No Time For Crime: More Religious Communities Have Lower Rates Of Black, White and Latino Violence

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/no-time-for-crime-study-f_b_4384046.html

David BriggsWriter, Association of Religion Data Archives

No Time For Crime: Study Finds More Religious Communities Have Lower Rates Of Black, White and Latino Violence
Posted: 12/04/2013 10:03 am

Can religion help reduce violent crime?

Some new research suggests the answer is yes, both by creating a moral climate that fosters respect among neighbors and by helping to form individual consciences of young adults.

Violent crime decreased as greater numbers of people were religiously active in a community, according to a study analyzing crime and religion data from 182 counties in three states.

The effect was particularly pronounced in black violence in disadvantaged communities that are most likely to have the highest number of victims.

"In the big picture, religious presence seems to matter to the amount of violence and crime in a community," says Jeffery Ulmer, a professor of sociology and crime, law and justice at Pennsylvania State University who led the county-level study. "It matters to blacks, whites and Latinos."

more at link

[trotsky]

1. Way to score one for your team, cbayer!

Well done!

(As long as we don't dwell too long wondering why the USA, a highly religious nation, has so much more crime than European countries, which are far less religious.)

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. A curious suggestion...

...considering the overwhelming majority of American criminals self-identify as religious, and, as others have noted, the high crime rate of the atypically religious United States.

[cbayer]

4. Do they identity as religious once they are arrested and incarcerated or before that?

The US is not really atypically religious. It only appears so when compared to relatively wealthy, primarily anglo-saxon, industrialized countries.

And there is a very clear correlation between religiosity and poverty.

So this isn't really inconsistent with any of that.

[trotsky]

7. So when compared with other countries that are similar in other major socioeconomic factors,

the USA is more religious.

In other words, it's atypical. The exact opposite of what you're claiming.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. It is extremely inconsistent

The United States is atypically religious compared to other nations of its class, and its violent crime rate is atypically high. I don't mean to represent this as a causal relationship; I think we can both agree it is not. However, given these numbers, the increased religiosity doesn't seem to do anything to deter violent crime, which is what the author of cited article proposes.

As to the religious identification of incarcerated criminals, that is a moot point. Even if self-identifying atheists/agnostics/unaffiliated believers were proportionately represented in America's prisons--which they are not--they would still comprise around 16% of the inmate population. Again, the overwhelming majority are religious.

The numbers are so stacked against him, I honestly have no idea how the author arrived at his conclusion. Louisiana, an overwhelmingly religious state--the state of state-sponsored vouchers to religious schools--has the highest violent crime rate in the country. Something is amiss here.

[okasha]

11. The United States is atypical

in two other ways that have a direct causal relationship to our atypically high crime rate: the ready availability of firearms and a flourishing illegal drug trade. New Orleans is a major point of entry for the latter.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. And I say again...

The United States is atypically religious compared to other nations of its class, and its violent crime rate is atypically high. I don't mean to represent this as a causal relationship; I think we can both agree it is not. However, given these numbers, the increased religiosity doesn't seem to do anything to deter violent crime, which is what the author of cited article proposes.

[okasha]

21. Can you cite a study which shows

that persons with the religous commmunity context and and the moral formation that goes with it are in fact as likely/more likely to commit violent crimes that persons from other social contexts?

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Certainly

Does Religion Really Reduce Crime?
Paul Heaton
Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 49, No. 1 (April 2006), pp. 147-172
Published by: The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School
Article DOI: 10.1086/501087
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501087

The author found religious participation had no significant effect on the frequency of property or violent crime; that crime is more likely to affect religiosity than vice versa.

Meanwhile, simple demographics pulled from the US Federal Bureau of Prisons shows atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated believers--who account for 20% of the total population--comprise a paltry 0.07% of the country's incarcerated population.

As I've stated, I am making no inference as to the cause of the disparity, but simple statistics shows religious people are more likely to commit crimes--or at least get themselves arrested, tried and found guilty of crimes--than are the non-religious.

[okasha]

23. You answered a question I didn't ask.

The study shows that religion has no effect on the frequency of property or violent crime. My question was, and is, whether you could cite a study that indicates that religion and/or religious background is conducive to higher rates of such crimes.

[eqfan592]

24. I believe what you're asking was never actually a claim made by the person you're replying to.

The op was making an argument for the use of religion as a crime reduction method. It was then shown that this would appear not to hold true under scrutiny. Not entirely sure why you're going on this other tack.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. O rly?

Can you cite a study which shows that persons with the religious community context and and the moral formation that goes with it are in fact as likely/more likely to commit violent crimes that persons from other social contexts?

What you originally asked is a question of simple statistics. The data provided from the Bureau of Prisons provides a sufficient answer: self-identifying religious people are more likely to become incarcerated than are their non-religious counterparts.

My question was, and is, whether you could cite a study that indicates that religion and/or religious background is conducive to higher rates of such crimes.

This isn't the same question. Now, you're asking me for data which suggests a causal relationship between religiosity and criminality. I've already said, repeatedly, that I am not making a causal claim, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't waste my time defending it.

[okasha]

34. Okay. Another question.

Do the people who self-identify as "religious" in prison also self-identify as "religious" before arrest? I. e., are they "jailhouse converts" baptized in the jail shower just before their parole hearings, or were they religious before committing the crimes that landed them in the pokey?

[Jim__]

33. What is the source for your claim that the 0.07% includes unaffiliated believers?

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Your claim:

Meanwhile, simple demographics pulled from the US Federal Bureau of Prisons shows atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated believers--who account for 20% of the total population--comprise a paltry 0.07% of the country's incarcerated population.

According to this article (my bolding), based on a report on federal prisons, they do not:

For starters the numbers reported are only of the federal prisoners, about 218,000 people, not of all prisons in America, and they only cover a self-reported religious affiliation or lack thereof by the inmates themselves. Keeping all this in mind, the data showed that 0.07% of the inmates were atheists, 28.7% Protestants, 24% Catholics, 5.5% Muslims, and 3.1% American Indians. In addition 3% of the inmates listed “other” as religious affiliation, and 3.44% were “unknown”. We cannot assume that those who listed “other” or “unknown” have no religious affiliation; they might have religious affiliation and didn’t want to declare it, or they might not. Lastly 17% of the inmates reported no religious preference. We cannot make assumptions as to what this means either, they may be either religious but with no particular church affiliation, may be spiritual, non-spiritual, and they may even be “nones” (atheists/non-religious) as defined by some sociologists.

According to wikipedia, the actual number puts it right in line with the national estimate of unaffiliated:

The majority of Americans (73–80%) identify themselves as Christians and about 15–20% have no religious affiliation.[2][3] According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 25% identifying themselves as Catholics, and 51% identifying themselves as Christians spanning some 30 religious groupings.[2][4] The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply.[2] According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.[5]

Also, your claim:

... simple statistics shows religious people are more likely to commit crimes--or at least get themselves arrested, tried and found guilty of crimes--than are the non-religious.

is not accurate. What the data actually show is that inmates are more likely to self-identify as religious or non-affiliated than as atheists.

[okasha]

35. +1

And whoever produced this data either needs to report that 3.1 self-identify as "Native American Traditional" or recognize that "Native American" is an ethnicity, not a religion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. The inclusion of unaffiliated was my misunderstanding

The article you posted cites the source; if you follow the link to Hemant Mehta's blog, he has the original document scanned and uploaded as a pdf.

Also, your claim:

... simple statistics shows religious people are more likely to commit crimes--or at least get themselves arrested, tried and found guilty of crimes--than are the non-religious.


is not accurate. What the data actually show is that inmates are more likely to self-identify as religious or non-affiliated than as atheists.

That's fair enough, but I would also point out that prisoners are more likely to self-identify as believers than any other demographic--Catholic and Protestant in particular. This doesn't say anything as to their religiosity, or what their religious preferences were prior to their incarceration, but, again, sheer demographics suggests a fair portion of them probably self-identified as believers prior to their arrests. Even if they did not, with recidivism rates for federal prisoners hovering between 60-75%, the claim that religiosity reduces crime becomes doubly dubious.

[trotsky]

37. "doubly dubious"... heh

Well obviously, according to some, atheists are committing all these crimes, then PRETENDING to be religious when they get caught and put in jail, then getting released and going back to the evil atheistic lifestyle and committing crimes again.

Duh!

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. That is essentially what is being alleged...

It must be more comfortable than admitting crime is a function of other factors which, if intense enough, supersede faith in the big man upstairs.

[Jim__]

38. First, you're trying to compare apples and oranges without full access to either.

Look at the abstract for Ulmer and Harris' study (my bolding):

Research has demonstrated that concentrated disadvantage and other measures are strongly associated with aggregate-level rates of violence, including across racial and ethnic groups. Less studied is the impact of cultural factors, including religious contextual measures. The current study addresses several key gaps in prior literature by utilizing race/ethnic-specific arrest data from California, New York, and Texas paired with religious contextual data from the Religious Congregations and Memberships Survey. Results suggest that, net of important controls, (1) religious contextual measures have significant crime-reducing associations with violence; (2) these associations are race/ethnic specific; and (3) religious contextual measures moderate the criminogenic association between disadvantage and violence for blacks. Implications for future research are discussed.

Their study seems to be mostly concerned with violent crime and how religiosity affects that. The percentages that you cite have to do with total federal inmate population. What percentage of federal inmates are in prison for the type of crime this study was concerned with?

Here are the conclusions the study reached:

• Black and white violence decreased significantly as the percentage rose of county residents who belonged to congregations or were regular attenders.
• Black and Latino violence was lower in communities where residents belonged to similar types of religious institutions, indicating faith groups from similar traditions were able to exert greater influence on community values when they had a significant presence.
• Religious homogeneity was not associated with overall rates of white violence, but further breakdowns showed communities with larger percentages of evangelicals had lower rates of white violence. Latino violence was significantly reduced in communities with large numbers of active Catholics.
• Black violence dipped dramatically in counties with high levels of poverty, unemployment and low levels of education where large percentages of residents were active in congregations. This is a key finding, as communities with severe social and economic disadvantages are more likely to have high violent crime rates.

You are citing percentages of inmates as evidence that religiosity doesn't reduce crime. But, suppose two counties were demographically similar except that one is more religious (note the breakdown of religious identity can be similar, but one has, say, higher church attendance) and that the more religious county had a significantly lower crime rate. Would that show up in the self-identified religious percentages of the inmates from those counties?

You need more information to come to any conclusions about that study.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. No, I'm not

That religiosity has no deterrent effect on crime was the conclusion of the previous paper I cited:

This paper provides new evidence regarding the effect of religiosity on crime rates. Previous research has empirically tested causal models of religiosity and crime using OLS regressions. Using a cross‐sectional county‐level data set from the year 2000, I am able to generate findings similar to those of a number of past sociological and economic studies that find a negative and significant relationship between religious adherence and crime. A simple model of crime and religiosity suggests, however, that OLS estimation in this context will be biased and inconsistent because of the endogeneity of religious participation. Using historic rates of religious adherence as an instrument, I estimate the model using 2SLS estimation and compare the results to OLS estimation. For most categories of crime, religious adherence is negatively affected by increases in crime rates, which leads OLS estimates to be biased toward a finding that religion reduces the incidence of crime. Controlling for endogeneity, I find no statistically significant relationship between religious adherence and property crime or violent crime. There is some evidence that religion may encourage crime in areas with greater population or few religious adherents.

[Jim__]

41. Yes, you are.

First, citing federal inmate religious statistics to show that religion doesn't inhibit crime - specifically violent crime - is comparing apples to oranges. You did that.

Second, do you have full access to both studies? The study you cited, the excerpt you cited, does not talk about race/ethnicity, Ulmer and Harris specifically looked at that:

The current study addresses several key gaps in prior literature by utilizing race/ethnic-specific arrest data from California, New York, and Texas paired with religious contextual data from the Religious Congregations and Memberships Survey.

Does your study specifically look at race ethnicity? If so, does it look at it in the same way that Ulmer Harris do?

They also refer to gaps in prior literature. Did they look at the study you cite or any study that incorporated its results? I would be quite surprised if Ulmer and Harris did not look at the study that you cite, or at least studies that were derived from it as part of the prior literature that they refer to.

Again, you don't have enough information to critize this study, never mind claim that it's wrong.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. No, I'm not

First, citing federal inmate religious statistics to show that religion doesn't inhibit crime - specifically violent crime - is comparing apples to oranges. You did that.

No, I didn't. I cited federal inmate religious statistics to show religious people were represented in inmate populations in greater proportions than were non-believers. This relates to the likelihood of criminal behavior across different religious demographics, not to the deterrent effect of religion, which is a separate question addressed by a different study.

Second, do you have full access to both studies?

Yes, I do.

The study you cited, the excerpt you cited, does not talk about race/ethnicity, Ulmer and Harris specifically looked at that:

No, the study I cited does not address race. Nor does it matter. The study was published prior to Ulmer and Harris' paper; it addresses the shortcomings of OLS regressions in regards to correlative studies on religion and crime. Ulmer and Harris utilize SUR regressions, which is essentially the same methodology, corrected for efficiency. I can't speak as to why Ulmer and Harris didn't address the criticisms of their selected methodology, but I don't find it nearly as unusual as you do.

My wife uses cryo-electron microscopy to build three dimensional reconstructions of virus particles. Some scientists prefer crystalography. She certainly does't feel compelled to note that in her every publication, and I doubt Ulmer and Harris would feel compelled to address Heaton's preference for 2SLS regressions.

[Jim__]

43. Racial/ethnic criteria are the basis for the studies conclusion.

Yet you claim, based on a 2006 study that didn't look at race/ethnicity, that race ethnicity doesn't matter. Yet Ulmer and Harris, who did look at race ethnicity claim that it does:

(1) religious contextual measures have significant crime-reducing associations with violence; (2) these associations are race/ethnic specific; and (3) religious contextual measures moderate the criminogenic association between disadvantage and violence for blacks.

An example of the type of race/ethnic specificity that they found:

First, our study reveals that county level religious adherence is associated with reduced white and black violence, while civically engaged religious adherence (belonging to denominations characterized by greater civic outreach) is
associated with reduced white (but not black orLatino) violence. In addition, religious homogeneity is associated with reduced
black and Latino (but not white) violent crime. The type of religious homogeneity (i.e., the degree of religious tradition
uniformity among religious adherents) matters as well. Evangelical Protestant religious homogeneity is associated with reduced
white violence (but not black or Latino) violence, while Catholic religious homogeneity is associated with reduced Latino (but
not black or white) violence. Specifically, when religious adherence favors Evangelical Protestants or Catholics, there are
associated reductions in white and Latino violence, respectively. Clearly, religious contexts have important relationships with
violence, apart from structural disadvantage and other important predictors of violence; and macro level religious
characteristics impact black, white, and Latino violence differently. This makes sense in light of the well known tendency for
U.S. churches to be racially and ethnically homogeneous.

The Sociological Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal. So, if the article you cited had conclusively demonstrated that the methodology used by Ulmer / Harris is invalid, the reviewers should have rejected it. What we have is 2 peer reviewed articles. One from 2006 that did not look at the type of data that led the 2013 study to its conclusions. Yet you claim that the 2006 article somehow invalidates or overrides the 2013 article. Apparently, the reviewers accept the methodology used by Ulmer / Harris. Since the study you are citing did not look at the very specific criteria this study cites in reaching its conclusion, I don't accept that your cited study addresses this study.

IOW, you have not shown sufficient information to claim that this study reached an invalid conclusion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. If you're going to continue stuffing words in my mouth, this is going to get rather pointless

Yet you claim, based on a 2006 study that didn't look at race/ethnicity, that race ethnicity doesn't matter.

No, I'm not saying race/ethnicity don't matter. I'm saying that whether the study I cited addresses race/ethnicity is irrelevant because it deals specifically with the methodology employed by the Ulmer/Harris paper. What about that aren't you getting?

The Sociological Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal.

That's fantastic. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean, ipso facto, the conclusions reached by the investigators are, well, conclusive. It means their research meets the standards expected by their peers, and I certainly never accused the authors of performing shoddy science.

Yet you claim that the 2006 article somehow invalidates or overrides the 2013 article.

No, I don't. The article points out a shortcoming in the methodology employed by Ulmer and Harris, demonstrating different results when alternative statistical analyses are used. Does this invalidate Ulmer and Harris' conclusions? NO, especially when one considers their field is non-experimental. Rather, Heaton's criticism is a caveat one must consider when evaluating Ulmer and Harris' conclusions, and is reason enough not to treat their work as the end-all, be-all explanation.

[Jim__]

45. Don't tell me I'm stuffing words in your mouth.

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

From your post #44:

No, I'm not saying race/ethnicity don't matter.

And from your post #42:

No, the study I cited does not address race. Nor does it matter.

And, yes, it does matter whether or not the study you cited addresses race. The potential problem he cites, endogeneity, can be eliminated by the incorporation of previously omitted variables, e.g. race/ethnicity.

Also from your post #44:

The article points out a shortcoming in the methodology employed by Ulmer and Harris, demonstrating different results when alternative statistical analyses are used.

Since Heaton's study did not include race/ethnicity as a variable in the study, it can't (and, of course, doesn't) claim that the Ulmer's results are different when using different a analysis.

Rather, Heaton's criticism is a caveat one must consider when evaluating Ulmer and Harris' conclusions, and is reason enough not to treat their work as the end-all, be-all explanation.

No one, including Ulmer and Harris, is claiming that their study is the be-all explanation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. And we're done here

And, yes, it does matter whether or not the study you cited addresses race. The potential problem he cites, endogeneity, can be eliminated by the incorporation of previously omitted variables, e.g. race/ethnicity.

Who is making that claim? Certainly not Ulmer and Harris, who do not mention it once in their paper. Yes, they are incorporating new variables, but they are still using the same regression model to correlate religiosity and crime. Seeing as they did not employ 2SLS in their analysis, I fail to see how they've adequately accounted for that uncertainty.

I tire of reiterating the same point. You can accept Heaton's criticisms or you can reject them. It makes no difference to me.

[cbayer]

16. Louisiana has some of the highest rates of poverty and lowest scores in

education in the country. That's the direct correlation, in my opinion..

The school vouchers issue is a complete red herring. That is a program pursued by middle class white people to keep their kids away from the schools populated by poor black people.

I think the problem at hand is multifactorial and would not suggest that religion is a single or even a substantial contributor to decreased levels of crime. I do, however, think it probably plays a role that is worth exploring.

[trotsky]

17. Interestingly, if you look at previous studies published by this David Briggs fellow...

religion and religious beliefs are seemingly ALWAYS responsible for a positive outcome. What a happy coincidence!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. ...his results are internally consistent, so he must be doctoring them?

I think you need to think that one through a little more.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Whose results?

David Briggs is a journalist, not a researcher.

[trotsky]

20. I think you need to think through your post a little more. n/t

[safeinOhio]

3. Then there is this….

Percentage of atheists in federal prison is even lower than we had thought.

Hemant filed a Freedom of Information request with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and they provided the information.  Hemant has the full breakdown over at his site, but the short story is that the percentage of self-identified atheists in the federal prison system is 0.07%.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/07/percentage-of-atheists-in-federal-prison-is-even-lower-than-we-had-thought/


Perhaps they are less likely to get caught or have better lawyers….NOT.

[cbayer]

5. It's really unclear what any of that means.

Data I have seen on atheists show them to be somewhat demographically homogenous - white, middle to upper middle class, employed, educated. That might explain the data you are linking to, as that is a population with a low incarceration rate in general.

I think this article attempts to explore the role of religion within communities and the impact it may have on crime levels.

[safeinOhio]

6. Yep, unclear.

Do communities with religion have less crime, or do communities with less crime have more religion?

[rug]

8. Atheists tend to be more economically privileged.

[eqfan592]

25. In other words, religion is not the deciding factor.

Glad you agree, rug.

[rug]

26. My own words are fine. Especially compared to a mistatement.

Economics trumps everything.

Politics 101.

[eqfan592]

27. You call it a misstatement, then make a statement that says otherwise.

So, thanks for agreeing with me yet again.

[rug]

28. That's because it is. I won't repeat myself.

[eqfan592]

29. No need to repeat anyway, as the conversation is visible to all.

[rug]

30. Oh, I thought this was posted in invisible pixels.

Well, if it isn't, you should be embarrassed.

[eqfan592]

31. Lol, just for you, rug. nt

[Jim__]

10. I wonder if it's specific to religious communities or if strong community ties would suffice.

I believe it is harder to commit a violent crime against a member of a community when a potential criminal has strong ties to that community. Religion is an environment where strong community ties will develop. Strong secular communities based on things like sports, education, etc, might have similar effects.

[cbayer]

14. I agree that there are a lot of variables at play here.

Their data and methods seem fairly sound, from what limited information is available, but variable control is going to be really difficult when one asks this kind of question.

I suspect that strong community has a major factor.

[intaglio]

12. I can think of other ways the data is skewed

For example, quite a few communities like to keep outsiders; like the police, the courts and Child Protective Services; at a distance even to the extent of covering up serious crime. Often such communities will impose internal, informal sanctions.

[cbayer]

15. As I said above, there are so many variables at play here.

I agree that it is a complex question.

In addition to what you posit, communities with strong religious groups often provide some of the things that child protection or other state based groups might otherwise provide and, I agree, some of the data may be skewed by a lack of reporting.