There was a rampage of crime and murder inspired by the 60’s and 70’s. Then, in the 90’s we took away the judges’ ablity to release dangerous criminals with mandatory sentences for serious crimes. The prisons filled up and that is why crime when down. We are now into a new downward cycle of the 60’s and 70’s. Embracing sexual immorality goes hand in hand with loosening taboos against everything.
>> There was a rampage of crime and murder inspired by the 60’s and 70’s. Then, in the 90’s we took away the judges’ ablity to release dangerous criminals with mandatory sentences for serious crimes. The prisons filled up and that is why crime when down. We are now into a new downward cycle of the 60’s and 70’s. Embracing sexual immorality goes hand in hand with loosening taboos against everything.
This is an excellent response, thank you. I agree wholeheartedly.
We don’t see immediate results in the degradation of society with the loosening of morals; there is usually a generational lag. This is the mistake Ken H was making when he was arguing against a direct correlation between pornography and crime. And while it’s true that there is no straightforward correlation between pornography and crime (and definitely not causation), that is only because there are many factors that must align before crime rates begin rising.
Unfortunately, practically all of the factors are present in leftist governmental policies. One only needs to compare the crime rates in areas governed predominantly by leftists to the national average. Since 2009, the region that saw the smallest decline in violent crime rate was the Northeast (-0.7%), while the South (-8.9%) and the Midwest (-6.6%) had the largest declines.
This is in spite of there being more firearm availability in the latter two regions, which shows the leftist idea that more guns causes more violent crime to be a lie. It looks more like more Democrats and Democrat voters causes more violent crime.
What caused the rampage of crime is attributable less to a loosening of taboos against porn, and more to the welfare state and its effect on men on the low end of the bell curve.
Before the welfare state, lower-class men had a purpose. They worked. They supported a wife and family, even if very modestly. A prison term would preclude a respectable life, so that was a disincentive against crime.
Now, there's welfare. Women lost interest in poor-but-honest men who could not provide better than what Uncle Sugar could give. Having part-time affairs with thugs was more exciting. A thug with cash could take her places, while grandma stayed home with the kids, supported by welfare.
If being an honest man does not get you the love and respect of a good woman, and the joy of living with your kids, then there is far less incentive to be an honest man.