Remembering a Warrior

Pages: 1 2

By 1974, the murder rate was more than twice what it had been in 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled. So did the murder of policemen.

People clever with words sought all sorts of ways of denying the obvious fact that the fancy new developments in the criminal law were catastrophically counterproductive. That was when James Q. Wilson’s writings on crime burst upon the scene, cutting through all the fancy evasions with hard facts and hard logic.

The idea that crime results from poverty, or can be reduced by alleviating poverty, Professor Wilson shot down by pointing out that “crime rose the fastest in this country at a time when the number of persons living in poverty or squalor was declining.” He said, “I have yet to see a ‘root cause’ or to encounter a government program that has successfully attacked it.”

Nor did Wilson buy the argument that unemployment drove people to crime or welfare. He noted that “the work force was at an all-time high at the same time as were the welfare rolls.” Nor were minorities frozen out of this economy. By 1969, “the nonwhite unemployment rate had fallen to 6.5 percent,” he pointed out.

By systematically confronting the prevailing notions and rhetoric with undeniable facts to the contrary, James Q. Wilson began to wear away the prevailing social dogmas of intellectuals behind the counterproductive changes in law and society. It was much like water wearing away rock — slowly but continually.

The common sense that had once produced and sustained declining crime rates began to reappear, here and there, in the criminal justice system and sometimes prevailed. Murder rates began to decline again. James Q. Wilson was the leader in this fight. He said, “We have trifled with the wicked.”

There is no way to know which ones of us are alive today because of his work. But we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Alex Kovnat

    I agree with most of what Thomas Sowell writes. I luv the guy! But I wonder: If the murder rate dropped between 1930 and 1960, could this be because lives were saved on the operating table who otherwise would have died, owing to medical advances? Could the discovery of antibiotics (i.e. Penicillin) saved wounded people who would otherwise have died from infections?

    • Questions

      I doubt it. It's doubtful the wonder drugs of their time, like penicillin, played that much of a role in the drop in the murder rate. I would argue the main reasons were: 1) better policing; 2) successful assimilation of first-generation immigrants; and 3) increased prosperity.

      • pagegl

        and 4) a prevailing attitude that commiting crime was bad.

  • Fred Dawes

    A Great guy may he R.I.P.

  • BarbaraJoanne

    Thank you for this.

  • Ron Carnine

    As a law enforcement officer (retired) I have seen fads come and go. Mostly because police depts. had to enact the fad in order to get government grant money. But what has always worked best were those times when the courts held the individual responsible for their behavior and an unwillingness to obey the law would eventually lead to a long jail sentence or execution. These principles worked best and they still will. But the cops will still have to walk through the garbage to get their jobs done and the fads will continue to come and go. If the bad guys fear the cops and the punishment that will come (prison) then they will think twice before committing a crime. If you tell them that it was societies fault they are bad or their parents fault they kill, steal and destroy they will rapidly pick up on that excuse and see themselves as victims instead of perpetrators. Certainly you can't put victims in jail would you?