AHC: US Crime Declines in 1980's

Context:
I was looking at US crime statistics, and found something interesting -- violent crime did rise in the 60's and 70's, but then took a little dip in the early 80's, before rising again and reaching their real peak in the early 90's.
So the challenge -- with the latest possible PoD, and without preventing the crime wave in the 1960's and 70's, how can said wave peak (longer term) in 1981? What would be the effects?
 
Last edited:
If the leaded-gasoline theory is correct, have tetraethyl lead banned in the late 1960s.
Perhaps if Nixon wins in 1960, and establishes the EPA a decade sooner?
 
There are a lot of theories purporting to explain the US Crime Wave. One element that pretty much everyone does (or should) agree on is that demographics played a role, as the 60's and 70's saw the Baby Boomers come of age. In fact, the false peak of the early 80's overlaps very nicely with the time 15-29 year olds peaked as a share of the US population.

To add on demographics -- by my rough calculations,* age demographics alone can account for roughly 20-25% of the rise in crime in the 60's and 70's, less so the 80's.

*(Method -- by my estimate, births during the BB were 20-25% higher than previous years; as mentioned, the 15-29 year old population of these births peaked in the early 80's; and 1981 saw a crime rate, that is all crimes per capita, at "only" just over double what it was in the early 60's, when the boomers started coming of age.)
 
Going with some of the leading theories, getting rid of lead in things like gasoline among others and perhaps controversially legalizing abortion some 10 years earlier.
 
Crime is always going to rise some due to demographics - but throw in a strong welfare state (after all, if you aren't stupidly poor and in a burned out section of the Bronx or Southcentral LA with no hope, you're less likely to join a gang), getting rid of lead earlier, and don't introduce crack into the inner city, and that does a lot.
 
How much of this, though, was the drug itself, and how much was the context (of the drug markets, gang landscapes, etc) prior to introduction, or for that matter, the response (Regan's War on Drugs, etc)?

Crack was cheap, highly addictive, and relatively easy to use. So it exploded way beyond what heroin, traditional cocaine, and other drugs did.
 
Ok, prevent crack cocaine is a good answer. Still, I have to ask, is the challenge possible even if the drug still hits US shores?

What I'm thinking -- supposing we have a 1976 PoD, where Ford wins (narrow, no PV) re-election, and a Democrat is elected POTUS 1980. When asked before, general agreement was this is highly to prevent the escalation of the war on drugs (wherein response is more akin to Nixon treating it as a public health crisis than a mostly criminal matter). My question -- how much does this change, in itself, help the OP? Even if crack cocaine still emerges, would responding to it differently mean that crime overall doesn't get a boost?
 
Election doesnt change anything. People think the war on drugs created the crime problem. Gibberish. War on drugs was a failed response to the crime/drug problem.

Since you're a big pop culture guy, ask yourself why the Dirty Harry and Death Wish were made? What social feeling did they tap into? They tapped into a feeling that crime was exploding and the justice system was more concerned with the rights of criminals than victims. Most notably with Miranda and the Death Penalty, the courts under Earl Warren moved the justice system significantly toward a more just system. But the perception, on the heels of the growth of crime in the 70s and the drug problems was being soft on crime. Hence the response in the 80s.

You probably need a POD before 1964ish to not have a drug problem and a crime problem that is less severe.
 
...
You probably need a POD before 1964ish to not have a drug problem and a crime problem that is less severe.

Or -yes, I'm being sarcastic- you could have the civil rights movement and the push for integration fail in the 1960's. With the US still being segregated in poor black neighborhoods and more affluent white ones, nobody would care what goes on in the Ghettos. The crime rate in there could be as high as it was at the peak of the 1930's gangster wars. As long as no white people would be involved it would not count, not be reported and not show up in the statistics. You'd have a crime free economic miracle one of which even the Irish and Italian Americans will benefit ... at least on paper and at least as long as the walls around Spanish Harlem will hold.
 
Give every child enough calories and nutrients for them at school dinner every single day, and end the War on Drugs, decriminalize everything and legalize the safest ones.

This would also work today to reduce the crime rate.
 
Or -yes, I'm being sarcastic- you could have the civil rights movement and the push for integration fail in the 1960's. With the US still being segregated in poor black neighborhoods and more affluent white ones, nobody would care what goes on in the Ghettos. The crime rate in there could be as high as it was at the peak of the 1930's gangster wars. As long as no white people would be involved it would not count, not be reported and not show up in the statistics. You'd have a crime free economic miracle one of which even the Irish and Italian Americans will benefit ... at least on paper and at least as long as the walls around Spanish Harlem will hold.

My 1964ish POD was more about Vietnam than civil rights. Between government cynicism, bitter veterans, and the culture wars, you have an environment ripe for a wave of crime and drugs. But yes, the decline of the civil rights movements and particularly the riots of the late 60s did a lot to perpetuate the issues.
 
Top