The Freakonomics in-box regularly fills up with interesting tales (like this one and this one). The other day, a reader from Dallas named Erik Hille took reader e-mail to a whole new level. He was writing about the Feb. 1 entry in our fact-a-day calendar, which excerpts a fact from our book in the chapter on crime:
“The average sixty-five-year-old person is about one-fiftieth as likely to be arrested as the average teenager.”
As you will see, Hille turns reading into an interactive sport. I hope you enjoy his contribution as much as I did. Here’s what he had to say:
Being an actuarial retirement plan consultant, I was interested in why this might be true:
Most criminals have retired by age 65. They are better at planning for retirement and better at funding their retirement than the rest of us. Occupational hazards require early retirement. Geriatric conditions are not compatible with criminal behavior. The incidence of disability is high, and Social Security and disability benefits pay more than crime would for a disabled criminal (sort of like the Social Security argument below). Very few criminals have survived in the general population to age 65, due to mortality and permanent incarceration (otherwise know as a life term without parole). (It might be noted that when Social Security was first introduced, the average life expectancy [in the U.S.] was around 65, and only about 50 percent of the population was expected to actually live to collect Social Security benefits.) Social Security pays better than criminal activity (similar to your documentation of gang members making the equivalent of minimum wage). Criminals are not very good at inventing new modus operandi, and after being caught a few times for the same racket, they often realize that the cops are onto their schemes. Senior criminals are just better at [crime] than teenagers, and know how not to get caught. Senior criminals have all graduated to white-collar crime, and are no longer hunted by the police or included in crime statistics. New younger criminals and recent criminal immigrants have taken over that segment of the economy. Senior criminals have been promoted to management positions where they are less likely to be charged with a crime, as they are not directly associated with criminal acts under investigation. Senior criminals have hired younger criminals to do their work for them (a combination of the above two). It is generational: 45 to 55 years ago, when the current 65-year-old criminals were teenagers and would have been starting their criminal careers, a much smaller percentage of the population was engaged in criminal activity. Or, if they were engaged in criminal activity, such activity was later legalized (e.g., alcohol and pornography). Forty-five to 55 years ago, abortion was not legal, but shotgun weddings were culturally enforced. Thus, there were fewer children raised by single parents, and, by correlation, fewer criminals.
Is there anything that Mr. Hille hasn’t covered?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
If I am correct, it does not concern all criminals here, it concerns IDENTIFIED criminals. The really good ones will of course be caught later (in lesser frequencies) and therefore there appear to be less old criminals. And of course the perfect criminal is never caught, so these don’t even show up in the statistics…
Following comment #1, violent crime is possibly more common among young people and thus police concentrate more on violent crime, and thus on younger people.
i’ll play contrarian, and claim that there are more old criminals than you might think. i hear news stories every few months or so about seniors shoplifting (just walk in and steal a bottle of alieve from the drug store).
that is why i like the “seniors are better at crime and less likely to be arrested.” moreover, shopkeepers are used to watching teens like hawks but perhaps not the elderly. who is more likely to be thought a criminal by a clerk in a store: an old woman with walker or a 17 year old in a baggy hooded sweatshirt. at least that works for petty theft.
what about major organized crime? i would not be suprised to see many seniors working in larger criminal organizations, either as heads of the groups, or doing various lesser desk-functions… does anyone have any information about this?
How about a few obvious points, covered somewhat by the OP.
1- High mortality rate. A lot of criminals don’t live long enough to reach 65.
2- High rates of incarceration, lifetime or otherwise. Consider death penalty/life w/o parole essentially freezes the age of criminals at the age at conviction. In the otherwise category, consider that once you do a 6 year bid, maybe you don’t want to go back. Of course, recidivism is high, so three strikes and out laws move people to life sentences. But, with decent job training and assimilation programs, perhaps some criminals are learning trades in the joint and coming out to be productive.
I don’t think social security benefits are really germane. Unless we believe that criminals are all inherently part time criminals, paying into the system, their social security income is going to be not much, if anything.
Retirement planning doesn’t seem to be the hallmark of the poor who are more likely to be criminals. I think our OP is putting a lot of his experience onto people that don’t share that experience at all.
When I bought a house in London, I found I was living in a small zone that was immune to burglaries. The neighbors let on that there were several well established professional burglars in the zone, and they did not permit burgalries near their own homes. I became acquainted with some of them. The critical point at which they “retired” appeared to be when they moved out to the suburbs to be near their grandchildren. A condition of being allowed to enjoy the kids company, a condition strictly enforced by daughters and daughters in law, seemed to be that Granddad must neither be nor be seen to be a criminal.
In the case of petty theft, store workers may also see the elderly steal without doing anything about it. My evidence? A scene from Seinfeld:
MANAGER: Did you want to speak with the manager?
JERRY: Yes. My Uncle Leo was cought shoplifing here the other day..
MANAGER: Yes, Uncle Leo. I remember him. I’m sorry, our policy is we prosecute all shoplifters.
JERRY: (Pleading) Oh, come on. He’s just a lonely old man. All old people steal.
MANAGER: That’s right. That’s why we stopped carrying batteries. Look, I’ll be honest with you, we’ve had a lot of trouble with theft lately – and my boss says I have to make an example to someone.
These days, in Ohio, young men are arrested and convicted just for walking around.
Jenna Bush was arrested for underage drinking, while she was still on probation from her first conviction. It didn’t matter because she was female. If she had been a young man in Ohio, she would have been put away for 6 months.
While it is true that older people learn to not get caught, we are now seeing a world where young men are treated with abuse at every turn. If they look suspicious, they get charged with the felony of Obstruction of Police Business. This is a charge more vague than loitering.
When one sees that 30% of all men will be sent to prison before they are 30, well, you might ask if you think 30% of all young men are hardened criminals.
I would like to see the numbers broken down by type of crime. I’m a criminal defense attorney, and my personal experience has been that white collar offenders, particularly male ones, tend to be older. Violent offenders tend to be very young (with the exception, perhaps, of domestic violence offenders, who run the gamut). Drug offenders also run the gamut – teens to forties. I agree that people, particularly males, tend to become less impulsive and violent as they age. Drug offenders tend to die young; their bodies just wear out. Many drug offenders, particularly federal ones, are banned from receiving federal benefits. So social security and disability payments do not explain their behavior. Stealing must be the white-collar offender’s retirement plan.