Answer:
- After decades of soaring levels of homicides and drug violence, the country's crime rate plunged dramatically over the last 25 years. ... In the early 1990s, U.S. crime rates had been on a steep upward climb since the Lyndon B. ... Did they see similar declines when they liberalized their abortion laws?
Explanation:
Then crime rates went down. And then they kept going down.
By decade’s end, the homicide rate plunged 42 percent nationwide. Violent crime decreased by one-third. What turned into a precipitous decline started later in some areas and took longer in others. But it happened everywhere: in each region of the country, in cities large and small, in rural and urban areas alike. In the Northeast, which reaped the largest benefits, the homicide rate was halved. Murders plummeted by 75 percent in New York City alone as the city entered the new millennium.
The trend kept ticking downward from there, more slowly and with some fluctuations, to the present day. By virtually any metric, Americans now live in one of the least violent times in the nation’s history.
MORE IN THIS SERIES
A&Q
Questioning popular answers to pressing conundrums
What Can the U.S. Do About Mass Incarceration?
CLARE FORAN
How Can the U.S. End Homelessness?
ALANA SEMUELS
SPONSOR CONTENT
The dangerous world of insurance inspection
ALLSTATE
What Should the World Do With Its Nuclear Weapons?
Just look it up and write it out
Answer:
Explanation:
Pros:
Repair: Rather than simply dealing with crime in a clinical way, restorative justice acknowledges that it causes real harm to real people and real communities, helping everyone involved better understand a holistic view of the effects of crime.
Encounter: By bringing the victim and offender together in a safe way, the offender is given the chance to make amends rather than only deal with the legal consequences of their actions.
Transformation: The restorative process is designed to help bring about transformation in both parties. Some studies have indicated that restorative justice methods are more effective in improving victim-offender satisfaction, increasing the likelihood that the offender will comply with consequences or restitution, and decreasing the chance that offenders will reoffend in the future.
Cons:
In the case of a violent crime in which the victim and offender knew each other before the incident took place, the victim may want no further contact with the offender. In cases in which violence became a pattern, such as in a domestic abuse situation, attempts at preserving a toxic victim-offender relationship may be much more dangerous than potentially helpful.
Restorative justice also assumes that the offender is remorseful and willing to make amends, which may not always be true. In the case of in-person meetings, even if they’re monitored, there’s always the possibility that communications will deteriorate and cause the victim additional emotional or mental trauma.
On the other hand, even if the offender is remorseful, there’s no guarantee that the victim will be open to receiving an apology. Things may take a very different turn, and the victim or victims may interrogate the offender in a way that doesn’t turn out to be beneficial.
In instances of minor crimes, sometimes attempts at restorative justice may lead to a criminal receiving a lighter sentence or avoiding a criminal record altogether. Whether or not this is just can vary on a case-to-case basis.
