I would be more inclined to believe that I misunderstood or mischaracterized your argument, if you had not ended your previous post by stating, "The 3 factors I mentioned - loosening mj laws, the internet and armed citizens - have a much better correlation with the fall in crime." The words you choose make it appear that you are indeed trying to equate correlation with causation. If you do not mean to conflate the two, you need to make that very clear--instead of repeating how good the correlation is.
The correlations you claim aren't even that strong. Marijuana has been criminalized to some extent for centuries; in the 1930s, it was more or less prohibited across the US. Yet, according to the graph you posted, incarceration rates (as a proxy for crime rates) remained fairly constant until the 1970s. At that time, some states, including my home state of CA, downgraded marijuana possession/use to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. If the strong correlation you claim between marijuana laws and crime rates existed, then downgrading the laws should have resulted in a decrease in crime--but the graph shows crime starting to climb at that time. I am also unaware of any time in US history when citizens were *not* armed, so trying to find a correlation between the arming of citizens and *any* event is challenging.
The graph does not support your contention. You continue to ignore the fact that the push back began in the mid-1970s. Incarceration rates rose while crime rose for nearly 20 years afterwards. You have a poor case for even a correlation, let alone causation.
The push-back against what, exactly?
That graph is exactly what I would expect to see if lax laws lead to higher crime and strict laws lead to lower crime. In the 1960s, the "free love" generation, people protested against all kinds of things, including the practice of being tough on criminals. I remember this quite well, having grown up in the San Francisco Bay Area, which was "ground zero" for many of the extravagances of the 1960s. The result was that crime rates started to climb in the early 1970s, and continued to climb until they peaked in the early 2000s (using the graph you posted; I could graph the numbers from your earlier links, but do not see the need since the incarceration graph shows the same thing). In the 1990s, people started becoming very vocal about getting tough on crime--the first 3 strikes law was passed in 1993 in WA, and CA's 3 strikes passed a year later. In addition, Bill Clinton ran and won on a platform of getting tough on crime, with the program to put 100,000 more cops on the streets; he was inaugurated in 1993. So the evidence is that the laws to become strict on crime started being instituted in the early 1990s. And the rise in criminality reversed itself and is now trending downwards.
The fact that there is a delay of a few years before the rise in crime following the push to more lax laws, and the drop in crime following the push to more strict laws does not invalidate either the (negative) correlation, or the clear causative relationship. Because it takes time for laws to be enacted and more time for their effects to manifest, I *expect* to see a lag. Remember, although correlation alone does not establish causation, when a mechanism exists that links cause and effect, then a strong correlation (or negative correlation) often results.
Not surprised you'd find a way to take a swipe at the graph. It shoots your argument right in the butt.
The graph actually supports quite well my assertion that lax laws=increased crime, and strict laws=decreased crime. Your rejection of such an obvious relationship is puzzling, to say the least--I am reminded of a time when I started to read a NYT editorial that began with a statement like "Despite record incarceration rates, crime continues to fall." (I paraphrase since I do not remember the exact words.) Since the editorial began with a ludicrous assertion, I did not bother reading the rest of it. The reason that I criticized the title of the graph is that I am a stickler about the correct use of language. Since, by definition, an inmate is incarcerated, it is impossible for the rate of incarceration of inmates to change.
To say that 3 factors have a better correlation with something than a 4th factor, does not mean the 3 factors are causative. If you want to know what I think are major causative factors, then please have the common courtesy to ask, then we can discuss them. In the meantime, you are not justified in assigning such a meaning to the words you quoted.
If the strong correlation you claim between marijuana laws and crime rates existed, then downgrading the laws should have resulted in a decrease in crime...
No! You just misapprehended the meaning of correlation - again. Correlations do not ‘result’ in something. Causations ‘result’ in something.
Nice foot shot.
The result was that crime rates started to climb in the early 1970s, and continued to climb until they peaked in the early 2000s...
Factually wrong. Violent crime peaked in the early to mid-1990s. By 2000, the violent crime index had fallen by about 30%. It continued to fall throughout the remainder of the decade. Read the numbers again => http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
A word on ‘push back’. This was well underway by the mid-70s. Nixon and Wallace campaigned on 'Law and Order' in 1968, garnering almost 60% of the vote between the two. Nixon would go on to launch a War on Drugs in 1971 => http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048 The Rockefeller drug laws in liberal New York state were signed into law in 1973. Despite that, crime continued to rise in NY state, as it did every where else.
Lastly, your claim that the posted graph supports you is yet another example of error in your posts. Look at the US crime table at the 'disaster center' link (earlier in this post) and compare it to the incarceration graph.
Incarceration rose steadily from the mid-70s though 2010. Yet, crime rose right along with incarceration during the first 20 years of that period. You can't just ignore those years, nor can you credibly claim that the 'push back' began in the 90s.
Facts are stubborn things