There Will Not Be Blood

Across the world, crime is down -- and in a big way. Are violent movies to thank for less real blood and gore?

BY CHARLES KENNY | FEBRUARY 6, 2012

For all the grim news about the economy and jobs over the last few years, one indicator of the quality of life in the United States has stubbornly continued to improve. The latest Federal Bureau of Investigation data suggests crime rates went on falling through the first half of 2011, recession be damned. In 1991, the overall national violent crime rate reported by the FBI was 758 cases per 100,000 inhabitants; by 2010, that had dropped to 404 per 100,000. The murder and "nonnegligent homicide" rate dropped by more than half over the same period. You wouldn't know it from watching television -- beyond the continuing conviction that "if it bleeds it leads" on local news, the number of violent acts on prime-time TV shows climbs ever-upward. But that rise in fake violence may have played some role in the real-life trend heading squarely the other way.

The United States isn't alone in a trend towards people just getting along better -- it's a global phenomenon. In 2001, homicide killed more than twice the number of people worldwide who died in wars (an estimated 557,000 people versus total war deaths of around 208,000). But just as in the United States, violent crime rates have been falling across a large part of the planet. The data is patchy, but in 2002, about 332,000 homicides from 94 countries around the globe were reported to the United Nations. By 2008, that had dropped to 289,000. And between those years, the homicide rate fell in 68 reporting countries and increased in only 26.

Look at the really long-term picture and violent crime rates are way down. Institute of Criminology professor Manuel Eisner reaches all the way back to the 13th century to report that typical homicide rates in Europe dropped from about 32 per 100,000 people in the Middle Ages down to 1.4 per 100,000 in the 20th century. (Sadly, of course, for all of their decline, U.S. rates are still more than three times that -- a rate above what Eisner suggests is the Western average for the 1700s.)

The global picture of the last few years, along with the historical picture covering the West over the last 800 years, both suggest that there isn't just a constant proportion of bad people out there who will commit a crime unless you lock them up before they do it. And there's a lot more evidence that whatever is behind declining violence it isn't the number behind bars -- or, indeed, the length of sentencing or the number of cops on the street.

It is true that a Pew Center report suggests that as U.S. crime rates were declining, the national prison population increased from 585,000 to 1.6 million between 1987 and 2007. But the rest of the world hasn't followed the United States down the path towards mass incarceration, and yet has still seen declining violence. The U.N. crime trends survey suggests that homicides fell in Britain by 29 percent between 2003 and 2008 alone, for example. And yet the incarceration rate in Britain was one-fifth as high as the United States, according to the Pew report. Again, within the United States, one of the places with the most dramatic drops in violent crime is New York City -- the homicide rate is 80 percent down from 1990. But while the rest of the country was locking up ever more people, New York City's incarceration rate fell by 28 percent over the last two decades.

Greg Williams/Eon Productions via Getty Images

 

Charles Kenny is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation, and author, most recently, of Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding and How We Can Improve the World Even More. "The Optimist," his column for Foreign Policy, runs weekly.

SUPAH

7:59 PM ET

February 6, 2012

Darn

Dammit, I saw the picture and thought this was going to about the new James Bond movie. I had my Free Itunes Codes ready and waiting to add it to my list.

As for the crime being down, I believe that violent movies are not the cause of it. On the contrary lots of parents believe if their children watch violent movies that they will some how become violent when they are older.

 

WIDGET

2:52 AM ET

February 7, 2012

Violent media

In fairness just because lots of parents believe something doesn't make it true. Scaremongering by the likes of Fox News, the Daily Mail, Keith Vaz MP make people may convince people but they aren't based on any proven scientific data.

However, the same can be said for this article. Whilst violent crime rates are decreasing and this is excellent the article appears to go 'well all the obvious factors can be eliminated why not violent media'. It's an interesting theory but doesn't seem to be backed up by much evidence and there's no mention of other possible factors.

 

DELTA22

10:55 AM ET

February 7, 2012

-

I suppose I can't quite speak for other people, but when I see violence on TV, I know it's not real, hence I can enjoy an action movie. If I were to see violence in real life, I'm pretty sure it would not be enjoyable.

 

DMOLONEY

11:33 AM ET

February 7, 2012

"What about harsh punishment?

"What about harsh punishment? Statistics from MIT psychologist Stephen Pinker's new book on global trends in violence show the United States used to execute more than 100 times the amount of people in the 1600s as it does today -- and yet violence rates then were far higher than today. Think Clint Eastwood's western, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Despite all of the authorized hangings, there was still a lot of unofficial shooting. More broadly, the number of countries using the death penalty has declined worldwide -- along with violent crime rates."

Weak correlation equals causation ( i think thats the order) argument, which comes up a lot in this piece :/

 

XENOPHON

1:21 PM ET

February 7, 2012

The Optimist's Deceptive Use of Stats

Kenny says this:

"The authors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna looked at data from 1995 to 2004 and concluded that violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend in the United States."

Here is the actual passage from the linked study:

"Our [Dahl/DellaVigna's] estimates suggest that, in the short run, violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend. Although our design does not allow us to estimate long-run effects, we find no evidence of medium-run effects up to three weeks after initial exposure."

OK, let's list the discrepancies between Kenny and the study authors:

1. Kenny says the study "concludes"; the study actually uses the word "suggests".
2. Kenny omits any discussion of time horizon; the study includes the key qualifier, "IN THE SHORT RUN."
3. The study goes on to say that any short-run effect does not appear to carry over into the medium-term. Kenny fails to mention this.

This is called cherry-picking data, and it 'aint honest. But when the "Optimist" is involved, should anyone be surprised?

 

BING520

1:45 PM ET

February 7, 2012

crime and its cause

In 60's and 70s. Hollywood tried everything they could to prove viewing violent movies had nothing to do with actual street violence. Now practicing violence fantasy via movie or videogame is the REAL reason for the decline of violence. During Prohibition, there were increased violence and rising crime rate. Why? Because people unable to get drunk have propensity to commit violence act?

Remember a cliche of 60' about lying? If a kid lies, it must be parents show little trust in your kid. So trust a kid 100%, there's a 100% honest kid. It took more 30 years for dedicated seearchers to determine the true motivation and cause of lying by kids. It has little to do with trust. Multipersonality Truddi Chase turned out to be a fraud by the doctor and a journalist after medical record was made public. Bu who cares 40 years later?

Social causation is extremely hard to.establish. Yet, our social scientists would rather present his/her speculation laced with scientific jargons as facts and our media have not been shy to promote outlandisk claims.

Before 2008 Greenspan, Bernanke and Geithner all made bold statements about our perfect financial markets and nothing-could-go-wrong derivatives. Greenspan at least admit some mistakes afterwards. Bernanke and Geithner have never said a word.

Our brilliant social scientists must learn to be serious about themselves. If you don't know it, say nothing. If you suspect a causation, write a cautionary tale. Today they by casual descry rush out outrageous definitive statements to achieve 5-second celebrity status with hope that people will not remember the stupid things they said 2 years ago.

Steve Pinker published a book every 2 or 3 years since 1984. How did he ever find time to conduct a long-term study. He is more a bookseller and a social scientist.

One day I may be able to claim the rising production of corn actuually caused Arab Spring or Kardashian sisters cause Americans to value family. I don't think I can be more wrong than Charles Kenny.

 

URGELT

8:01 PM ET

February 7, 2012

Factors Constraining Violence

The author is out on a limb. Correlation is not causation, particularly not when so many variables remain unexamined.

I'll point to two: the militarization of police and the slide towards authoritarianism. Civil rights are being steadily curbed by courts, Congress and the Administration. Cops have never been so well-armed. Government is harvesting data about citizens like nothing we have seen outside of fictional novels like Orwell's "1984."

Authoritarian governments, "Big Brother" spying on citizens, and well-armed police, it should be acknowledged, do constrain citizen violence. They are scary. Fear is a deterrent. The more authoritarian the US becomes, the more police are objects of fear, the more we should expect civil violence to diminish.

Which is not to say that these trends are an unalloyed good. But the trends are unmistakable, and it's at least valid to consider them as having some explanatory power concerning the downward trend in civil violence.

I'm not prepared to settle for the theory - unproven - that violence in media and games serves as an anodyne for the real thing. I think it's even possible that violence in media and games actually increases civil violence, and that the net downward trend is due entirely to other factors. I'm not sure this hypothesis is true, mind you. But we haven't even begun to rule it out.

 

THE_OBSERVER

3:10 AM ET

February 8, 2012

Life imitating Art

See Mark Wahlberg who said that he would have stopped 9/11 single-handedly if he was on one of those planes:

http://news.yahoo.com/mark-wahlberg-prevented-9-11-185856083.html

 

SDCASAJ

8:51 AM ET

February 9, 2012

Worldwide violence

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Finally an article that tells the truth and goes counter to the fear mongering, hate filled commentaries of BOTH the left and right.

Hey, bad news sells. The very thought of NOT being able to spin something negative about everything must keep many journalist up at night.

Just for today, look around and notice all the good people out there. It's so incredibly prevalent. WARNING: You will be so busy seeing the good, that you'll end up mnissing the latest "crisis" that the media has invented.

 

VERMICIOUS KNID

6:21 PM ET

February 9, 2012

The 60s and 70s

With the collapse of the Hollywood production code after about 1960, movies became dramatically more violent, and yet violent crime didn't increase....
oh wait, it exploded...

I suspect violent movies were not the reason crime exploded in the 60s and 70s. But I suspect its equally questionable to credit them with recent declines. If there is a correlation, it has to with what in my own experience was a major cause of juvenile delinquency - boredom. These days more young guys are spending more time indoors, playing video games, watching movies, downloading internet porn, and screwing around on Facebook. This is making them fat and unhealthy, but it also means that they aren't out in the streets creating mayhem.