There's no doubt that there's an enormous amount of research in the academic world showing how to reduce violence in an effective way that saves far more money than it costs, but for some reason this research is almost completely absent in mainstream media and ignored by the most vocal politicians who routinely call for increased budgets for police to address crime, even though educational efforts are far more effective preventing the root causes of crime before they escalate, while police wait until after crime happens to arrest people and the court system tries to punish them after the fact. It's far more expensive to wait until social problems escalate so much that we need to rely on expensive police, court, and prison budgets than it is to increase educational programs, childcare programs or other programs designed to recognize and reduce leading contributing causes of violence or crime.
(Edit 09/26/2025 at least one Google AI question has been added at the end of this article about drug intervention or decriminalization and studies showing it's much more effective than our current system.)
Anyone that understand this may also understand that Trump's plans to send the National Guard into violent cities starting with Washington D.C. is guaranteed to be a disaster, even if some stories claim it's reducing crime, at least in the short term; but these same sources also say that the reductions in crime happened in the previous year or so before he sent in the National Guard, although this is only a limited comparison that ignores long term trends in reducing crime. The truth is that most crime was going down slowly but steadily for decades, reaching an all-time low, especially for murder rates about 2013 or 2014, before it leveled off with slight increases or decreases through 2019, then there was a massive unprecedented increase in crime, including about a 30% increase in murder rates in 2020, which had never happened before, yet Trump didn't send in the National Guard then, which was the last year of his first term, nor should he since it's not the most effective way to reduce crime. The leading explanation is that this is related to the pandemic. Regardless of why, it was followed by another more modest increase in 2021, with 2022 and 2023 about the same then a surprising drop in 2024, back to the approximate rate before the pandemic.
Why send in the National Guard after the recent surge came to an end, regardless of how it ended? There should be no doubt it's for political reasons, not scientific.
Democrats and many media pundits are making the same claims, but they're not discussing the leading causes of crime or why it's going up or down, nor are they promoting effective solutions for crime, except for arguments about gun control, which is only one of many contributing factors, and these arguments for gun control just go in circles without accomplishing anything. However, as much as I disagree with Trump, there still is a serious crime problem even if it's not as bad as during the pandemic or crime rates from thirty to forty years ago. It's still much worse than most European countries, with the possible exception of Russia and Ukraine, and it's clear that those countries are doing a better job addressing the root causes of crime, and the states within our country with lower crime rates are doing a better job addressing them than those with higher crime rates.
I already went into this numerous times, including a series of articles over ten years ago discussing some of the biggest contributing factors for crime and violence starting with Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows 05/23/2014 and ending with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit 10/13/2014; these articles have some of my own research as well as many other peer reviewed sources confirming my conclusions about leading contributing causes of violence, and I've posted many other articles about the subject since this series. One of the most important factors that I have focused on is early child abuse, including corporal punishment, and many other factors that often contribute to high crime rates in abandoned inner cities with the highest crime or murder rates, as well as other areas. Some of these contributing factors include poverty, income inequality, lack of access to education or economic opportunities, gambling, reasonable gun control, boot camp training and fighting wars based on lies, insurance incentives to commit fraud, including murder for life insurance, and more.
Religion is also a contributing factor to violence; contrary to their claims the most religious states are among the most violent, with most if not all Bible Belt states in the top twenty-five states for murder rates, and six to eight of them in the top ten on any given year, even though there are only about fifteen Bible Belt states out of fifty. And, on average, cities with one or more Mega-Church are mostly, 56% in cities with above average murder rates, 35% in cities with double the national murder rate, and 10% in cities with four times the national murder rate; part of the reason for this is that they tend to be in larger cities which also have a higher rate of violence and murder, but even when comparing them to cities of the same size, cities with Mega-Churches are more likely to have higher murder rates than those without Mega-Churches.
In all fairness, some good researchers have argued that religious groups can help address social problems, including Professor James Garbarino. And, when these religious groups address many of the root causes for violence, he's right, but this is moderate religious organizations, not extremists, and certainly not Mega-Churches that are collecting millions of dollars from their congregation, paying million dollar salaries or more to celebrity pastors without funding soup kitchens food pantries or other services for the poor often provided by moderate religious organizations; and Professor Garbarino has been critical of extremist religious practices as indicated in a Google AI question posted below.
I've covered dozens of credible sources discussing how it's far easier, more effective, and less expensive, even without counting the loss of lives and quality of life tp prevent social problems from escalating before they lead to increased crime and violence including higher murder rates, including We're Using Children For Research, Without Accepting The Benefits! 09/28/2022, which includes excerpts from Lisbeth Schorr "Within Our Reach" 1988 almost forty years ago showing they knew how to solve these problems and save money at the same time, yet many of these programs are only implemented on a small scale around the country, which adds to opportunity to do more research but we already know they work, and can slash crime and violence problems if they implement them across the board or increase spending on childcare and education whether they're part of these programs or not. That article also cites a couple experiments in South Africa to increase profits by infringing on the rights of both Chinese and Africans, which they considered a success initially even though they caused increased crime and violence, and only scaled back on these efforts when they impacted profits or workers stood up for their rights and wouldn't let them get away with it. It also discusses some efforts to restrict education, some from excerpts of Schorr's book, others from other sources including Roger Freeman--a key educational adviser to Nixon then working for the reelection of California Governor Ronald Reagan who clearly wanted to restrict education instead of making it available for all as indicated when he said "We are in danger of producing and educated proletariat. That's dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow to go through higher education. If not we will have a large number of highly trained and unemployed people." This is a throw back to the times when they outlawed teaching slaves to read, and those times never completely ended, they now come up with sophisticated ways to pretend to improve education while doing the opposite.
Another article Burying Solutions to Prevent Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso Shootings 08/15/2019 cites several arguments from James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis and several other good researchers about preventing violence before it escalates, including a home visitor program to help at risk parents, and several other programs or solutions. Another article Educational Prevention Of Shootings Is Better Than Militarization 06/30/2022 cites dozens studies done by Dr. Robert John Zagar, one of the most respected researchers in the field showing that the lowest savings from these studies was a saving of $3.88 for every dollar saved, but the vast majority of studies saved over $6 for every dollar spent with many saving over $20 and the highest savings was $98.09 for one study, although that study may not be very broad, but overall there's no doubt prevention is much more cost effective than waiting for social problems to escalate until they turn to violence, and this doesn't even count the lives saved which more reasonable people will consider more important than they money. But even people with values of an economist that only care about money should recognize these solutions are worthwhile.
There's also some testimony from Professor James Garbarino in this article, unfortunately in one hearing before a committee that had seventeen Senators on it there's only one Senator that asks any questions, and I have doubts if any of the other ones, including Joe Biden, were even there; another hearing before the House has more members talking, but on at least one occasion a House Member admits he was only there for a short period, promises to read the record, but neither of the Houses passed the recommendations of the experts, while they have plenty of time to meet behind closed doors with campaign donors and follow their recommendations. This article also shows a chart of all the cities with more than double the national murder rate, which is driving up our national murder rate making it so much worse than most of Europe and other countries taking much better care to address the root causes of violence.
One of the issues I've focused the most on is child abuse, including corporal punishment, which is often correlated with other forms of abuse, yet as I pointed out in Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media 12/18/2018 there's almost no discussion about it in traditional media or the political establishment. This includes a chart showing that states still allowing corporal punishment, on average, have always had higher murder rates starting in 1991 and going through 2019, when the gap reached a new record. The closes they were was in 1992 with a gap of only about 2%, but in 2019 the last year FBI reports were posted under their old system, it was more than a 30% gap with the average rate for states without allowing corporal punishment in schools at 4.22 per 100,000 compared to 6.07 per 100,000. Several things happened since then, for starters in 2020 the FBI changed they're system of reporting, and this was accompanied by an unprecedented surge in murder rates by about 30%, presumably due to the pandemic, and supposedly it was just dropping back to normal rates either last year or perhaps this year. I doubt if the gap changed much in 2020, with the rates going up about the same for both the states allowing corporal punishment and this banning it. If I calculate them again, which I will eventually, it may not be fair to compare any increases or decreases unless I can be sure the data is being calculated the same way. Right now it's easier to check CDC numbers, which may be consistent with their past records, but are different from FBI numbers for some reason. If I compare them with previous CDC numbers that might be a reliable statistic, or if I can be sure that new FBI numbers are calculated consistently that might help. And, within the past couple months, the government has taken down the FBI crime reports for 2018 and 2019, about the time Trump took over the Washington DC police and sent in the national guard, and there have been other examples of removing science reports that I'll get to below.
Another thing that changed is that both Colorado and Idaho banned corporal punishment in schools in the Spring of 2023, so those states, which used it the least and had the lowest murder rates among the 19 states still allowing it, with the possible exception of Wyoming, which will inevitably increase the gap, even if the rates don't change, since two of the three least violent states previously allowing corporal punishment in schools will be moved to the other column, increasing the gap. Two more states, North Carolina and Kentucky banned corporal punishment in all counties, but haven't made it official statewide, and three others, Kansas, Wyoming and Arizona rarely ever use it, eight of the remaining twelve are the ones that are often in the top ten for murder rates, removing what little doubt there is about corporal punishment leading to higher rates of violence. North Carolina and Arizona, which still allow corporal punishment officially, still come close to the top ten, even though they rarely use it, but there are other contributing factors, like abandoned inner cities, which they have and the few states banning it in the top ten also have.
I also reported on Ten Ways To Reduce Violence, Backed Up By Research 11/16/2020, which covers some of the same contributing factors, and, like my other articles is backed up by good sources that are peer-reviewed, even if my articles get less attention, yet the media and political establishment continue to ignore this. And, recently I've checked with Google AI, Grok and perhaps other Artificial Intelligence to confirm this despite some problems with AI it currently does a better job than traditional media, which I'll get to more below.
Unfortunately, instead of acknowledging this good research the political establishment is pushing authoritarian measures, like ICE Raids, more wars based on lies, and now a growing demand for censorship, often for all the wrong reasons. In some cases I've seen censorship of efforts to restrict discussion of effective science on social media; but what's far more common is major distractions that turn into the obsession du jour drowning out discussion of good research, often with the help of the media and political establishment, like the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This isn't the first time they've done this, but they seem to be taking it to a new extreme in the second Trump administration, with numerous examples of sending in the National Guard, calling for censorship or retaliation for "hate speech" when people criticize Charlie Kirk but not when right wingers are much more racist, falsely blaming the left for inciting violence when the evidence shows the opposite, and more. In the past they've forced victims exiting a building after a mass shooting to act as if they're guilty until proven innocent, making them put their hands and submit to searches, implementing stop and frisk policies that are done along racial lines, and following the Boston Bombing implemented Martial Law in Cambridge and Watertown Mass. This increase when there's reason for panic and these panics are much less likely to happen if we reduce long term causes of violence as indicated by the research I discussed. This also goes for terrorist retaliation cases like 9/11, The San Bernardino Shooting, the Boston Bombing and other cases which involved retaliation for our governments policies of intervening all over the world, often overthrowing Democratic governments, installing tyrants or terrorizing people with bombs all over the world, although they only call it terrorism when our enemies do it, even if our government commits much worse violence, either directly or through a proxy government or terrorist organization, like the Shah of Iran of Contras.
Now propaganda to promote censorship is escalating again partly driven by Israel and the murder of Charlie Kirk, but this isn't new, although it is getting more extreme. It's also much worse than the media indicates, while they're focusing mainly on less important examples of censorship, like Jimmy Kimmel, which are distracting from bigger and more important examples of censorship like removing large amounts of scientific research from government web pages about many different subjects. I first noticed this no later than the first Trump administration when a government report about research into how PTSD impacts violence and I had to go to the Wayback Machine to access it and another report that was taken down about how an increase in the Minimum Wage could reduce violence which I also found on the Wayback Machine, in both these cases it turned out they were either restored later at a different location or moved from the beginning without a redirect, which isn't complete censorship, but many people looking for these Reports may not know where to find the new location. Perhaps more important is the fact that there's little or no effort to draw attention to the best research on any given subject, so even if it's not taken down most people never think to look for it.
A couple more recent pages that were taken down are the FBI crime reports for 2018 and 2019, which to the best of my knowledge are still not up, but other less detailed reports are still available from the CDC and Wikipedia among other sources, or the missing reports are still on the Wayback Machine. But there's much more including US justice department removes study finding far-right extremists commit ‘far more’ violence 09/17/2025, which says "Report finding right-wing extremists have killed more Americans than other domestic terrorist groups vanished from DoJ website." And this happened just as Republicans have been repeating the false claim that the Left is responsible for inciting most if not all violence over and over again, and the media is doing little to adequately challenge this false claim. There are many people calling out this lie, but they don't get nearly as much media coverage as the GOP repeating the lie, giving them an unearned advantage.
There has also been an enormous amount of censorship about Israel including Jeremy Loffredo: Under Biden, @samhusseini was physically dragged out and then carried away from a press briefing for asking tough questions about Gaza 09/18/2025 and dozens more incidents I've been covering for months in other articles, which are covering up an enormous number of atrocities, including apartheid, ethnic cleansing and even genocide, which is part of a much bigger Ecocide going on around the world. In fact, the censorship much more important than the firing of Jimmy Kimmel includes massive efforts to take down scientific research from government web sites, after finding several examples I previously mentioned I asked both Grok and Google AI about more examples, and they've been surging during his second presidency. In addition to removing research about crime or preventing violence and supporting censorship protecting Israel, Trump has taken down research about COVID and other vaccines, and a massive amount of research about Climate Change and other environmental problems.
This also includes many examples where Trump has incited a lot of violence which I asked Grok about, if Donald Trump has incited violence or other right wingers & if his or Pam Bondi's efforts to prosecute free speech were legal, And Grok more or less confirmed what many of us knew with significant back up & sources. Read about it here. 09/16/2025 Grok confirmed that the right wing is responsible for carrying out or inciting much more violence than the left, and that Pam Bondi's threats to prosecute perceived "hate speech" for anyone critical of Charlie Kirk, Trump or the right wing are almost certainly unconstitutional. Ironically Trump and Bondi are often describing criticism of Trump or Charlie Kirk as "hate speech" even though there's much more evidence showing they're the racist ones as shown in these articles, Charlie Kirk’s Toxic Legacy of Hatred and Division 09/11/2025, Charlie Kirk, White Supremacist, Dead at 31 09/21/2025, Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’ 09/11/2025 and Racism, Rhetoric, and Charlie Kirk: A Reality We Can’t Ignore 09/11/2025; which all cite his own words as evidence for the conclusion that he was racist, not personal attacks, and at least a couple of these authors made a point of opposing his murder or condemning violence while also criticizing his flaws. This is very similar to many Zionists accusing critics of Israel of being racist because they call out atrocities based on evidence, when the real racists are often Zionists supporting Israeli atrocities and even calling for genocide or other atrocities at times.
Censorship of all subjects, especially scientific ones are, of course outragious, but the worst one include censorship of research to prevent violence, expose wars based on lies, and destruction of the environment including ecocide are among the worst. In many cases the fact that the media and political establishment refuse to discuss it is as bad as intentional censorship since few people hear about it even if the research is available in very low-profile locations but only the researchers and a handful of activists or other people read it, and the research isn't used to prevent disasters.
Nevertheless both methods of censorship of research to prevent violence, both domestic and in wars based on lies around the world and destruction of the environment, which is happening as we speak and some additional sources, including other conversations with Grok or Google AI confirm this. Recently I asked Grok about it, Donald Trump has been removing a lot of scientific research for political reasons, including those recommending effective solutions so he can implement counter productive authoritarian policies. Both Grok & Google AI provide examples, here's Grok's reply 09/18/2025 "Has the White House or other federal agencies been removing research about studies on PTSD related to increase in violence, a higher minimum wage related to decrease in violence, FBI crime reports or any other research about violence reduction?" This conversation included many other examples and another question for Google AI is posted below, along with several other relevant questions from Grok of Google AI that show effective ways to reduce violence ignored by traditional media or other important research.
The following are many more sources on this subject, starting with nine questions from Grok that shouold be available if you click on the links, and these include sources for most of them if you look carefully, amd some of the additional sources are complete replies from Google AI, which I posted in full because Google AI often changes their answers and doesn't save conversations like Grok:
Grok confirms that "early child abuse, poverty, income inequality, lack of education all contribute to rising rates of violence or crime," and provides some of the leading researchers showing this, although they're not the same I often read. 09/22/2025 Fundamental research shows early child abuse, poverty, income inequality, lack of education all contribute to rising rates of violence or crime. Who are the best researchers showing additional details and solutions to solve these problems?
Grok confirms Europe does a better job addressing major risk factors or contributing causes leading to escalating violence & they don't have as many abandoned inner cities, clearly indicating if we do the same we can greatly reduce violence & crime. 09/22/2025 Except for Ukraine and Russia, Europe has a fraction of the murder rates in the United States; the worst murder rates are in abandoned inner cities with about 125 of them having double the national murder rates. Does Europe have fewer abandoned inner cities? Do they do a better job addressing the contributing causes of violence like child abuse including corporal punishment, poverty, income inequality, inadequate education or job opportunities, providing child care or other risk factors?
I asked Google AI & Grok a question based on a false claim that states allowing corporal punishment have lower murder rates; they both claimed bringing back corporal punishment in states would not reduce violence, but increase it, Google AI didn't refute the false claim, instead claimed coronation doesn't always cause causation, which is true sometimes, but Grok did pointing out that the states allowing corporal punishment in schools have much higher murder rates. 09/22/2025 The states still allowing corporal punishment in school have much lower murder rates than those banning it in schools; could violence be reduced by reintroducing corporal punishment in schools? Grok: The premise that U.S. states permitting corporal punishment in schools (e.g., paddling or spanking as discipline) have "much lower" murder rates than those banning it is not supported by available data. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: states where corporal punishment remains legal tend to have higher murder rates.
I previously asked Google AI how many Israelis opposed action in Palestine based on moral grounds & got a good answer a week ago, which I didn't save, now Google AI won't answer it, but Grok did! 08/31/2025 Full Text on "Planning for Nakba"
Are Jews over-represented in Congress, Hollywood & other industries? Grok thinks so, 10% of the Senate are Jews, 6% of the House, 12% of Governors, with only 2% of population. Hollywood is harder to say, but rough estimate was 10%-20% 1/2 09/05/2025
After I asked about how often false accusations of "terrorism" are made by the media or political establishment Grok confirmed it's routine. 09/05/2025 Besides Nelson Mandela how often does mainstream media or the political establishment accuse civil rights workers, environmental advocates, anti-war advocates or other peaceful protesters of being terrorists?
Grok: President Trump stated, "Why would I call him?" when asked if he would contact Gov. Tim Walz after the June 2025 shooting that killed Rep. Melissa Hortman and wounded others in an act deemed political violence. He added the governor was "whacked out" and calling would be a "waste [of] time." Sources: CNN, NYT. 09/14/2025
Grok: After reviewing official IDF casualty reports and news from sources like Times of Israel and Haaretz for September 2025, I found no record of a soldier named Luna being paralyzed by a sniper in Rafah while changing a tire. Recent incidents involve explosions or other injuries, but not this one. It appears unconfirmed. 09/21/2025
Grok gives this Tweet a mixed review indicating some is accurate, but others unconfirmed or exaggerated. 09/12/2025 Are the following statements accurate? What we know about Tyler Robinson, 22, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk: ..... Grok confirms some of the claims about Charlie Kirk's killer, including that he was raised in a conservative family, but may have become more liberal; but indicates others are an exaggeration, false or unconfirmed.
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism 01/04/2024 Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.[2]
BREAKING: MAGA Attorney General Pam Bondi gets exposed in a massive scandal as her Justice Department is caught covertly deleting a study proving that right-wing violence poses a "far" greater threat than left-wing extremism. 09/18/2025
White House removes advisory defining gun violence as a public health issue 03/17/2025
Firearm Violence in America Summer 2024
James Garbarino On the C-SPAN Networks:
Explaining Violence and War to Children 10/08/2001
THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE WITH AN EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2018, AT 6:00 P.M. Includes testimony from James Garbarino
Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan 1996
Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence 11/09/2020
(Video) Economic Times: Don’t approve of it…': #Trump’s DC Police takeover sparks chaos, capital protests hit boiling point 08/12/2025 Cover Photo
Burying Solutions to Prevent Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso Shootings 08/15/2019
Educational Prevention Of Shootings Is Better Than Militarization 06/30/2022
Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media 12/18/2018
Ten Ways To Reduce Violence, Backed Up By Research 11/16/2020
If Investigators "Wanted To Know Why" Veterans Go On Shootings Sprees They Could! 11/14/2018
Machiavellian "War On The Poor" increases crime and waste! 08/27/2023
Media is aiding and abetting in Televangelist Fraud 12/07/2017
Growing Evidence Of Mega-Church Fraud Violence & Support For War? 04/19/2018
Burying violence prevention education, including Crumbly shooting, is routine! 12/29/2021
Epidemic of abandoned babies & possibly mothers 12/14/2020
Do medical researchers Have any "moral compass?" 02/28/2023
"Lost boys: why our sons turn violent and how we can save them" James Garbarino. 1999
Dr. Robert John Zagar "Integrated Evidence Based Practices for Homicide Prevention" 07/24/2012
Ending Crime $1 at a Time December 2013
Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates January 2006
Prison, Police, and Programs: Evidence-Based Options that Reduce Crime and Save Money November 2013
EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY OPTIONS TO REDUCE FUTURE PRISON CONSTRUCTION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE COSTS, AND CRIME RATES October 2006
"Identification, treatment, and prevention of homicide: fallacies in research, treatment, and policy--a postscript on youth violence" Robert John Zagar Feb. 2009
Agata Karolina Zagar, Boris Bartikowski, Robert John Zagar and Kenneth G. Busch "Cost Comparisons of Raising a Child from Birth to 17 Years among Samples of Abused, Delinquent, Violent, and Homicidal Youth Using Victimization and Justice System Estimates" 02/01/2009 "Mean total costs for a homicidal youth were estimated at $3,935,433, while those for a control youth were $150,754." Estimated savings for prevention $25 for every $1 spent.
Robert John Zagar, Steve Variela, Kenneth G. Busch, James Garbarino, Agata Karolina Zagar, Joseph W. Kovach, Steve Tippins, John Russell Hughes and Ishup Singh "Implications of Machine-Learning, Internet-Tests to Save Lives and Money: "7-Point Violence Profile:" Review of 212 Studies, 320,051 Persons, Over 95 Years, With a Cross-Validation Among 136 Homicidal, Overdosing- Substance-Abusing, Sex-Offending," 2019
DANIEL ROSE ON U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM 09/17/2015 “Each dollar invested in successful prison education reduces incarceration costs by $4 or $5.”
4 takeaways from Trump’s federal law enforcement surge in D.C. as his emergency order expires 09/10/2025 WASHINGTON (AP) — One month after President Donald Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital, there may be less crime. There are fewer guns on the streets and fewer homeless encampments, according to official figures. But for some who work or live in Washington, D.C., the operation has sparked fear and prompted a change in how they see their place in the United States — and how they think the United States sees them.
Has the Trump administration been removing scientific research from federal web sites? 09/18/2025
Yes, the Trump administration has removed scientific research from federal websites, particularly in his first year of his second term starting in 2025. The removals have primarily targeted information on climate change, public health, and social equity programs.
Website and data removals
Since the beginning of 2025, the administration has removed thousands of webpages and datasets across federal agencies.
U.S. Global Change Research Program: The main website, which contained congressionally mandated national climate assessments, was shut down.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA removed its scientific integrity policy and a public tool called EJScreen, which identified communities most at risk from pollution. The Office of Research and Development, the agency's primary scientific arm, is also being eliminated.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): The specialized website climate.gov was shut down after the entire team was reportedly fired.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Over 3,000 pages of public health research were removed or altered, including information on chronic conditions, infectious diseases, and LGBTQ+ health. Though some data was later restored, much of it was initially deleted to remove gender-neutral language.
National Institutes of Health (NIH): Over 20 data repositories were placed under review in April 2025, and the administration has illegally withheld billions of dollars in research funding by canceling grants.
Response from the scientific community
The removal of research and data has been met with significant criticism and efforts to preserve the information.
Data archiving efforts: Scientists, researchers, and archivists have launched projects to download and save federal data to prevent it from being permanently lost. Groups like the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) and the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine have been working to capture and preserve this content.
Condemnation from scientists: Researchers and watchdogs, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), have condemned the actions, calling them an attack on science and an illegal withholding of funds. The GAO's non-binding findings concluded that the administration illegally axed NIH grants.
Legal challenges: Healthcare advocacy groups have initiated legal challenges against the removal and modification of data.
Justification and context
The administration has characterized the actions as a move toward greater efficiency and a way to remove what it deems to be ideologically biased or "misleading" science. In May 2025, an executive order directed federal agencies to revert to scientific integrity policies that predate January 20, 2021. However, critics argue these actions are a politically motivated attempt to suppress information that contradicts the administration's stance on issues like climate change and public health. Complete article
Yes, the Trump administration has removed scientific research from federal websites, particularly in his first year of his second term starting in 2025. The removals have primarily targeted information on climate change, public health, and social equity programs.
Website and data removals
Since the beginning of 2025, the administration has removed thousands of webpages and datasets across federal agencies.
U.S. Global Change Research Program: The main website, which contained congressionally mandated national climate assessments, was shut down.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA removed its scientific integrity policy and a public tool called EJScreen, which identified communities most at risk from pollution. The Office of Research and Development, the agency's primary scientific arm, is also being eliminated.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): The specialized website climate.gov was shut down after the entire team was reportedly fired.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Over 3,000 pages of public health research were removed or altered, including information on chronic conditions, infectious diseases, and LGBTQ+ health. Though some data was later restored, much of it was initially deleted to remove gender-neutral language.
National Institutes of Health (NIH): Over 20 data repositories were placed under review in April 2025, and the administration has illegally withheld billions of dollars in research funding by canceling grants.
Response from the scientific community
The removal of research and data has been met with significant criticism and efforts to preserve the information.
Data archiving efforts: Scientists, researchers, and archivists have launched projects to download and save federal data to prevent it from being permanently lost. Groups like the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) and the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine have been working to capture and preserve this content.
Condemnation from scientists: Researchers and watchdogs, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), have condemned the actions, calling them an attack on science and an illegal withholding of funds. The GAO's non-binding findings concluded that the administration illegally axed NIH grants.
Legal challenges: Healthcare advocacy groups have initiated legal challenges against the removal and modification of data.
Justification and context
The administration has characterized the actions as a move toward greater efficiency and a way to remove what it deems to be ideologically biased or "misleading" science. In May 2025, an executive order directed federal agencies to revert to scientific integrity policies that predate January 20, 2021. However, critics argue these actions are a politically motivated attempt to suppress information that contradicts the administration's stance on issues like climate change and public health. Complete article
Wikipedia: 2025 United States government online resource removals
Trump administration shuts down EPA's scientific research arm 07/20/2025
How Information Was Suppressed in Trump’s First 100 Days (and How It Compares to Last Time) 04/29/2025
Nation's top climate science assessments removed from federal websites 09/01/2025
Trump Administration Removes EPA Scientific Integrity Policy from Agency Website 08/21/2025
Trump administration illegally axed NIH grants, government watchdog says 08/06/2025 The Government Accountability Office can file a lawsuit in an attempt to restore the grants. However, the agency has not opted to do so during the second Trump administration.
Some federal health websites restored, others still down, after data purge 02/06/2025
Inside the desperate rush to save decades of US scientific data from deletion 04/23/2025
Disappearing Data: Trump Administration Removing Climate Information from Government Websites 02/06/2025
Trump administration purges websites across federal health agencies 01/31/2025
Does increased spending for education lead to reduction in crime, including murder or other violent crime and save more money than the education costs? 09/04/2025
Based on the provided research, there is a strong correlation between increased spending for education and a reduction in crime, including violent crimes like murder, and this reduction can lead to significant cost savings.
Here's a breakdown of the evidence:
1. Education's Impact on Crime
Overall Reduction: A general consensus among economists is that education has a strong, causal, crime-reducing effect.
Specific Crimes: Studies have shown that increased educational attainment is linked to significant reductions in both property and violent crimes, including murder and assault. For example, one study estimated that a one-year increase in average schooling reduced both property and violent crime by about 11-12%, with a nearly 30% reduction in murder and assault. Another study found that a $1000 increase in education spending was associated with a 2.35% decrease in property crime, according to MDPI.
Mechanisms: Education may reduce crime through several channels:
Increased Earning Potential: Higher education often leads to higher wages, increasing the opportunity cost of criminal activity (the potential earnings lost due to engaging in crime instead of legal work).
Non-Cognitive Skills: Education may foster patience, risk aversion, and critical thinking skills, making individuals less likely to engage in impulsive or risky criminal behavior.
Socialization and Attachment to Institutions: Attending school and being part of a structured environment can reduce the likelihood of criminal participation by promoting adherence to social norms and values.
Early Intervention: Research indicates that increased public school funding, particularly in the early elementary grades (K-3), can lead to substantial reductions in adult arrests and crime, suggesting the importance of early intervention in a child's life.
2. Cost-Effectiveness and Savings
Social Benefits Exceed Costs: Studies have demonstrated that the social benefits, primarily due to crime reduction, generated by increased school funding can exceed the costs to the government. One study estimated that for every government dollar invested in public school funding, the associated reduction in crime generated roughly $2 in social benefits.
Long-Term Impact: The savings from crime reduction resulting from increased education spending can be significant and accrue over time, as individuals who are better educated are less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system.
Comparison to Other Interventions: Research suggests that investing in education is a cost-effective crime reduction strategy, comparable to other interventions like early childhood education programs or increasing the number of police officers.
Important Considerations
Complexity: The relationship between education and crime is complex and influenced by various factors. While research demonstrates a strong link, it's essential to consider other contributing elements like socioeconomic conditions and individual characteristics. School Quality: Beyond just increased spending, the quality of education plays a crucial role in crime reduction. Investments that lead to better teachers, smaller class sizes, and improved school environments are particularly effective.
In conclusion, evidence strongly supports the idea that increased spending on education can lead to a reduction in various types of crime, including violent crime, and can ultimately generate significant cost savings that surpass the initial investment. Complete article
Based on the provided research, there is a strong correlation between increased spending for education and a reduction in crime, including violent crimes like murder, and this reduction can lead to significant cost savings.
Here's a breakdown of the evidence:
1. Education's Impact on Crime
Overall Reduction: A general consensus among economists is that education has a strong, causal, crime-reducing effect.
Specific Crimes: Studies have shown that increased educational attainment is linked to significant reductions in both property and violent crimes, including murder and assault. For example, one study estimated that a one-year increase in average schooling reduced both property and violent crime by about 11-12%, with a nearly 30% reduction in murder and assault. Another study found that a $1000 increase in education spending was associated with a 2.35% decrease in property crime, according to MDPI.
Mechanisms: Education may reduce crime through several channels:
Increased Earning Potential: Higher education often leads to higher wages, increasing the opportunity cost of criminal activity (the potential earnings lost due to engaging in crime instead of legal work).
Non-Cognitive Skills: Education may foster patience, risk aversion, and critical thinking skills, making individuals less likely to engage in impulsive or risky criminal behavior.
Socialization and Attachment to Institutions: Attending school and being part of a structured environment can reduce the likelihood of criminal participation by promoting adherence to social norms and values.
Early Intervention: Research indicates that increased public school funding, particularly in the early elementary grades (K-3), can lead to substantial reductions in adult arrests and crime, suggesting the importance of early intervention in a child's life.
2. Cost-Effectiveness and Savings
Social Benefits Exceed Costs: Studies have demonstrated that the social benefits, primarily due to crime reduction, generated by increased school funding can exceed the costs to the government. One study estimated that for every government dollar invested in public school funding, the associated reduction in crime generated roughly $2 in social benefits.
Long-Term Impact: The savings from crime reduction resulting from increased education spending can be significant and accrue over time, as individuals who are better educated are less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system.
Comparison to Other Interventions: Research suggests that investing in education is a cost-effective crime reduction strategy, comparable to other interventions like early childhood education programs or increasing the number of police officers.
Important Considerations
Complexity: The relationship between education and crime is complex and influenced by various factors. While research demonstrates a strong link, it's essential to consider other contributing elements like socioeconomic conditions and individual characteristics. School Quality: Beyond just increased spending, the quality of education plays a crucial role in crime reduction. Investments that lead to better teachers, smaller class sizes, and improved school environments are particularly effective.
In conclusion, evidence strongly supports the idea that increased spending on education can lead to a reduction in various types of crime, including violent crime, and can ultimately generate significant cost savings that surpass the initial investment. Complete article
Have politicians been increasing or decreasing spending on education? 09/04/2025
While overall education spending has increased over recent decades, recent trends show mixed results depending on the level of government and whether spending is adjusted for inflation. The impact of major events like the COVID-19 pandemic and changing economic conditions also influence spending patterns.
United States spending trends
Overall spending: Per-pupil spending has generally trended upward over time. After adjusting for inflation, total spending on public K–12 education increased significantly in recent years, including a large spike between fiscal years 2021 and 2022 due to federal COVID-19 relief funds.
Federal spending: The federal government's share of K–12 education funding is relatively small compared to state and local contributions. While total federal spending on education has grown over the long term, short-term trends can fluctuate based on legislative changes and budget caps.
State and local spending: These sources provide the majority of K–12 funding, and spending trends vary by state. Some states have increased per-student funding, while others have made cuts, particularly to higher education. Disparities in local funding often depend on property values.
Higher education spending: Trends for higher education are different. Many states have cut funding for public colleges and universities, shifting more costs to students and driving up tuition.
Global spending trends
Overall increase, but uneven: Globally, total spending on education from governments, households, and donors has been increasing, but funding per child has not risen significantly. Spending levels and trends vary widely by a country's income level.
COVID-19 impact: The pandemic led to a temporary decline in real spending on education in about half of the countries surveyed in 2020. Household education spending also increased in low-income countries as schools closed.
Projected aid decrease: Total aid for education is projected to fall significantly by 2027. This is particularly concerning for low-income countries, where aid makes up a significant portion of public education spending.
Low-income countries: Many low-income nations face a large annual finance gap to reach their education targets. Many also spend more on debt servicing than on education.
Interpretation and context
Correlation with achievement: Historically, simply increasing spending has not consistently led to significant improvements in student academic achievement in the U.S. and other countries. This suggests that how resources are allocated is a crucial factor.
COVID-19 relief: In the U.S., the federal spending increases observed between 2020 and 2022 were largely driven by pandemic relief legislation like the American Rescue Plan. This has led to a recent spike in federal funding levels.
Budgetary priorities: Spending on education is influenced by shifting priorities, budget caps, and economic conditions.
Because trends vary by country, level of education (K–12 vs. higher ed), and government source, there is no single answer to whether politicians are "increasing or decreasing" spending. Increases are often offset by declines in other areas or are not keeping pace with population growth or economic needs. Complete article
While overall education spending has increased over recent decades, recent trends show mixed results depending on the level of government and whether spending is adjusted for inflation. The impact of major events like the COVID-19 pandemic and changing economic conditions also influence spending patterns.
United States spending trends
Overall spending: Per-pupil spending has generally trended upward over time. After adjusting for inflation, total spending on public K–12 education increased significantly in recent years, including a large spike between fiscal years 2021 and 2022 due to federal COVID-19 relief funds.
Federal spending: The federal government's share of K–12 education funding is relatively small compared to state and local contributions. While total federal spending on education has grown over the long term, short-term trends can fluctuate based on legislative changes and budget caps.
State and local spending: These sources provide the majority of K–12 funding, and spending trends vary by state. Some states have increased per-student funding, while others have made cuts, particularly to higher education. Disparities in local funding often depend on property values.
Higher education spending: Trends for higher education are different. Many states have cut funding for public colleges and universities, shifting more costs to students and driving up tuition.
Global spending trends
Overall increase, but uneven: Globally, total spending on education from governments, households, and donors has been increasing, but funding per child has not risen significantly. Spending levels and trends vary widely by a country's income level.
COVID-19 impact: The pandemic led to a temporary decline in real spending on education in about half of the countries surveyed in 2020. Household education spending also increased in low-income countries as schools closed.
Projected aid decrease: Total aid for education is projected to fall significantly by 2027. This is particularly concerning for low-income countries, where aid makes up a significant portion of public education spending.
Low-income countries: Many low-income nations face a large annual finance gap to reach their education targets. Many also spend more on debt servicing than on education.
Interpretation and context
Correlation with achievement: Historically, simply increasing spending has not consistently led to significant improvements in student academic achievement in the U.S. and other countries. This suggests that how resources are allocated is a crucial factor.
COVID-19 relief: In the U.S., the federal spending increases observed between 2020 and 2022 were largely driven by pandemic relief legislation like the American Rescue Plan. This has led to a recent spike in federal funding levels.
Budgetary priorities: Spending on education is influenced by shifting priorities, budget caps, and economic conditions.
Because trends vary by country, level of education (K–12 vs. higher ed), and government source, there is no single answer to whether politicians are "increasing or decreasing" spending. Increases are often offset by declines in other areas or are not keeping pace with population growth or economic needs. Complete article
Professor James Garbarino has repeatedly claimed that religious groups could help solve social problems and reduce violence; has he ever criticized religious extremists? 08/30/2025
Yes, James Garbarino has criticized religious extremism and the harm it can cause, even while recognizing the potential of religious groups to do good. His perspective distinguishes between positive and negative expressions of religion, aligning with his wider work on trauma and violence.
Garbarino's criticism of religious extremism and violence
Spirituality and healing vs. trauma: In his 1996 paper Spiritual Challenges to Children Facing Violent Trauma, Garbarino and his co-author note that while spirituality can help with healing, "overwhelming cognitions that threaten core meaningfulness" can occur when a child is traumatized. Religious extremism, which often relies on rigid and overwhelming ideology, is a likely contributor to this kind of psychological harm.
Violence in war zones: Garbarino's work on the effects of violence on children includes extensive fieldwork in war zones, where conflict often has a religious dimension. His research with traumatized children in these areas implicitly critiques the extreme ideologies that fuel such violence.
The "war on violence" mentality: In a 2019 interview, Garbarino criticized the "war mentality" that frames attempts to solve social problems, citing "the war on bullies" and "the war on crime" as examples. This perspective suggests that an overly aggressive, "us versus them" mindset—a hallmark of many extremist groups—is counterproductive to achieving peace and healing.
His balanced view on religion
Garbarino's stance on religious extremism is consistent with his broader, nuanced view of religion.
He recognizes the positive aspects: In some of his work, he has acknowledged that religious groups can help with social problems and reduce violence, particularly when they provide a foundation for spirituality and meaning.
He separates spirituality from institutional failure: Garbarino's research on child abuse and trauma also considers the spiritual life of children, and he distinguishes this spiritual dimension from the potential failings and harms of institutions, including religious ones. Complete article
Yes, James Garbarino has criticized religious extremism and the harm it can cause, even while recognizing the potential of religious groups to do good. His perspective distinguishes between positive and negative expressions of religion, aligning with his wider work on trauma and violence.
Garbarino's criticism of religious extremism and violence
Spirituality and healing vs. trauma: In his 1996 paper Spiritual Challenges to Children Facing Violent Trauma, Garbarino and his co-author note that while spirituality can help with healing, "overwhelming cognitions that threaten core meaningfulness" can occur when a child is traumatized. Religious extremism, which often relies on rigid and overwhelming ideology, is a likely contributor to this kind of psychological harm.
Violence in war zones: Garbarino's work on the effects of violence on children includes extensive fieldwork in war zones, where conflict often has a religious dimension. His research with traumatized children in these areas implicitly critiques the extreme ideologies that fuel such violence.
The "war on violence" mentality: In a 2019 interview, Garbarino criticized the "war mentality" that frames attempts to solve social problems, citing "the war on bullies" and "the war on crime" as examples. This perspective suggests that an overly aggressive, "us versus them" mindset—a hallmark of many extremist groups—is counterproductive to achieving peace and healing.
His balanced view on religion
Garbarino's stance on religious extremism is consistent with his broader, nuanced view of religion.
He recognizes the positive aspects: In some of his work, he has acknowledged that religious groups can help with social problems and reduce violence, particularly when they provide a foundation for spirituality and meaning.
He separates spirituality from institutional failure: Garbarino's research on child abuse and trauma also considers the spiritual life of children, and he distinguishes this spiritual dimension from the potential failings and harms of institutions, including religious ones. Complete article
What was the national murder rate in the USA in 2023 and 2024 according to the FBI? 09/14/2025
According to the FBI, the national murder rate in 2023 was an estimated 6.8 murders per 100,000 people, with an estimated 22,830 homicides. The 2024 FBI report shows the murder rate decreased by an estimated 14.9% to 5 per 100,000 people, which is the lowest rate since 2015.
2023 National Murder Rate:
Rate: 6.8 per 100,000 people
Total Homicides: Approximately 22,830
Trend: This rate was a decrease from 2022.
2024 National Murder Rate:
Rate: 5 per 100,000 people
Trend: This represents a 14.9% decrease compared to 2023 and is the lowest murder rate recorded since 2015.
Data Source: The FBI released these statistics in their "Reported Crimes in the Nation, 2024" summary, based on data from law enforcement agencies across the country. Complete article
According to the FBI, the national murder rate in 2023 was an estimated 6.8 murders per 100,000 people, with an estimated 22,830 homicides. The 2024 FBI report shows the murder rate decreased by an estimated 14.9% to 5 per 100,000 people, which is the lowest rate since 2015.
2023 National Murder Rate:
Rate: 6.8 per 100,000 people
Total Homicides: Approximately 22,830
Trend: This rate was a decrease from 2022.
2024 National Murder Rate:
Rate: 5 per 100,000 people
Trend: This represents a 14.9% decrease compared to 2023 and is the lowest murder rate recorded since 2015.
Data Source: The FBI released these statistics in their "Reported Crimes in the Nation, 2024" summary, based on data from law enforcement agencies across the country. Complete article
Are muder rates or other crime rates increasing in 2025 compared to 2024? 09/14/2025
No, murder rates and other violent crime rates in the U.S. are generally decreasing in 2025 compared to 2024, with some analyses showing a decline of 17% or more for homicides in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. This downward trend continues the significant decreases seen in 2024 and suggests the possibility of a historic low murder rate in 2025. While overall crime is declining, some cities still have higher rates than pre-pandemic levels.
Key Trends
Decreasing Homicides: The U.S. homicide rate is significantly lower in the first half of 2025 compared to 2024, with one report indicating a 17% decrease.
Continued Decline: This decline builds on the substantial drop in murders observed in 2024.
Potential for Historic Lows: The downward trend in homicides suggests that 2025 could see the lowest murder rate in decades, possibly even the lowest ever recorded by the FBI.
Broader Violent Crime Reduction: Decreases have also been observed in other violent offenses, such as rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Mixed City Trends: While the national picture is one of decline, some individual cities are still experiencing higher homicide rates than in the pre-pandemic year of 2019.
Why the Decline?
Resuming Normalcy: Some analysts and criminologists believe the reduction in homicides is connected to the resumption of normal local government operations and investments in violence prevention programs after the sharp increase during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Not a Police Increase: The decline is not attributed to an increase in police presence, as the number of officers in most major and mid-sized cities is lower than before the pandemic. Complete article
No, murder rates and other violent crime rates in the U.S. are generally decreasing in 2025 compared to 2024, with some analyses showing a decline of 17% or more for homicides in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. This downward trend continues the significant decreases seen in 2024 and suggests the possibility of a historic low murder rate in 2025. While overall crime is declining, some cities still have higher rates than pre-pandemic levels.
Key Trends
Decreasing Homicides: The U.S. homicide rate is significantly lower in the first half of 2025 compared to 2024, with one report indicating a 17% decrease.
Continued Decline: This decline builds on the substantial drop in murders observed in 2024.
Potential for Historic Lows: The downward trend in homicides suggests that 2025 could see the lowest murder rate in decades, possibly even the lowest ever recorded by the FBI.
Broader Violent Crime Reduction: Decreases have also been observed in other violent offenses, such as rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Mixed City Trends: While the national picture is one of decline, some individual cities are still experiencing higher homicide rates than in the pre-pandemic year of 2019.
Why the Decline?
Resuming Normalcy: Some analysts and criminologists believe the reduction in homicides is connected to the resumption of normal local government operations and investments in violence prevention programs after the sharp increase during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Not a Police Increase: The decline is not attributed to an increase in police presence, as the number of officers in most major and mid-sized cities is lower than before the pandemic. Complete article
Does organized gambling including the lottery contribute to poverty, crime, violence including murder, or income inequality? 09/17/2025
Organized gambling and lotteries contribute to poverty, income inequality, crime, and violence, primarily by disproportionately affecting low-income populations. While gambling can be a benign recreational activity for many, its addictive potential and the marketing practices surrounding it make it harmful to vulnerable individuals and communities.
Contribution to poverty and income inequality
Organized gambling is linked to greater poverty and increased income inequality due to the following factors:
Targeting of low-income areas: Lotteries and other gambling venues are often more heavily marketed and located in disadvantaged neighborhoods. These areas show significantly higher rates of problem gambling compared to more affluent communities.
Regressive taxation: Lotteries function as a regressive tax, with low-income households spending a higher percentage of their income on lottery tickets than wealthier households. This transfers wealth out of low-income communities.
Perpetuates a cycle of poverty: Individuals in poor neighborhoods may see gambling as one of the few opportunities for financial advancement. Spending a significant portion of their limited income on gambling can destabilize households, making it difficult to pay for essentials like food and rent, and can drive families deeper into poverty.
Increased financial hardship: Problem gambling can lead to severe financial distress, including high debt, loan defaults, and bankruptcy. Studies show that the likelihood of declaring bankruptcy can increase significantly following the legalization of online gambling.
Lotteries can decrease other spending: Research has found that the introduction of state lotteries is associated with a decline in non-gambling spending, with the effect most pronounced in the lowest-income households.
Link to crime
Problem gambling is strongly associated with a variety of criminal behaviors, especially those intended to acquire money to fund the addiction or pay off debts.
Increased crime rates: Problem gambling is prevalent among incarcerated populations, with some studies finding that half of all problem gamblers commit crimes related to their addiction.
Prevalence in offender populations: Some studies have found that problem gamblers are arrested three to seven times more often than non-gamblers. Problem or pathological gamblers constitute a higher percentage of prison populations than they do in the general public.
Types of gambling-related crimes: While violent crime rates may not directly correlate, property and financial crimes are common.
White-collar crimes, such as fraud, forgery, and embezzlement, are frequently cited.
Theft, including from family members or employers, is also common.
Some problem gamblers may resort to more violent crimes, like robbery or assault, or may sell drugs to finance their habits.
Association with violence
The link between problem gambling and violence, particularly domestic violence, is consistently reported in research.
Domestic and family violence: Problem gamblers may become irritable, agitated, or violent when losing money or when confronted by family about their gambling. Studies suggest that spousal abuse and child abuse are more common among pathological gamblers.
Increased risk: Problem gambling is considered a risk factor for intimate partner violence (IPV). Research has found that when a partner is addicted to gambling, the odds of IPV increase significantly.
Intensified emotional cues: Studies have found that legalized sports gambling is correlated with an increase in domestic violence incidents, especially following an upset loss by a home team. The financial losses intensify the emotional cues, contributing to more IPV.
Limitations and nuance
While the evidence points to significant harms, it is important to consider the complexity of the issue:
Causality vs. correlation: Much of the research demonstrates a strong association between problem gambling and these negative social outcomes, but it can be difficult to definitively prove a direct causal link. For example, studies show that trauma and pre-existing mental health issues can also increase the risk of problem gambling.
Not all gambling is equal: Not all forms of gambling have the same impact. Some studies have found lotteries, in particular, exacerbate inequality, while the effects of other forms may be less clear or require more research. For most people, gambling is a recreational activity that does not lead to harmful outcomes.
Government dependence on revenue: Governments rely on gambling revenue for public services, and moral considerations are often overshadowed by this financial dependency. Complete article
Organized gambling and lotteries contribute to poverty, income inequality, crime, and violence, primarily by disproportionately affecting low-income populations. While gambling can be a benign recreational activity for many, its addictive potential and the marketing practices surrounding it make it harmful to vulnerable individuals and communities.
Contribution to poverty and income inequality
Organized gambling is linked to greater poverty and increased income inequality due to the following factors:
Targeting of low-income areas: Lotteries and other gambling venues are often more heavily marketed and located in disadvantaged neighborhoods. These areas show significantly higher rates of problem gambling compared to more affluent communities.
Regressive taxation: Lotteries function as a regressive tax, with low-income households spending a higher percentage of their income on lottery tickets than wealthier households. This transfers wealth out of low-income communities.
Perpetuates a cycle of poverty: Individuals in poor neighborhoods may see gambling as one of the few opportunities for financial advancement. Spending a significant portion of their limited income on gambling can destabilize households, making it difficult to pay for essentials like food and rent, and can drive families deeper into poverty.
Increased financial hardship: Problem gambling can lead to severe financial distress, including high debt, loan defaults, and bankruptcy. Studies show that the likelihood of declaring bankruptcy can increase significantly following the legalization of online gambling.
Lotteries can decrease other spending: Research has found that the introduction of state lotteries is associated with a decline in non-gambling spending, with the effect most pronounced in the lowest-income households.
Link to crime
Problem gambling is strongly associated with a variety of criminal behaviors, especially those intended to acquire money to fund the addiction or pay off debts.
Increased crime rates: Problem gambling is prevalent among incarcerated populations, with some studies finding that half of all problem gamblers commit crimes related to their addiction.
Prevalence in offender populations: Some studies have found that problem gamblers are arrested three to seven times more often than non-gamblers. Problem or pathological gamblers constitute a higher percentage of prison populations than they do in the general public.
Types of gambling-related crimes: While violent crime rates may not directly correlate, property and financial crimes are common.
White-collar crimes, such as fraud, forgery, and embezzlement, are frequently cited.
Theft, including from family members or employers, is also common.
Some problem gamblers may resort to more violent crimes, like robbery or assault, or may sell drugs to finance their habits.
Association with violence
The link between problem gambling and violence, particularly domestic violence, is consistently reported in research.
Domestic and family violence: Problem gamblers may become irritable, agitated, or violent when losing money or when confronted by family about their gambling. Studies suggest that spousal abuse and child abuse are more common among pathological gamblers.
Increased risk: Problem gambling is considered a risk factor for intimate partner violence (IPV). Research has found that when a partner is addicted to gambling, the odds of IPV increase significantly.
Intensified emotional cues: Studies have found that legalized sports gambling is correlated with an increase in domestic violence incidents, especially following an upset loss by a home team. The financial losses intensify the emotional cues, contributing to more IPV.
Limitations and nuance
While the evidence points to significant harms, it is important to consider the complexity of the issue:
Causality vs. correlation: Much of the research demonstrates a strong association between problem gambling and these negative social outcomes, but it can be difficult to definitively prove a direct causal link. For example, studies show that trauma and pre-existing mental health issues can also increase the risk of problem gambling.
Not all gambling is equal: Not all forms of gambling have the same impact. Some studies have found lotteries, in particular, exacerbate inequality, while the effects of other forms may be less clear or require more research. For most people, gambling is a recreational activity that does not lead to harmful outcomes.
Government dependence on revenue: Governments rely on gambling revenue for public services, and moral considerations are often overshadowed by this financial dependency. Complete article
Does insurance provide an incentive for fraud or even murder? 09/17/2025
Yes, insurance can provide a powerful motive for fraud and, in extreme cases, murder, though insurers have extensive safeguards in place to prevent such crimes. The potential for financial gain from a large insurance payout—especially from life insurance—can tempt individuals with the right combination of motive, opportunity, and rationalization, sometimes leading to violent acts.
Insurance fraud
Insurance fraud is widespread and can be motivated by both greed and financial pressure. Common schemes include:
Inflated or fake claims: After a legitimate event, such as a car accident, a policyholder may exaggerate damages or make up claims for nonexistent items.
Staged events: Organized criminal enterprises may stage car accidents or set fires to collect insurance money.
Application fraud: Applicants might misrepresent information about their health or financial status to secure lower premiums.
Identity theft: Fraudsters may use stolen information to alter insurance policies and divert payouts to themselves.
Insurance-motivated murder
In rare but serious cases, the incentive for a life insurance payout can escalate to murder. Insurers have countermeasures to prevent payouts in these circumstances.
Legal safeguards
Slayer statutes: All states have laws that prevent a beneficiary from collecting life insurance proceeds if they are found responsible for the policyholder's death.
Financial interest: An individual must be able to prove they would face financial loss upon the insured's death in order to purchase a life insurance policy on them. This "insurable interest" prevents a stranger from taking out a policy on someone.
Notable cases
The assassination of Brian Thompson: In December 2024, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was assassinated in what authorities allege was a planned, targeted attack. Evidence suggests the motive was anger over claim denials, with the words "delay," "deny," and "depose" found at the scene, echoing common criticisms of the insurance industry.
The Texas "murder-for-hire": A man was executed in 2017 for orchestrating the murder of his wife in order to collect her life insurance payout.
The 1988 "insured for murder" plot: A man's body was identified as a businessman who had recently been cremated. The insurance investigator later discovered the body on the floor of a neurologist's office was an anonymous double who was murdered for a life insurance scam.
How insurers mitigate risks
The insurance industry is aware of the risks and invests heavily in fraud prevention.
Special Investigation Units (SIU): Most insurers have dedicated teams to investigate suspicious claims using advanced analytics and technology.
Industry collaboration: Insurers share data and work with law enforcement and anti-fraud groups like the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.
AI and data analytics: Advanced analytics and artificial intelligence are used to detect unusual patterns, inconsistencies, and anomalies that can signal fraud.
Strict underwriting: Strict application protocols, especially for life insurance, help ensure the policyholder has a legitimate purpose for the policy. Complete article
Yes, insurance can provide a powerful motive for fraud and, in extreme cases, murder, though insurers have extensive safeguards in place to prevent such crimes. The potential for financial gain from a large insurance payout—especially from life insurance—can tempt individuals with the right combination of motive, opportunity, and rationalization, sometimes leading to violent acts.
Insurance fraud
Insurance fraud is widespread and can be motivated by both greed and financial pressure. Common schemes include:
Inflated or fake claims: After a legitimate event, such as a car accident, a policyholder may exaggerate damages or make up claims for nonexistent items.
Staged events: Organized criminal enterprises may stage car accidents or set fires to collect insurance money.
Application fraud: Applicants might misrepresent information about their health or financial status to secure lower premiums.
Identity theft: Fraudsters may use stolen information to alter insurance policies and divert payouts to themselves.
Insurance-motivated murder
In rare but serious cases, the incentive for a life insurance payout can escalate to murder. Insurers have countermeasures to prevent payouts in these circumstances.
Legal safeguards
Slayer statutes: All states have laws that prevent a beneficiary from collecting life insurance proceeds if they are found responsible for the policyholder's death.
Financial interest: An individual must be able to prove they would face financial loss upon the insured's death in order to purchase a life insurance policy on them. This "insurable interest" prevents a stranger from taking out a policy on someone.
Notable cases
The assassination of Brian Thompson: In December 2024, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was assassinated in what authorities allege was a planned, targeted attack. Evidence suggests the motive was anger over claim denials, with the words "delay," "deny," and "depose" found at the scene, echoing common criticisms of the insurance industry.
The Texas "murder-for-hire": A man was executed in 2017 for orchestrating the murder of his wife in order to collect her life insurance payout.
The 1988 "insured for murder" plot: A man's body was identified as a businessman who had recently been cremated. The insurance investigator later discovered the body on the floor of a neurologist's office was an anonymous double who was murdered for a life insurance scam.
How insurers mitigate risks
The insurance industry is aware of the risks and invests heavily in fraud prevention.
Special Investigation Units (SIU): Most insurers have dedicated teams to investigate suspicious claims using advanced analytics and technology.
Industry collaboration: Insurers share data and work with law enforcement and anti-fraud groups like the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.
AI and data analytics: Advanced analytics and artificial intelligence are used to detect unusual patterns, inconsistencies, and anomalies that can signal fraud.
Strict underwriting: Strict application protocols, especially for life insurance, help ensure the policyholder has a legitimate purpose for the policy. Complete article
How often do people commit murder to collect life insurance? 09/17/2025
While life insurance fraud involving murder is a dramatic and sensationalized topic, it is not a common occurrence in the real world.
Here's a breakdown of why this is the case:
Strict underwriting processes: Insurance companies employ rigorous underwriting procedures to assess risk, including requiring the consent of the insured for policies taken out on their life, according to Medium.
Investigations and Suspicious Deaths: If a death certificate indicates suicide, murder, or other suspicious circumstances, the insurance company will conduct a thorough investigation and potentially involve law enforcement before any payout is made.
Legal ramifications: Individuals who commit murder for insurance are subject to severe legal consequences, including prosecution, imprisonment, and possibly civil suits for wrongful death.
Slayer Statutes: Many states have "slayer statutes" or rules that prevent individuals from benefiting from a life insurance policy if they are involved in the death of the insured, regardless of conviction.
However, it is important to acknowledge that it does happen:
Despite these safeguards, there have been documented instances of individuals murdering others to collect life insurance benefits.
Some sources suggest that life insurance fraud, in general, costs the industry billions of dollars annually, though murder for insurance is a subset of this larger issue.
News and true crime shows often highlight such cases due to their shocking nature, potentially creating a false perception of their prevalence.
In conclusion, while murder for life insurance is a disturbing reality, it's statistically rare and difficult to execute successfully due to the robust measures in place to detect and prevent such fraud.
AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional. Complete article
While life insurance fraud involving murder is a dramatic and sensationalized topic, it is not a common occurrence in the real world.
Here's a breakdown of why this is the case:
Strict underwriting processes: Insurance companies employ rigorous underwriting procedures to assess risk, including requiring the consent of the insured for policies taken out on their life, according to Medium.
Investigations and Suspicious Deaths: If a death certificate indicates suicide, murder, or other suspicious circumstances, the insurance company will conduct a thorough investigation and potentially involve law enforcement before any payout is made.
Legal ramifications: Individuals who commit murder for insurance are subject to severe legal consequences, including prosecution, imprisonment, and possibly civil suits for wrongful death.
Slayer Statutes: Many states have "slayer statutes" or rules that prevent individuals from benefiting from a life insurance policy if they are involved in the death of the insured, regardless of conviction.
However, it is important to acknowledge that it does happen:
Despite these safeguards, there have been documented instances of individuals murdering others to collect life insurance benefits.
Some sources suggest that life insurance fraud, in general, costs the industry billions of dollars annually, though murder for insurance is a subset of this larger issue.
News and true crime shows often highlight such cases due to their shocking nature, potentially creating a false perception of their prevalence.
In conclusion, while murder for life insurance is a disturbing reality, it's statistically rare and difficult to execute successfully due to the robust measures in place to detect and prevent such fraud.
AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional. Complete article
Is there any effort to track how often people commit murder for life insurance? 09/17/2025
Official tracking of murders specifically committed for life insurance payouts does not exist, so a reliable statistic is not available. However, the crime is monitored through two main avenues: individual life insurance company investigations and "slayer statutes" in state law.
How the crime is monitored
Insurance company investigations
Life insurance companies are highly motivated to investigate suspicious deaths to prevent paying out fraudulent claims.
When a policyholder is murdered, the insurer will delay or withhold the payout to the beneficiary until any suspicion is cleared.
If the beneficiary is found to be involved in the death, they are barred from collecting the death benefit. The money is then typically paid to a secondary beneficiary or the deceased's estate.
The insurance company can hire private investigators to look into claims where foul play is suspected.
Slayer statutes
All US states have "slayer statutes," laws that prevent someone who has intentionally killed another person from benefiting from the victim's estate. This includes inheriting life insurance proceeds.
Conviction not always required: In many states, a criminal conviction is not necessary for the insurer to deny a payout. The company can act based on a civil court's finding of a "preponderance of the evidence" that the beneficiary committed the crime.
Civil lawsuits: The contingent beneficiary or the deceased's estate can also file a civil lawsuit against the murderer to prevent them from receiving any proceeds.
Why official statistics are not kept
Neither law enforcement agencies nor insurance companies publicly release specific data on the number of murders linked to insurance fraud.
Confidential investigations: Life insurance investigations are confidential and often involve close collaboration with law enforcement.
FBI data limitations: FBI crime statistics do not specify insurance as a motive for murder. The data categorizes circumstances like "felony-type murders" but does not provide a separate category for insurance-related killings.
Variable motives: In many murder-for-hire cases or domestic violence situations, the life insurance payout may be a motivating factor, but it is not the sole cause listed in a criminal record. Complete article
Official tracking of murders specifically committed for life insurance payouts does not exist, so a reliable statistic is not available. However, the crime is monitored through two main avenues: individual life insurance company investigations and "slayer statutes" in state law.
How the crime is monitored
Insurance company investigations
Life insurance companies are highly motivated to investigate suspicious deaths to prevent paying out fraudulent claims.
When a policyholder is murdered, the insurer will delay or withhold the payout to the beneficiary until any suspicion is cleared.
If the beneficiary is found to be involved in the death, they are barred from collecting the death benefit. The money is then typically paid to a secondary beneficiary or the deceased's estate.
The insurance company can hire private investigators to look into claims where foul play is suspected.
Slayer statutes
All US states have "slayer statutes," laws that prevent someone who has intentionally killed another person from benefiting from the victim's estate. This includes inheriting life insurance proceeds.
Conviction not always required: In many states, a criminal conviction is not necessary for the insurer to deny a payout. The company can act based on a civil court's finding of a "preponderance of the evidence" that the beneficiary committed the crime.
Civil lawsuits: The contingent beneficiary or the deceased's estate can also file a civil lawsuit against the murderer to prevent them from receiving any proceeds.
Why official statistics are not kept
Neither law enforcement agencies nor insurance companies publicly release specific data on the number of murders linked to insurance fraud.
Confidential investigations: Life insurance investigations are confidential and often involve close collaboration with law enforcement.
FBI data limitations: FBI crime statistics do not specify insurance as a motive for murder. The data categorizes circumstances like "felony-type murders" but does not provide a separate category for insurance-related killings.
Variable motives: In many murder-for-hire cases or domestic violence situations, the life insurance payout may be a motivating factor, but it is not the sole cause listed in a criminal record. Complete article
India: Police probe ‘link’ between death of murder accused’s 1st wife and insurance claim 09/17/2025
Iowa Woman Murdered Her Husband, Then Collected Life Insurance Payout. Now His Estate Wants It Returned 08/27/2025 Karina Cooper pocketed a $515K life insurance check — now, her slain husband's estate wants it back. Karina Cooper received nearly $515,000 from her husband Ryan Cooper's life insurance in December 2021 after he was found shot dead in their Iowa home.
Kansas murder suspect uses wife's life insurance payout to buy a sex doll 02/09/2025 Colby Trickle, who was in the Army Reserve, cashed in on two life insurance policies for his wife, Kristen Trickle, totaling more than $120,000.
Utah nurse accused of murder, faking patient's cancer diagnosis to claim life insurance 03/21/2025 Upon arrival, authorities located the victim in her bedroom, with 47-year-old Meggan Randall Sundwall. .... Documents stated that Sundwall believed she was the beneficiary of a $1.5 million life insurance policy held by the victim and that evidence revealed she had been trying to kill her with insulin for years.
Police Find Multiple Life Insurance Policies With One Man As the Beneficiary 09/1/2025 Police find shocking evidence that a suspect may have killed Janice Starr to gain access to her life insurance policy.
Main Suspect in ROTC Student's Disappearance Dies in Plane Crash: "Totally Devastated" 08/09/2025 Army Vet Eva Nevarez St. John lived with the Miami-raised Janice Starr while stationed in Dongducheon, South Korea. The best friends and roommates served together in the U.S. Army during the late 1970s before Starr relocated to Norfolk, Virginia, in 1980, and St. John, the following year, moved to Washington, D.C.
A look into insurance salesman's murder reveals secret double life 02/07/2025 Bob Eidman was shot and killed in broad daylight, shocking the local community. ..... Police investigating Eidman's murder soon discovered that the small insurance policy Diane had initially told investigators about was not the only policy Diane had. With Eidman’s sudden death, Diane was set to receive more than $300,000 in life insurance.
Woman admits having boyfriend killed for insurance money 09/09/2025 Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri said Victoria R. Williams pleaded guilty to one count of murder-for-hire conspiracy, murder-for-hire, and money laundering conspiracy in the death of Charles Harris III. Harris was gunned down on Oct. 5, 2011, at his home in 10500 block of Landford Drive in north St. Louis County. The murder had been made to look like a robbery.
Florida man sentenced to life in murder-for-insurance plot against stepfather 06/26/2025 Perry Stanley was convicted of killing his partner’s stepfather for insurance money.
Life insurance in limbo as Cottonwood Heights murder case moves toward trial 04/25/2025 Jennifer Gledhill is the named beneficiary of a $500,000 Prudential life insurance policy taken out by her husband, Matthew Johnson.
South Korea: Insurance agent buys life insurance for her sick son a day before his death 05/18/2025 It was discovered that the suspect had purchased life insurance for her son with a 200 million won ($143,000) payout in case of death, the day after the son started coughing up blood. The insurance agency suspected foul play, as the victim died just eight hours after subscribing to the insurance plan, and reported the case to the police in January 2024.
Monroe County murder suspect opened $8M in life insurance policies under false identity, warrant says 11/15/2025 Nicholas Wayne Hamlett is accused in a complicated Monroe County murder and identity theft investigation.
The states still allowing corporal punishment in school have much lower murder rates than those banning it in schools; could violence be reduced by reintroducing corporal punishment in schools? 09/15/2025 As I said above, this statement was intentionally false to check of AI would correct it; Google AI only partly refuted it without correcting the false claim, which Grok did.
No, reintroducing corporal punishment in schools is not a viable strategy to reduce violence, as scientific research indicates it is ineffective and harmful, leading to negative outcomes like increased aggression and poor educational achievement. While states that allow corporal punishment might have lower murder rates, this correlation doesn't prove causality; rather, the practice normalizes physical aggression and is linked to worse behavioral and mental health outcomes for children in numerous studies.
Evidence against corporal punishment:
Increases aggression: Corporal punishment teaches that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflict, leading to increased aggression in children.
Mental and physical harm: Research links corporal punishment to mental health problems, physical injury, impaired cognitive development, and poor academic performance.
Ineffective for discipline: Studies show that corporal punishment is an ineffective method of discipline and can have the opposite effect of what supporters intend, worsening behavior.
Harmful child development: It can lead to antisocial behaviors, mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and negatively impact overall child development.
Misleading correlation vs. causation:
A correlation between states that allow corporal punishment and lower murder rates does not mean one causes the other. There are many complex societal factors influencing murder rates, and it is inaccurate to attribute them to the presence or absence of corporal punishment in schools.
Alternatives and expert consensus:
Professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), oppose corporal punishment in schools and advocate for positive, trauma-informed disciplinary methods.
Instead of punishing violence, schools are encouraged to use positive behavior management strategies, crisis intervention, and programs that teach social skills and self-control to create a safer environment. Complete article
No, reintroducing corporal punishment in schools is not a viable strategy to reduce violence, as scientific research indicates it is ineffective and harmful, leading to negative outcomes like increased aggression and poor educational achievement. While states that allow corporal punishment might have lower murder rates, this correlation doesn't prove causality; rather, the practice normalizes physical aggression and is linked to worse behavioral and mental health outcomes for children in numerous studies.
Evidence against corporal punishment:
Increases aggression: Corporal punishment teaches that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflict, leading to increased aggression in children.
Mental and physical harm: Research links corporal punishment to mental health problems, physical injury, impaired cognitive development, and poor academic performance.
Ineffective for discipline: Studies show that corporal punishment is an ineffective method of discipline and can have the opposite effect of what supporters intend, worsening behavior.
Harmful child development: It can lead to antisocial behaviors, mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and negatively impact overall child development.
Misleading correlation vs. causation:
A correlation between states that allow corporal punishment and lower murder rates does not mean one causes the other. There are many complex societal factors influencing murder rates, and it is inaccurate to attribute them to the presence or absence of corporal punishment in schools.
Alternatives and expert consensus:
Professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), oppose corporal punishment in schools and advocate for positive, trauma-informed disciplinary methods.
Instead of punishing violence, schools are encouraged to use positive behavior management strategies, crisis intervention, and programs that teach social skills and self-control to create a safer environment. Complete article
Portugugal has implemented sucessful progrand to decriminalize drugs helping reduce addiction; are there studies showing they also save more money then they cost? 09/26/2025
Yes, multiple studies show that Portugal's drug decriminalization policy saved more money than it cost by significantly reducing societal costs related to health and the justice system.
Cost-benefit analysis of the policy
In the years after Portugal decriminalized the personal use of all drugs in 2001, studies documented a strong return on investment.
Reduced social costs: A 2015 study published in ScienceDirect found that the total social cost of drug misuse in Portugal decreased by 12% in the five years following decriminalization and by 18% by 2010. These savings came from reductions in healthcare and legal system expenses.
Lower legal system costs: The financial burden of prosecuting and incarcerating individuals for drug offenses declined sharply. For example, between 1999 and 2010, the costs associated with criminal proceedings for drug offenses decreased significantly. The cost of running the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDTs), which handle drug use cases, was also lower than processing them through the court system.
Healthcare cost offsets: Although there was a small increase in direct health costs for addiction treatment, this was more than offset by significant reductions in other health-related expenses, particularly the prevention of drug-related diseases like HIV/AIDS.
Reduced incarceration costs: Portugal saw a dramatic drop in the percentage of its prison population held for drug offenses, from over 40% in 2001 to 15.7% by 2019. This shift eased the financial and administrative burden on the criminal justice system.
The importance of public health investment
The cost-effectiveness of Portugal's policy relies heavily on its complementary investment in harm reduction, treatment, and social reintegration programs. Without this investment, the savings from decriminalization alone would not have been as impactful.
However, budget cuts to these programs following the 2008 financial crisis showed the risks of underfunding. A 2023 analysis noted that, as funding dropped in the 2010s, drug overdose rates rose, and there was anecdotal evidence of the treatment system weakening. This highlights that the fiscal benefits are closely tied to sustained public investment.
What this means for other countries
Portugal's experience offers lessons for other countries considering decriminalization.
The economic benefits are achieved not just by saving on incarceration but by reinvesting in public health.
Studies from the United States have found that every dollar spent on addiction treatment can save up to $12 in other costs, including crime, healthcare, and lost productivity.
Ending prohibition also eliminates enforcement costs and can create new tax revenue streams, as estimated by the Cato Institute for the U.S.. Complete article
Is Public Funding for Drug and Alcohol Rehab Worth It? 08/05/2021
A social cost perspective in the wake of the Portuguese strategy for the fight against drugs Feb. 2015
decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. 05/13/2021
Going after the Addiction, Not the Addicted: The Impact of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal July 2017
The Latest on the Decriminalization of Drugs 03/22/2021
Understanding successful policy innovation: The case of Portuguese drug policy 11/25/2022
Is Portugal’s Drug Decriminalization a Failure or Success? The Answer Isn’t So Simple 09/05/2023 Portugal's ongoing struggles with drug addiction offer bigger takeaways about how to sustain organizational change, writes Wharton's Gregory Shea.
Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight 2016
Portugal decriminalized the possession and consumption of illicit substances and invested in treatment 06/06/2023
Portugal’s Successful Drug Decriminalization By Mark J. Perry 05/13/2009
Portugal’s Model of Drug Decriminalization and Harm Reduction: A Compassionate Approach to Saving Lives 12/17/2024
Examining opioid agonist treatment (OAT) site operations and early signals of change in the first year of British Columbia’s drug decriminalization policy: Insights from a provincial survey 06/09/2025
How is Addiction Treatment Funded in Other Countries? A Closer Look at Australia 02/27/2017 In the U.S., every $1 invested in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment saves society $12 in reduced crime, health care costs, and enhanced productivity.
The Case for Legalization Ethan Nadelmann
The Budgetary Effects of Ending Drug Prohibition 07/23/2018
Galen Carpenter "The Fire Next Door: Mexico's Drug Violence and the Danger to America 2012
Yes, multiple studies show that Portugal's drug decriminalization policy saved more money than it cost by significantly reducing societal costs related to health and the justice system.
Cost-benefit analysis of the policy
In the years after Portugal decriminalized the personal use of all drugs in 2001, studies documented a strong return on investment.
Reduced social costs: A 2015 study published in ScienceDirect found that the total social cost of drug misuse in Portugal decreased by 12% in the five years following decriminalization and by 18% by 2010. These savings came from reductions in healthcare and legal system expenses.
Lower legal system costs: The financial burden of prosecuting and incarcerating individuals for drug offenses declined sharply. For example, between 1999 and 2010, the costs associated with criminal proceedings for drug offenses decreased significantly. The cost of running the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDTs), which handle drug use cases, was also lower than processing them through the court system.
Healthcare cost offsets: Although there was a small increase in direct health costs for addiction treatment, this was more than offset by significant reductions in other health-related expenses, particularly the prevention of drug-related diseases like HIV/AIDS.
Reduced incarceration costs: Portugal saw a dramatic drop in the percentage of its prison population held for drug offenses, from over 40% in 2001 to 15.7% by 2019. This shift eased the financial and administrative burden on the criminal justice system.
The importance of public health investment
The cost-effectiveness of Portugal's policy relies heavily on its complementary investment in harm reduction, treatment, and social reintegration programs. Without this investment, the savings from decriminalization alone would not have been as impactful.
However, budget cuts to these programs following the 2008 financial crisis showed the risks of underfunding. A 2023 analysis noted that, as funding dropped in the 2010s, drug overdose rates rose, and there was anecdotal evidence of the treatment system weakening. This highlights that the fiscal benefits are closely tied to sustained public investment.
What this means for other countries
Portugal's experience offers lessons for other countries considering decriminalization.
The economic benefits are achieved not just by saving on incarceration but by reinvesting in public health.
Studies from the United States have found that every dollar spent on addiction treatment can save up to $12 in other costs, including crime, healthcare, and lost productivity.
Ending prohibition also eliminates enforcement costs and can create new tax revenue streams, as estimated by the Cato Institute for the U.S.. Complete article
Is Public Funding for Drug and Alcohol Rehab Worth It? 08/05/2021
A social cost perspective in the wake of the Portuguese strategy for the fight against drugs Feb. 2015
decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. 05/13/2021
Going after the Addiction, Not the Addicted: The Impact of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal July 2017
The Latest on the Decriminalization of Drugs 03/22/2021
Understanding successful policy innovation: The case of Portuguese drug policy 11/25/2022
Is Portugal’s Drug Decriminalization a Failure or Success? The Answer Isn’t So Simple 09/05/2023 Portugal's ongoing struggles with drug addiction offer bigger takeaways about how to sustain organizational change, writes Wharton's Gregory Shea.
Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight 2016
Portugal decriminalized the possession and consumption of illicit substances and invested in treatment 06/06/2023
Portugal’s Successful Drug Decriminalization By Mark J. Perry 05/13/2009
Portugal’s Model of Drug Decriminalization and Harm Reduction: A Compassionate Approach to Saving Lives 12/17/2024
Examining opioid agonist treatment (OAT) site operations and early signals of change in the first year of British Columbia’s drug decriminalization policy: Insights from a provincial survey 06/09/2025
How is Addiction Treatment Funded in Other Countries? A Closer Look at Australia 02/27/2017 In the U.S., every $1 invested in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment saves society $12 in reduced crime, health care costs, and enhanced productivity.
The Case for Legalization Ethan Nadelmann
The Budgetary Effects of Ending Drug Prohibition 07/23/2018
Galen Carpenter "The Fire Next Door: Mexico's Drug Violence and the Danger to America 2012
