Chicago murder another sign of failed public policy

August 28, 2003

This op-ed appeared in the Chicago Tribune Sept. 2.

By: Leonard Beeghley
Leonard Beeghley is professor of sociology at the University of Florida and author of Homicide: A Sociological Explanation, recently published by Rowman and Littlefield.

Wednesday’s murder of six people at Chicago’s Windy City Core Supply is the latest in a depressingly familiar string of reminders of this country’s greatest pathology — homicide. About 16,000 people will be murdered this year. Our homicide rate in 2001, the latest year for which nationwide figures are available, was 5.6 per 100,000, compared to only 1.6 in England and Wales. Other Western European nations exhibit similarly low levels of lethal violence.

When Chicago’s murder count dropped to 648 murders in 2002, observers hailed it as a success. Chicago, it seemed, was becoming a safe city. But Chicago, New York, and other large American cities endure about as many homicides as entire Western European nations. There were only 858 homicides in all of England last year.

Police say Wednesday’s shooter was a disgruntled former employee. What that may be true, workplace homicides are only one manifestation of America’s lethal violence. We have a problem, one that has been deliberately — albeit unintentionally — created. The problem is simple: This country’s public policy generates thousands of homicides each year. In other words, people are allowed to die because of the political choices we and our representatives make.

It’s not just the easy availability of guns that makes our country such a dangerous in which place to live – although this is probably the most important factor contributing to the homicide rate. Other factors include the expansion of our drug markets, continuing racial discrimination, the degree of exposure to violence through television or other media, and rising economic inequality. Research consistently shows that each of these factors contributes to a level of violence unknown elsewhere in the West. For example, study after study finds a positive correlation between a nation’s level of gun ownership and its homicide rate.

But guns, poverty, drugs, inequality, and exposure to violence do not exist in isolation. No single cause does. Instead, like diseases attacking a weakening host, these blights feed on and draw strength from each other’s effects. For example, one reason drug markets are so violent in this country is the presence of so many guns. One reason economic inequality is related to homicide is that so many people are exposed to so much violence. In every nation, the parts are not only connected, their impact is mutually reinforcing.

But we are not helpless. A half century ago, the fatality rate from automobile accidents was much higher than today’s rate. Although some argued the problem was the “nut behind the wheel,” design changes in roads and cars have reduced auto fatalities-even though “nuts’ still drive.

Although people may legitimately claim a right to gun ownership, policy makers need to address how this right is exercised. Just as everyone accepts some restrictions on cars in the interests of public safety, so guns require some restrictions. We need to change how guns are designed, sold, and possessed, placing the public good above private interest.

Similarly, while many argue for zero tolerance of drugs, arresting more and more people hasn’t reduced demand for these substances. We should abandon failed anti-drug policies and reserve jail for those we fear, rather than those who anger us. This might mean decriminalizing certain drugs and providing users with treatment to undercut the illegal market and violence it engenders. We should also do more to attack discrimination in housing, reduce the level of inequality, and consider how to reduce graphic violence in the media.

Again: All combine to produce the pathology of lethal violence that characterizes this country. Their impact condemns thousands of people to death each year. But our stances on these issues are not set in stone; they are policy choices. Choices made can be unmade, if we have the will.