Go ![]() | New ![]() | Find ![]() | Notify ![]() | Tools ![]() | Reply ![]() | ![]() |
Essayons![]() |
PEW Research Center article is at this LINK
Thanks, Sap | ||
|
Member |
Astoundingly low clearance rates on homicides! See Chicago heyjackass.com No quarter .308/.223 | |||
|
Member |
Thanks for posting this article. Perhaps the media's seeming fixation on that-which-boosts-ratings is at least partly responsible for the public perception the violent crime is up. Silent | |||
|
Fighting the good fight![]() |
I'll agree with the article's premise that violent crime is down over the past 25 years. But there are a few things to keep in mind, when examining annual crime statistics... 1) The definitions can change. There have been changes and tweaks to the definitions of various offenses over the years. For example, the FBI recently changed its definition of "rape", for purposes of these annual crime stats, meaning a rape in 2018 isn't necessarily the same as a rape in 1990. So it isn't always an apples-to-apples comparison. 2) Statistics can be manipulated, to make cities look better. A number of jurisdictions are under immense pressure to "improve" their stats. So an aggravated assault that would normally be reported in these stats compilations gets downgraded and reported as a 2nd degree battery, to keep it off the numbers. Or a robbery is recorded as a theft. Etc. 3) The story can change, depending on what time period you examine. For example, here's a chart with the violent crime rate since 1960: The article talks about "the last quarter century". That's 1991-2016. So compared to the "bad old days" 25 years prior, at the height of the crack epidimic and massive gang violence wave in the early 90s, violent crime rates are definitely significantly down. But had they wanted to, the article could have just as easily been: "Violent Crime Rate Doubles in Last Half-Century" (1966-2016). Or even: "Violent Crime Rate Remains Stable In Last 5 Years" (2011-2016). All depends on what they want to numbers to say. ![]() | |||
|
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
I suspect they numbers are tweaked to the benefit of whoever is publishing them but the information available compared to before the 90's makes the perception worse than reality. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
semi-reformed sailor![]() |
The numbers are cooked. My old dept. manipulated the stats on a regular basis. Part 1 crimes were reclassified as different crimes altogether. The BS shoveled to the city council was patently false. For instance, stats delivered today for part one crimes will be compared to last years (annual) stats-showing that crime is down, or it will be compared against the same day this time last year or the year before that....always looking for a smaller number to compare it to. Crimes that occurred on the local college campus were reclassified to keep stats down, or the nearby non-campus address was used to move the actual crime from the campus to across the street. If its happening in that little ole NC town; you can rest assured it's happening EVERYWHERE as politics plays it's part in corruption. The FBI gets their numbers from departments nationwide and they self report. The numbers are skewed. "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” Robert A. Heinlein “You may beat me, but you will never win.” sigmonkey-2020 “A single round of buckshot to the torso almost always results in an immediate change of behavior.” Chris Baker | |||
|
Member |
I don't think cooking statistics is anything new. My grandfather worked in the underground mines for 42 years. In the early part of the 20th Century (pre-union), the mine had a perfect safety record with no fatalities "in the mine". Of course, any miner that had been smashed to paste by some 100 ton slab of ore would be transported to the local hospital where he later died. Uh huh. | |||
|
Too old to run, too mean to quit! |
This! I distinctly remember from years ago that various police departments were "fudging" the data to make their "crime fighting" efforts look a lot more productive than were the case. Old statistics instructor of mine in college often quoted, "Figures do not lie, but liars can figure"! Elk There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour) "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " -Thomas Jefferson "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville FBHO!!! The Idaho Elk Hunter | |||
|
thin skin can't win![]() |
I'd like to see that chart overlaid on population trends. You only have integrity once. - imprezaguy02 | |||
|
Fighting the good fight![]() |
It shouldn't affect it. Keep in mind, the FBI UCR stats and that chart are both violent crime rate per 100,000 population, not per total population. In 2016, approximately 386 people out of 100,000 were victims of violent crime in the US. But there were a total of 1,248,185 violent crimes altogether in 2016. So total population increases/decreases don't matter. Hypothetically, if the total US population doubles next year, the total number of violent crimes would also roughly double next year, without some other change in the violent crime rate due to other factors beyond population increase. Therefore, the UCR's crime rate per 100k won't change. To think of it another way, if the population doubled with no other changes affecting crime likelihood, there'd be twice as many criminals, but also twice as many potential victims, so your overall chances of being a victim of crime wouldn't change. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
![]() | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|