>> and a criminal rights tracker is coming up now on after words. >> with high profile spikes in violence in milwaukee, chicago, and washington, d.c. the question of violent crime has gained attention it hasn't had since the 1990's. this is a new book "the rise and fall of violent crime in america" what inspired you to reinvestigate the issue of violent crime? >> no one studied in a co comprehensive way the history of violent crime and i felt that needed to be done especially because as we both know the violent crime rate had skyrocketed in the late '60s and really became a major concern

for the entire nation for the next two and a half decades. i felt given the significance of violent crime in the postwar period a major work needed to be done.

but there were reasons for it. without in historical perspective, one just can't really fully grant that. so as you well know, many studies are what they call cross-sectional views and they will study maybe eight years words of crime. these have great value. i am not knocking them. they are very significant. but they don't give you router did and that is why i wrote this book. >> before we get into the story of crime in america, but set the stage for viewers. what is violent crime? what crimes are they talking about here?

>> criminologists define it as four different crimes. murder, but of course i could be treated as the man's daughter as their are certain, what we call elements of the crime president or not present. so together we might refer to this as criminal homicide. and then, rape of course is a violent crime. assault is the third one. usually we are and what most date all aggravated assault, where you have serious injury and that would be the third. robbery is the final one, although robbery is somewhat of a hybrid because there is a property motivation that is the

best motivation and a combination of fast and violent. some people might in good other things, for in it. kidnapping or somebody might even include arson, which could obviously call it death or injury. there so few and consist of it that don't include arson because it is mainly a property as they collect on insurance. postcode lets get right into it. in the 1960s and 70s, we see this huge spike in crime. what drives this increase? >> i think this is probably the biggest increase in violent crime in the country since yuri.

i know that if it that description at least going back to the late night in century. i didn't delve into that earlier. so much so i'm not as calm event -- confident. probably the worst in american hits jury, but it probably is. i think there were three major factors that one could always point to some subsidiary but it's usually good to pick three. first, you have a major migration of a high crime culture that is a group of people who engage in violent crime at very high rates. this case, with african-american who migrated to the cities of the north as part of the great

migration. now it has to be understood that most of this crime is intramural. that is in this case black on black crime. it arrived his first in the ballot were of course african-americans had been in play and where they were obviously treated very badly because of the jim crow system that developed in our history. african-americans in the south in part influenced by whites in the south develop a culture of violence in dealing with personal insults, personal disagreements, argument and quarrels and the use of violent was common in the south and was

common amongst whites and blacks. this results in violent is the resolve of personal conflict, essentially might ignore it with the african-american population. now, the great migration was not only great, but it was really good. it was a great positive benefit to african-americans who moved away from the jim crow system, who made tremendous gains in terms of income and work opportunities, new shed that brought making labor of the sharecroppers in this in who really inspired the great civil rights movement of the 60s. but there was also this high

rate, as they say, of interpersonal violence, which was asked about the negative side of the great migration and was transferred or transported north with the bat population. by the way, this is the massive migration. in the 1960s there was about 800,000 african-americans move ahead of the south to the north and also the west coast and in the next decade a million and a half. this is quite a major migration. so unfortunately there's a lot of her luck and studio at this issue understandably very sensitive. unfortunately, this does bring a great deal of violent crime to northern cities and is a big factor in the rise of violent crime. the other two big factors and

may relate to this and am way, were first demographics. the baby boom as it has come to be known, cohort came of age so to speak, reach their most chromogenic years in the late 60s and 1970s. so those years are roughly eight team to late 20s. four males especially, this is one we expect peaks in violent and violent crimes. so of course as is well-known, we have the demographic after the war was told jurors came home, given the prosperity of the country we had many people marrying and having children, having families.

these children, the baby boom generation reached their most chromogenic years in the late 60s. and this was true for blacks than for whites. now god on our wouldn't be enough to blame the violent crime group, that something happened where crime became what we might call a contagion, where young people tend to copy the behavior of other young people. so amongst the baby boomer group we have the development of this crime contagion. and this contagion really grows like wildfire and reaches what we call a tipping point in which it explodes and that brings us to the third factor.

when the crime boom reaches the tipping point and explodes, the criminal justice system can't cope. at islam and that is the slumping of the system that provides the third major element in the greek tsunami. what happened was the police started arresting fewer people. we build numbers we can be when we look at the clearance rate of arrests per complaint for each crime. we see that the numbers actually go down in the late 60s while crime is rising. and then, the conviction or let

say case charge goes down in the present commitments for conviction actually begin to diminish and the crime served per conviction goes down. so while crime is going up and we expect the system to respond to that by arresting more people, giving them 1% is, the system in other words is caving. it can't handle the sudden and massive increase of crime. the three fact years of migration of african-americans, the impoverished african-americans are engaging in the high levels of crime in the northern cities. the baby boom and the collapse of the criminal justice system

already contribute to that contains the great crime synopsis. >> i want to focus in on this question of norms and culture of violence. where does this come from? how should we understand that? >> it is very important because we don't want to be good as making a biological argument, genetic argument that some races are more prone to crime than others. no one believes that. i certainly don't believe it. so what then accounts for some engaging in more crime than others, well, it isn't a genetic/biological ex the nation and there must be some other ex-donation. that is where their values and norms of what we call culture. so culture can be viewed as the

values and norms of a distinct group. someone at the behavior of that group. i would include over a fairly long period of time, though it can't be something short run. when a group begins adhering to certain values and when certain types of behaviors over a long period of time, we think that is the group's culture. as it happens in the course of my research, i did everything quite interesting. i'm probably not the first to discover it either. i found that poor people monopolize violent crime. that is they do the overwhelming amount. however, some for groups to more

violent crime than other groups, even though they are comparably poor, adversities may be comparable, the crime rate or not. this intrigued me. why should that be it? why should we be able to measure and find a correlation between the depths of poverty for the deaths of adversity in violent crime. usually we can't. so that led me to conclude that there must be a cultural difference is between them. apparently this is a worldwide phenomenon. i came across an article by an english criminologists. talking about asians in the u.k. and england. and he said, well, that asians are very badly treated. in england, they are good denies

in terms of discrimination. they are relatively impoverished and the situation in terms of her cities is roughly comparable but he had the afro caribbean's have much higher commission. so it struck me that this must be a universal condition because i found other examples as well in other places so that if things some groups have seen similar adversities simply do more violent than others. that is where culture must ensure in. there must be something about the values of the group, behaviors of the group over time that lead them to engage in more violent crime than other groups.

now i'm only interested in violent crime, but there could be other behaviors as well that are distinct and for some groups. i'm sure there are. but i'm only interested in the violent crime debate. >> we think about this in the united states context when you look at it in the south where you see the start of the great migration in the outflow, where does the culture come from in the united states when you begin to trace back? >> that is fascinating. i came across a book by fisher called albion speed. albion was apparently the ancient roman name for what is now called the same. this book traces the migration from england to the united stated and largely the 18th century. fisher point out that some of the migrants from england, the

immigrants from england, especially from a distinctive part of england, the portion between scotland and england were a very aggressive group of people. otherwise )-right-paren from other parts of england. it turns out the very aggressive group from these borderlands between england and scotland ended up coming to the up her ledge area roughly around had a vein in and migrating south to georgia, whereas the other groups, the puritans tended to migrate to new england. he went on to describe the norms and values and behaviors that this group that came from the borderlands and ended up in the

south. lo and behold, it turns out they were rather violent love and they were very sensitive to and told. they tended to take the law into their own hands with richard b. chin to those of you that are outlaws deserving of punishment. so they engaged in a lot of lynching that his self-imposed justice. and this became, it appears, so fisher claimed the southern culture. the southern culture of violence. this is seems grew in the south and developed in the south among the white southerners. if my hypothesis that this is

the origin of the southern culture of violence. i should explain this involves generally interpersonal conflict, where people have disputed, either long-running grudge is purchased other disputes arising out of perceived insult. these disputes are often resolved violently. this became a way of behaving in the south or it seems at least one if not two centuries or more. there are words written in the late 19th century which i came across, which compared the murder rate in the south and the murder rate in new england has been true in persistently true that in england murder rate are much lower than the southern

states. so it is my argument that this is the origin of this southern culture of violence sometimes referred to as an honor code, which sound a little, i don't know, it saturated or old-fashioned. what they mean is people are easily offended. they are very sensitive to slight and big dignities and they're willing to resort to violence to defend their, quote, on her. this culture of honor develops in the south. it is my contention that african-americans who after all words placed in the house and liberate it, but remained in the south because we have to remember 90% of the african-american population lived in the south throughout

the 19th century and into the early decades of the 20th century. the great migration begins turn-of-the-century but really accelerates the 1920 and then in the 1940s with the wars that provide job opportunities. it is my contention in the late-night century, african-american essentially developed because at the end flew in by their white neighbors this on our culture, culture of violence. it is my claim that because of the jim crow system, because of the raise in the country, because laughs were not too advanced for a middle-class until really late in the 20th century, this culture of

violence is perpetuated throughout the 20th century and the lower income african-american country. so that is why when we have the migration of this group, that is why we have this transportation of violence without group. >> one of the things you mentioned when talking about the culture of the south in such regions for this date often has little power to compliance with the law and systems have to create their own reporter, they are doing this as retaliation. can you talk more about the relative lack of control in the south that have contributed to this question? >> this is very important. and the south, especially the rural areas really had no policing to satisfy a noted both of the lynchings that took place

to place in rural areas and numbers of these. and so, if you have an area, you have a much greater likelihood of people taking the law into their own hands. so this is what happened without. the south remains largely rural. the big cities were numbers because they were in the northeast. the immigrants from europe who packed those goodies salt of what south. so the south remained isolated and largely rural and this really excited to this culture taking the law into your own hands, engaging in violent to respond to consult, perceived or

real and dignity. that is why this honor culture, this culture of violence takes root more in the south. >> recently "the los angeles times" put in genocide or she argued that there was basically given up to today this cultural stated difference, violence in the african-american community. do you think we see something similar term in the culture in this time. with a statement like the african-american community and also contribute this cultural retribution, that need to back. >> yeah, i read the book, very interesting. i know of course she felt as most as most contemporary books do on black victimization market to the station without looking at the bears. i think you need to look at both

sides of the story. i have heard it said and i suppose there is someone i've been under police and in black communities, but of course also there is the claim that there's over policing of black communities. is this responsible for people taking the law into their own hands? i am not fully persuaded. it is more likely simply that is the traditional way of handling things and if you are insulted, if you are offended, you take care of business. the results of violent. oftentimes, the young men are members of gangs of his you have quarrels between gangs. this is just the next tension of that kind of interpersonal

violence. i don't think it's a matter of a lack of policing. i think it is just that is the way things are done and they've always been done that way. so i was in full agreement with leaving it. i wasn't in full agreement with the point. in fact, i know that where police made more arrests of let's say homicide and the current rate used to be much higher for homicide, black crime didn't go down. in fact, it went to. i am not persuaded at least with

respect to very serious assaults of crime would really change this culture of violence. can i go off on another issues lately different but related to? what will change, what will change culture? i think once people at dance to the middle-class, these changes are culture because once you move to the middle-class and this is any group whether african-american combo white ethnic groups, doesn't matter. once people move through the middle-class, they develop strong distant days for obvious reasons. use your family, your job, a

pariah in your community. he probably end up in prison as well. there are very good reason not to engage in violence if you are the middle-class. by contrast, if you are a jones google mail and you don't seem to have a lot of lucrative opportunities ahead of you, then you don't have a lot of disincentives and that is why it is the job, low income mail most likely to engage and most to accept to be a part of this culture. so i think it's your if you will for the culture of violence is

the movement to the middle-class. by the way, this is not just speculation on my part. when i studied there earlier. , not quite -- not quite yet in print, that pre-1940s, i saw very high crime rate among mexicans who came to the united states for money 20s and southern italians between night 29010. what happened with these groups, especially the italian, of course they've melted and move to the middle class. they moved up the socioeconomic ladder and of course they shed their involvement with violent crime. this also happened, by the way, the irish are at high risk of violent crime.

once they were able to move to the middle class, their culture of violence is abandoned because it would ill serve them now. and so, they simply engaging in violent crimes. i firmly believe as we dismantle our racist crack this in this country and we have gone a long way towards doing so already, as we continue to do so and thus african-american become more middle-class, this discussion that we have about hybrid of african american violent crime will not be made any longer, will be a discussion of some pain. >> let's get into why crime is

because in the 1990s we see a decline in crime as precipitous. what are the factors that lead to this dramatic change? >> it was a sudden and dramatic as the rise in crime actually. crime begins to fall in the early night teen 80s. i think that happens because the baby boom generation, the major players here in the crime began to age out. aging out as you well know is a well-known phenomenon among criminals. young men, roughly eight team to let say late 20s or perhaps

early 30s at the mouse engage in most violent crimes as they age, as they move into middle 30s and beyond, they begin to retire from violent crimes. so what happened is the baby boom generation begins to age out. my hypothesis is that we continue to happen. the crime but has continued to fall but for a new phenomenon that really threw a monkey wrench into the whole crime reduction and that was the crack epidemic. so that became the new contagion. it takes place in the late 1980s, 1987-night and 88 comic genius through the early night tonight and is and when the

epidemic and 1993-1994, the crime rates continue to fall and they keep on falling. we have a new crime tribe, a new low. for violent crime. >> you say we have this mini bubble created. why doesn't this take us skyrocketing again? >> it did skyrocket crime as a matter of fact in the late 80s and early 90s. why does it continue? that is what is fascinating. this is another contagion, a phenomenon for young people who tend to copy one another's behavior, we know they are very good to young people who tend to

copy one another's behavior is begin with this contagion relating to. even though intellectually they may know that cocaine use, the likelihood of being arrested, the shootings that take place among the gang, all of these negatives are perhaps intellectually known to the young people, but it doesn't matter because everyone is doing it. it is cool, copied and therefore becomes a contagion and reaches a tipping point. this cocaine business is available for a majors taken

crime because first of all, the people who become addicted to trent seven so-called were you to have that cooking process, the appellate cocaine. cocaine mixed with other things. these pellets when he did give off a vapor and a vapor if inhaled gives the euphoria that the cocaine user craze. this euphoria, which is extremely intense wears off and maybe 10 minutes or so and then there is a craving for another. now if you are poor and cracked cocaine caught on because it was sold small, inexpensive amount,

$2, $5 am the $20 at the most support people could afford it. then they become hooked. so you have this craving for more cocaine, how are you going to get it? you can see where we are going with it. obviously, the nails are you engaging in robberies, violent crime. females being led to the nonviolent theft, prostitution, whatever they needed to do to raise the money for more cocaine. the cocaine mathematic really stimulate robberies, muggings. the other thing that causes are murderers and aggravated

assault. because the distribution gang, organized gang that distribute the cocaine begin to compete with one another for terrorists. obviously, they can't complain. this other gang is in posting on my territory. i want a court order to make them stop. this is not going to work but the legal substance. by the way, we saw the same phenomenon in the prohibition era, the alcohol gang did the same kind of thing. they started killing one another in a territorial competition. these murder and assault when it is in effect is, when they didn't kill the guy, but just seriously wounded him, really spikes the murder rate.

these are very young people and they were well armed. he had been which they had gained illegally. so this was a deadly combination that you can see why this cause crime to go through the roof while you had a major spike in crime in the late 80s and early 90s. and that really snuffs out the nascent trough, the nascent decline that had begun. so what happened with that question are by the early days, i guess because law enforcement had toughened up, because people were dying from the cocaine use, they were overdosing very potent, because they were getting other diseases that may

use of the drug. heart disease, all sorts of pharmacological-based disorders could arise out of cocaine because many were now been arrested. criminal justices had toughened up in the six days and many were arrested and sent off to prison. many were shot and wounded or killed because of the cocaine wars. suddenly, cocaine became uncool and the realizations that my strap. as they say intellectually, they always know it, but now i believe we have a contagion in reverse with a copied the

abandonment of cocaine. this is not just speculation. in fact, there was a study in manhattan where their tested the people who were and they found out of course with her age was been determined through testing what drugs they were using if any. what they found was those who were older had been using hair would come of the drug of choice before cocaine came in. those who are younger have been using trans seven and has to start year use dropped off dramatically. even by people who were arrested. so we know the use was declining dramatically in 1993-1994 and

that is exactly what the current spike begins. poster obviously explaining the crime.this one of terminology's most popular pastimes. two of those explanations, the ones we hear most often in the media are of course the hypothesis that legal abortion played an important role in bringing crime down and reduction use of leaded gasoline brings the crime rates down. what do you think about these theories? >> i don't think they are correct. there is quantitative evidence to support researchers against the study. the colleague in the abortion study are very able with situations in each of their

studies very carefully. and i have been also mythological criticism that i've seen, especially the abortion study and a very good criticism that the backtrack on some things. but i think there is a bigger problem. the argument is this. abortion wasn't legal until the mid-1970s. when it became legal, a lot of unwanted babies were never born. now, there is a premise here and the premises had these unwanted tvs been born and had they lived and had they reached the criminal agenda appears eight team to the late 20s, it's more likely they would've engaged in criminal act

committee. since they were aborted and didn't live, there are fewer people to engage in crime. that is the abortion. a nutshell. if it becomes legal in the mid-70s and you add roughly 18 years to that, that correspond beautifully with the midnight tea 90s when crime falls. the only trouble with that is the same cohort of people with lots of abortion reducing the constellation also lived through the period of the cocaine primaries. the same younger cohort was responsible for the crime rise. so i don't understand how could we the same generation, the same

cold war shorn of the people who are unwanted and aborted could engage in lots of crime in the late 80s and early 90s and be responsible for the crime rise which happened a few years later. the same criticism applies to the gasoline study. the same cohort that by the way of buzz the clean air act which was also passed in the 1970s, which forced the removal of lead from gasoline, which is a great health benefit to everybody. well, it turns out lead in the blood stream is associated with aggressive behavior and maybe even with crime. the argument similar to the abortion argument is if you have people who now have led in their

bloodstream, they will engage in less crime. so at eight years to the clean air act and you have a drop in crime. again, unfortunately the same people blessed with less blood in their bloodstream also were putting trans heaven in their bloodstream and engaging and a lot of violent crime in the early 90s. i think these two theories are probably interesting but flawed, provocatively flawed. >> host: looking forward today we see the headlines coming out of chicago at a popular past time to sit just enjoying may now be at an end. what do you think about this? >> maybe. we don't know.

criminologists are cautious because we know that one has to see a trend. we can't go by when you're spikes because when you're spikes may just be one-year phenomenon. when i look at the latest homicide figures are the 10 biggest cities in the country, i look back to 2010 and they figure that at least look at the last five years because we didn't have the data passed 2015. when i look at the last five years, i didn't find the crime was higher. it was lower. so we need a trend before we get to conclude the trough is over.

alternatively, i would want to see some of the signals, their bad flag, the kind of phenomena we saw it earlier. when crime rose. so i don't look at the figures for one year for two years or three years, the crime figures. i want to see some of the other red flags. for instance, do we have a demographic indicating we are getting more young people in the high crime figures? no, we don't. in fact, the population is aging. they are not a violent crime

threat. so i don't see that demographic factor. as you recall in the late 60s from the demographics was huge. are we see and a migration or immigration of group with high rates of interpersonal violence, honor cultures and something along those lines? no, i don't see that. yet there is no illegal migration of the mexican and yes, they do have high crime rate. but it seems to be manageable. i don't see anything growing way out of proportion and becoming unmanageable, at least so far. plus i think we are reaching a political says that the border really does have to be closed off. you can't keep on with this situation where people can enter the united state illegally.

both the left and the right, democrats and republicans are reaching consensus. so i don't see the immigration and migration of high crime groups. those immigrants who are coming in the country that saved the aging population or the eastern european population have rather low crime rate. so if anything, they are contributing to stability and not threatening to raise those raised. certainly, the criminal justice system has been strengthened intact and although i think we are also reaching a can send says that his two punitive to be relaxed a bit.

so take in all in all, i don't see a lot of red flags. so does that mean that the spikes are not a harbinger of high crime rate? no, i wouldn't be so foolish enough to say that because i remember reading daniel bell, one of the leading intellectuals of the 60s. he wrote a wonderful little essay explaining why early 1960s there was no crime problem of any serious nature in the united state. and yet we have a bit of a gang problem to be taken seriously and there may be a lack crime problem, but it's not a racial or genetic thing. not to worry.

there may be a problem with organized crime, but that really doesn't threaten the average person. so all told there is no crime problem. a few years later we have the huge crime tsunami and it was massive and obviously didn't see it coming. if one of the leading intellectuals can go wonder that way, i better be more cautious. so i won't say out that they not we are not going to have a crime rise. what i would say is we need to be vigilant. >> host: one thing you talked about earlier is anything in the 90s, that just assist in the capacity really helped her in the crime rate down obviously invoke now releasing their recommendation. what do you see as the potential

impact of this and where is this going to take a violent crime? >> first of all, i notice having read several books from now on mass incarceration as it is called and i wonder if it is really not because only one half of 1% of the population. in any event, i noticed in all these folks about massive corporation there is no discussion of current. if it is as if incarceration just happens. we engaged in this massive block of those people, that there was no crime involved. i'm amazed at some of these books. i think they are only telling half the story. yes, there was a huge increase in our perspiration rates. no question about that.

although we need to look not only at incarceration rate. we need to look at time served for crime that is in some ways it better in decatur of our incarceration system. in any event, this massive buildup in our imprisonment for some definitely in my view had a positive and packed in terms of crime reduction. just from the standpoint of keeping people in prison from praying against innocent victims, just from that standpoint alone, nevermind that turn. just the fact that you protect the population by locking people

up in the very violent crimes and repeat them as soon as they get out. battle mode has a protective beneficial impact. almost all of the study is that of what that relationship, quantitative study of the relationship between incarceration and crime have found there is definitely a positive relationship between incarceration and the decline of crime. now, what risks do we face if we make the system less punitive? my answer is that depends on what we do and how we do it. if we are going to reduce the incarceration of serious offenders, people who do violent crime. and after all, while over half

the people and present have committed violent crime in only 15% of those in prison have done drug crime and roughly three quarters of that population has been drug traffickers. so it is a myth to say some kids smoking a marijuana cigarette ends up serving a long prison sentence. that is just not true. so everything depends on how we do it. if we have reformed such as reducing the isolation of young prisoners, keeping young prisoners from being placed in isolation for a fairly long periods of time. i don't see this as a risk. this is a beneficial thing to do. there's a lot of harm that could

come in isolation for long. time. so i don't have any problem with that sort of proof on. but if we are going to establish our reform but to establish long innocent lives than people who have done serious crime of violence or nonviolence, burglary for instance, grand larceny for very serious crimes. arson is a very serious property crime. those folks need to be locked to. so if we are going to engage in reform that make the system much more punitive for people who deserve the punishment, i think that would be an error and i

think we team the criminal justice system could be a problem. there is a theory about violent crime cycles developed by a crime historian who unfortunately died a few years ago. his theory was this. he said that when you have a relaxation of social can troll and he didn't define what the semantics that way, but i take this to include the criminal justice system posted the at least as part of the equation. when you have a relaxation of social control, after a lag. of years, you look at an increase in crime, especially violent crime. then of course there will be a lot of pressure to reactivate

social controls to control this violent. once these controls are put in place, again this would include toughening up, and a hardening up of criminal justice. then you get a reduction in violent crime and the cycle will then continue. after the reduction takes place, there will be pressure is and we see these pressures now. there will be pressures to reduce social controls and you'll get an increase in violent again. so we may be looking at that type of situation now where we are reducing social controls and maybe running the risk of a new increase in violence. >> incredibly important

consensus for anyone asking of how we'll balance the need of justice with the needs of public safety. this has been an incredible book. "the rise and fall of violent crime in america." a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how american parents are devout, what our history as an on where we are going. thank you so much for taking time today. >> it was a pleasure. thank you so much. >> .tv is on location at the university of madison was on thin. we attacking with authors and we are pleased to be joined now i am emeritus professor, gerry adams. his book is called living through life, a farm by