crime

i began reading (listening actually) to freakinomics by steven levitt and stephen dubner. right off the bat it caught my attention with this revelation: the dramatic drop in crime since the mid 90's has nothing to do with the economy or police technique, as suggested by politicians and experts. rather, it was the legalization of abortion by the supreme court's ruling, "roe v. wade," in 1973 that caused the drop about 20 years later by eliminating a significant source of people who are highly prone to become criminals: unwanted children. one could then conclude that opponents of roe v. wade are arguing for an increase in crime. levitt hasn't spoken of this so far (i'm only about 1/4 of the way through), but it occurred to me that the war on drugs, ramped up in the 90's, might also be a response to roe v. wade. in the early 90's crime seemed to be on the rise and pundits predicted even more crime by the turn of the century. law enforcement, prisons and crime prevention looked like a lucrative market only to be suddenly and unexpectedly curtailed by a lack of criminals. what to do with an infrastructure built to handle an epidemic that wasn't happening? how about manufacturing criminals by changing the laws? our economy isn't structured to gracefully handle contraction. it depends on growth. with markets like law enforcement that are government funded and legislated, it seems plausible that, rather than recognizing the reduction of unwanted children lowers crime and benefits society and that shrinking the prison system would be the correct response to a dwindling crime rate, those with vested interests in crime prevention would choose to artificially alter the market to benefit themselves. maybe it's not surprising that the most conservative lobby for both the war on drugs and anti-abortion. they feed the same machine.