Do our upbringings, teachings and closest influences shape our views on crime? Or is the decision to take from or harm others an innate response, something that is ingrained in us from birth? Nature or nurture? Or both?
Criminal defense lawyer Kenneth Padowitz has written about the cultural influence on crime, referencing everything from the heat hypothesis to the Southern culture of violence to the relationship between individualism and collectivism. I am not sure how much I buy into all of those connections, but it is an interesting discussion. The question becomes even more interesting when you look at the everyday decisions people make.
Why does one person think it is OK to loot a retail store while another person would not keep a $10 bill found on the ground? What makes someone think it is acceptable to steal merchandise from a company because “they can afford it,” while another person would not consider taking a pen or a pad of paper from her employer?
You may have heard some people justify breaking into businesses and stealing because “they have insurance to cover it anyway.” Anyone who actually pays for insurance understands that claims, deductibles and premiums have a way of affecting everyone.
Some argue that it is understandable for people in need to steal baby formula, diapers or food. But when that same person walks out of a store with armloads of $200 sneakers, the argument becomes more difficult to defend.
And despite all the headlines about crime, the latest national numbers offer some perspective. FBI data show violent crime decreased an estimated 4.5% in 2024, while property crime declined 8.1%. In 2025, the FBI reported that the violent crime rate fell another 9.3%, the largest year-to-year decline in its national estimates since 1936.
That doesn’t mean crime is no longer a problem. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated 13.1 million property crime victimizations in 2024, while its survey found 23.3 violent victimizations per 1,000 people age 12 and older.
The bottom line is that it is not OK to steal. It is OK to ask for help. And I am continually amazed by how many people and organizations are willing to provide it. I am not talking about simply giving cash to someone on an exit ramp and hoping for the best. I am talking about helping people overcome addiction, find housing, get food and obtain the services they need before desperation or addiction contributes to more serious crimes. Easier said than done, I know.
We undoubtedly have a culture problem when it comes to how some people view crime. Is it nature? Nurture? Both? Does it matter? W. Edwards Deming, the father of continuous quality improvement, often said that instead of counting dead fish at the end of the stream, we should go upstream and find out what is killing them. That theory applies to crime, too.
The numbers may be moving in the right direction, but crime will not decrease simply because we want it to. If we want fewer victims, we need to look upstream at the conditions, choices and culture that contribute to crime in the first place.
Have a terriffic Tuesday, and thanks for reading.
Shane Goodman
Editor and Publisher
Times Vedette digital newsletter
shane@gctimesnews.com
641-332-2707