Where Have All the Drug Dealers Gone?
By: April M. Hamm, She They
Tags: Society, Criminal Justice, Culture, Book Review, Life

A Review of Freakonomics Theory of Criminal Justice

Crime Scene Do Not Cross Signage by Kat Wilcox from Pexels

Back in the late nineties and at the turn of the New Millennium, the United States witnessed a remarkable decline in drug-related crime. A crime reduction so remarkable, in fact, as to provoke all manner of speculation from all manner of sources, as you can imagine — or as you may recall if you were alive (and politically conscious) at that time. From politicians and police chiefs to pundits and pushy armchair experts arguing from the comfort of their suburban neighborhoods and from the safety of their televisions, it seemed that everyone had not only an opinion but a theory for the cause (or causes) of decreasing crime. In their first book, the authors of Freakonomics (2005) pose their own theories of criminal justice in “Chapter Four: Where Have All the Drug Dealers Gone?” Like all the other theories of the time, their arguments are indeed logical and reasonable (in the sense that we can rationalize anything in theory). Yet, like all the theories that didn’t become best-sellers, the arguments in Freakonomics are quite fallible.

So where had all the drug-dealers gone in the nineties?

According to Freakonomics, they simply weren’t born, to begin with.

Given the benefit of hindsight, the authors conclude that drug-related crime decreased in the 1990s, not because of any concurrent law enforcement activities and not because of any antecedent crime policies, but because of legal precedents established by women’s rights activists in the 1970s. Specifically, according to Freakonomics, many drug-dealers simply stopped being born decades prior to the decrease in drug-related crime observed in the 1990s. In other words, the authors posit that a long-term benefit and unintended consequence of Roe v. Wade was the significant reduction in the risk pool of children growing up in the kinds of adverse circumstances associated with juvenile delinquency and criminal recidivism in adulthood.

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Freakonomics seems to suggest that drug-related crime could be prevented by simply aborting the pregnancies of would-be drug dealers and that would-be drug-dealers could be easily identified in communities of poor (most likely Black and Hispanic) women with a penchant for getting knocked up. Such assumptions are highly offensive to women, poor people, and Black and Hispanic people across the social gradient (because, statistically, and Black and Hispanic people are most likely to be arrested for any or no reason). I want to believe that these assumptions could not possibly be intentional in a New York Times Best-Selling Book on Everyday Economics, but unfortunately, it’s impossible to know for sure because the authors only dedicated a single sentence to their epidemiological interpretation. Had they bothered to specify that Constitutional social determinants like neighborhood and poverty are correlated risk factors rather than causes of drug-related crime, their argument would have been both more cogent and less offensive.

Upon closer reading, however, I realized that the authors were simply noting the correlations between unwanted pregnancy and adverse childhood events (e.g. ACEs) and between adverse childhood events and drug-related behaviors later in life. It is natural, then to make the connection between abortion and crime prevention. Clearly, this is another correlation, but the authors explain the relationship in terms of causation — that abortion caused a decrease in crime. In statistical terms, abortion legalization probably accounts for a significant portion of the variance in drug-related crime outcomes, but there are too many real-world events and interventions happening simultaneously to conclude that abortion alone is responsible. Moreover, there are too many confounding factors to establish causality using standard frameworks. Ultimately, the only argument that is justified here is that the risk pool was smaller after abortion legalization than it was prior. Any other interpretation is a slippery slope at best and a strong contributor to the racism and xenophobia that persists today at worst.

So do I recommend the book? Actually, yes.

Freakonomics revised book cover via Freakonomics.com

Freakonomics offers a deep dive into the economics of everyday life. The authors have a theory for everything from real estate to criminal justice. The key takeaways are that (A) human behavior can be explained largely by incentives and that (B) human error is often due either to information asymmetry associated with expert bias or to fallacious reasoning around association and causation. The selected examples are as reasonable as they are entertaining. When it comes to criminal theory, however, the authors commit the very error they argue against — as a reminder, correlation does not equal causation! (To their publisher’s — or someone’s credit, at least they eventually removed the stereotyped images from the book cover).

So why am I carrying on about a best-selling book from over a decade ago? Isn’t this old news? Is there any relevance today?

“The New York Times bestselling Freakonomics was a worldwide sensation, selling more than 4 million copies in 35 languages, and changing the way we look at the world.” -Clemmens, 2016

Freakonomics was required reading in a post-graduate public policy course I completed as part of my continuing education at an elitist U.S. university in the year 2020. Moreover, over the past 15 years, the Freakonomics enterprise has expanded to include radio, podcasts, blogs, and speaking engagements, along with additional books. There’s even a movie about it! Clearly, these guys are on to something. And clearly, millions of people worldwide are buying into their rhetoric — both literally and figuratively.

So are my concerns about the Freakonomics Theory of Drug-Related Crime Reduction still relevant today?

You tell me.

P.S. You’re welcome to share my friend link with readers who are not Medium members.

P.P.S. I’m not affiliated with the Freakonomics franchise, and I don’t know the authors personally. I won’t receive any incentives if you click on my links.

P.P.P.S. Here’s the movie trailer for your entertainment. It’s available on Netflix and Hulu if you’d like to watch it. (Please note, I’m not affiliated with Netflix or Hulu either…in case you’re wondering).

Freakonomics: The Movie promo trailer via YouTube and Freakonomics.com

April M. Hamm is an American data scientist, humorist, and Queer Black Woman with Disabilities and Indigenous Roots. She has lived or traveled in more states than not and currently writes from Louisiana, USA. She is a former staff researcher at a major U.S. university, and she was once the youngest member ever invited to her college chapter of Phi Alpha Theta International History Society. She’s the founder of The Center for Musical Wellness and Development (CMDW), and she’s a long-time Board member at The Jim-Ree African American Museum (JAAM). Connect with April Hamm on LinkedIn.