety and people don't fear cops at all.

Just be nice and cite 'em for the rest of us's benefit.

And then tell us what Benjamin Franklin had to say about liberty and safety, just in case the usual suspects don't make the connection for you, 'k?

'Course, you could always tell us how your proposal fits in with current Democratic Party policy positions ...

[Randall]

22. Two Places

Japan and Singapore. People respect and appreciate the police, and their punishments are very strict and crime rates quite low.

I'm not asking to make new laws. In fact I want to eliminate a lot of victim-less crime, therefore giving more rights.

The beauty of both democratic and republican party proposals is that neither side has effective solutions. The only effective solution is a combination of both sides, and since neither side will budge nothing gets accomplished. I like the Dem's idea that people should have maximum rights, which is why they will probably always get my vote. But I don't like the current trend that is leaning toward taking away personal responsibility from everyone. And if the radical values I keep seeing on this site (tax the hell out of people, raise minimum wage to $13+/hour, outlaw guns) become too mainstream I will have to switch parties. I like flat taxes, I like person responsibility and I think people can own some types of guns.

[MrSandman]

24. Like the rights of..

Due process...
Equal protection...
Freedom from inhumane punishment...

To name a few.

"...therefore giving more rights."

[onefundrunk]

25. wrong again

Due process.... who said eliminate trials or investigations?

Equal protection.... this would apply to everyone equally, anyone who commits a crime would be punished.

Freedom from inhumane punishment.... do you mean "free from cruel and unusual punishment"? If so, this wouldn't apply. Standardized punishment offered from a government level is not cruel and unusual. Since a person is not crippled or noticably disfigured they can still fit in and function in society. Free from cruel and unusual punishment was meant to ensure there wooldn't be be getting tar and feather treatment or other forms of slow torturous death.

I don't understand how people can be against punishing violent criminals. Violent criminals just make more violent criminals and that just makes society worse for all of us.

[MrSandman]

26. I believe you invite...

an institutional tendency to the types of abuse so graphically seen in Iraq.

"Violent criminals just make more violent criminals ..."

Whatever that does mean.

Did I say suspend punishment...Why not simply use sensory deprivation? It doesn't leave scars. People are only permanently psychotic if it is continued for "too long."

And I thought the topic was reducing property crimes, not only violent crimes.

I am out of this thread.

[iverglas]

29. abject nonsense

Due process.... who said eliminate trials or investigations?

I'd suggest that you try reading some history and law on this point. The existence of a trial/investigation does not mean that the relevant standard of due process has been met.

Equal protection.... this would apply to everyone equally, anyone who commits a crime would be punished.

I'd suggest that you try reading some history and law on this point. The fact that a law applies equally to everyone does not mean that the relevant standard of equal protection has been met.

Freedom from inhumane punishment.... do you mean "free from cruel and unusual punishment"? If so, this wouldn't apply. Standardized punishment offered from a government level is not cruel and unusual.

I'd suggest that you try reading some history and law on this point. The fact that something is "standardized" does not make it either "not cruel" or "not unusual".

Free from cruel and unusual punishment was meant to ensure there wooldn't be be getting tar and feather treatment or other forms of slow torturous death.

And neither you nor any of the rest of us is living in the 16th or 18th century. Life, and human thought, moves on.

I don't understand how people can be against punishing violent criminals.

I don't understand why anyone would waste so much energy and resources building straw fellas like this, myself.

But then, I suspect I'm talking to one ... self-made straw fella, that is.

... (edit) Durn, shoulda looked first instead of wasting my own time and energy. ;)

Your computer breaks and it takes you an entire weekend to set up the new one ... and get rid of the viruses that were on your old hard drive when it got put in your new computer, and ya lose yer edge. So long, Windows98 that nobody bothered writing viruses for so I didn't bother figuring out whether I had any until it was too late ... apparently I had 3019 copies of LoveLetter lurking around ... and the fancy govt office that gave it to me 2 years ago is now going to have to wait a couple of days longer for the work it wants done. You'd 'a thought I'd 'a been on heightened alert after all that. ;)

[randall2]

30. You make little sense

Could you explain how adding a punishment such as caining changing anything else? When used strictly for felonies and some misdemeanors only real criminals will be affected by this. It doesn't draw revenue for the state, and is proven to lower crime, leaving extra money from the now smaller prison populations to be spent on improving areas that have lower standards of living and improving education which also helps to lower crime.

[Union Thug]

28. Good point..

.. I think that white collar crime, such as those committed by the bastards at Enron, should be considered as detrimental to society as murder or rape. If you're going to have a capitalist country, you'd better damn well put a net on the turds floating at the surface.

I'll go Draconian for white collar. Death penalty for Enron criminals.

Yes, I'm serious. I hate these people.

[onefundrunk]

23. Good for tweakers

This would be good for the tweakers that keep breaking into homes and cars around here. Something needs to be done to stop all the senseless property crime. I work hard for my money and I don't need junky trash trying to steal things out of my home.

[jukes]

32. junkies & tweakers

ARE going to get high, no matter how many laws you pass, how many (tweaker) cops you hire, or how many dungeons you fill up.

decriminalize it, tax it like booze, & regulate it. poor because you're a junkie bum; sign up for free gov't junk (better than reagancheese!) believe me, free junk will be more enticing than your backdoor: junk tends to make folks less energetic, and you just might be 1 of those "gun nuts". what wd be the point?

btw, this also stops the incentive for sleazy creeps hangin in school yards to promote customers, & deprives profit (thus incentive) from poor kids who turn to clocking as their best job opportunity.



this whole moral "drain on society" crap is political b/s. they WILL be out there, & we can only lower the numbers & lessen the drain if we quit being "holier" than them. i don't say not to offer rehab, i don't want us to write these people off, but you can't hold them forever, & i'm not happy to be paying for their custody.

oh, yeah. cane them. think they might go looking for a hit to kill the pain?

[randall3]

33. Free booze and drugs? Real smart

If we give free drugs to junkies, should we give free booze to those who want it? And then maybe free tobacco for the poor also? And where would this money come from? Maybe money could be diverted from the education system to pay for all the free drugs being given out.

I already said that there needs to be a legalizing of drugs. I don't think people should be jailed for use. But criminals need to be punished, and those are the people that break into cars and homes, mug people and ruin peoples lives.

This website seems to be very close minded and unrealistic. People want to solve every problem with money and education, but that won't cure things well enough and costs far too much money for the small results. Do you really think you can get widespread support from people and get them to give up their money to solve societies problems in manners that they don't agree with? Many people on here want to see tax brackets of 80% to pay for all the programs required to support irresponsible people.


But this site is very found of censorship, which is why I keep changing my name. It's funny that I get banned because people can't logically make a point, that people can't argue things with any validity so they just boot me off the site.

[Wickerman]

40. Actually, you get banned because you post Right Wing talking points

and this is a board for liberals and porgressives.

see ya!

[happyslug]

36. I have to disagree about prostitution.

Anybody who has studied the problem of prostitution quickly finds out that the best way to regulate it is to outlaw it. Note these same experts will admit that outlawing prostitution will not end prostitution, but that is NOT the point. With prostitution you have drug addiction, spreading of disease (AIDs, and other VDs). These problems just feed on each other AND INCREASE THE COSTS TO THE LOCAL ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE (Sometime overwhelming these providers so that they are no funds to provide assistance to children and their parents).

Prostitution has always existed but like any other vice it needs to be controlled and after 200 years of regulations the best means of control is to outlaw it and use its illegal status to arrest the prostitutes on a regular basis to check them out for disease and to get them away from their pimps (Thus giving real ability to the idea that these prostitutes can quit prostitution if they really want to).

[randall3]

38. Need to do some more studying

You're not at all correct. Where prostitution is legalized and strictly controlled (only brothels with regular STD testing are allowed, no street prostitutes and no lone operators) it becomes safer and cleaner. It also lowers the number of rapes. Look at Nevada and Singapore, both have strictly controlled prostitution and things work out fine in both places.

[happyslug]

41. Safer and Cleaner for whom??

While STD may be reduced by such health codes, the problem of the women remains. Women do not grow up with the idea that they want to become a "ho". The women in Prostitution often say they want out but can not because of their pimps and a lack of real version as to their choices.

It is this angle you are not addressing for you assume these women made a truly voluntary decision to get into prostitution. An argument can be made that they did, sell their body or starve to death (what an choice). Thus women who are prostitutes tend NOT to want to stay in the "Profession" for any length of time, but the only way to make sure they have the option of quiting is if the act is illegal and thus the threat of the law can not be used to force them to stay.

In fact this was one of the problem in the 1800s when prostitution was legal. Women who wanted out could not for they had debts to pay their pimps and unless they paid the pimp could legally force them to pay off those debts by staying in the profession. This was similar to other workers of the time period. During the 1800s people were often force to stay on a job to pay off the debt to their employer. This was a problem until such debts became unenforceable during the Great Depression.

For women it was harder to break such cycle of indebtedness. Keeping such actions illegal makes such contracts clearly illegal and unenforceable and as such the woman did not have to worry about both her pimp AND THE FORCE OF THE LAW BEING BROUGHT AGAINST HER. This is the chief reason to keep prostitution illegal. If you make prostitution legal, you can not interfere with the contractual obligation of the prostitute even if she wants out of the contract. Legalization permits the actions of pimps to be protected by the law, something that should be avoided.

As to Nevada, prostitution is a county option and both Reno and Los Vegas has opt to make prostitution illegal for the above reasons. The counties that permit prostitution tend to to be more rural counties not the urban areas and even they it tend to be very small in size (And living off the fact it is legal so people from the surrounding states and the rest of the US visits them as a freak show).

As to Singapore, Chinese families have been selling their daughters into prostitution for centuries. That fact alone makes me object to prostitution in the Far East. It is legal but is it really the woman's free choice? In its tradition the woman has no choice, she is bound by her parents into her profession. I believe women should at least have have some other option and in the Far East the only way to give such women that option is to make prostitution illegal.

My point here is that the right to buy sex (and that what we are talking about) should NOT come at the expense of the seller of her services having no real alternatives. That is not Capitalism but Slavery and I hope most readers of this realize the difference.

[happyslug]

37. Children and Youth expenditures would be more effective

If you review the crime rate you will notice that it goes up and down in relation to Children and Youth Intervention of about ten years earlier.

The reason seems to be that in violent households (WITHOUT CYS intervention) children learn that violence is expected and pays (I.e. they see daddy coming home and beating up mommies, and no one punishes daddy so it must be right for him to do so). As children age they take what their learn at home to school and tend to be violent kids and teens agers. As Teenagers these same violent kids become petty thieves and generally violent people who get into relationships that starts the cycle all over again.

Family intervention tends to break up these cycles, Children see their families being split apart by the violence (i.e. CYS sends the kids to foster homes) and thus these children learn violence is NOT the answer. When such children become teens they tend to be less violent than their parents. Thus the crime rate drops about 10-15 years after any increase in family intervention services (and increases 10-15 years after any cut in such services).

For example family intervention nationwide expanded in the early 1980s after several children abuse cases hit the headlines during Reagan's Administration. The States (and some federal funding but that was by Congress not the Reagan Administration) changed the law to increase the power of CYS and family intervention programs (including Women's help centers and Protection from Abuse Orders). This all lead to the steady drop in crime ten years later under President Clinton. Thus the crime drop under Clinton had less to do with his booming economy (and even less with the increase sentencing adopted by the states during the 1980s) than the increase spending on Family intervention during the 1980s (and the recent increase in Crime rates has more to do with the general cut back on that funding during Bush I's administration, both at the federal level by Bush Sr, and as the state level do to cuts caused by the drop in state revenue do to the Recession that occurred during Bush Sr's Administration).

A similar pattern developed during the 1950s, in the late 1950s a severe recession hit the US leading the states to all cut back on Family interventions services, and this lead to the increase in crime of late 1960s. When Social Spendings increased during the 1960s, it lead to a drop in crime in the mid-1970s (and the general downward movement of crime since the late 1960s).

Britain has had a similar pattern, Thacher cut social services during the 1980s which lead to an increase in crime in the 1990s.

Now this delay in the effect of family intervention funding has lead to people arguing about the effectiveness of gun control and increased prison sentences. What happens is you have an increase in Family Intervention services. At the time of the increase family invention expenditures, crime is also going up. Since crime is going up people pass increase sentences, increase spending on police and increase gun controls. A few years later as the effect of Family intervention takes hold, the decrease in crime in attributed to either gun control, increasing police or Increase sentences. A recession (or other budget crunch) hits. Family Spending is cut (Increase police, sentencing and gun control are more politically popular than Family Services). This leads to an increase in crime ten years down the road (and evidence that the Increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control did not work).

The problem is people what something to be done on crime TODAY. Thus you have INCREASE pressure for increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control, even at the expense of Family intervention. The decrease in Family Intervention leads to increase crime, which starts the circle all over again

Thus the best solution to crime is increase spending on Family intervention (CYS and PFAs). This will reduce crime over the long haul, but there is no political support for such expenditures, while there is high political support for expenditures that do not work (i.e. Increase police, Longer sentencing and gun control). This has been the problem for the US since the 1960s and until people accept the fact that we have to increase spending on social programs and cut back on Police, Prisons and gun control to pay for the increase in social Program, the US Can NOT be address the issue of how to reduce Crime.

This was first written by me at the following thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35140

[Massacure]

42. Education and raising the quality of life for the poor

Are the best answers in my opinion.