Perspective Needed on the State Crime Report
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
32 responses to “Perspective Needed on the State Crime Report”
-
The decrease in the ’90s seemed to be contingent on two things. One was the aging out of prime crime years by us boomers. The other was decreased lead levels primarily from the removal of lead from gas.
What has changed? Do we have a larger cohort of prime crime aged guys? Have we added something to the environment that has the cognitive impact of lead in gas? The decrease in SOL scores argues for that or something with equivalent effect. Is it cultural changes including smart phones and media, the cumulative corrosive impact of identity politics and the associated age of rage?
-
I don’t think one needs all the data to pose a hypothesis first.
I think one observes what is going on and wonders “Is X happening because of Y?”
Also, one would perhaps also be aware of Ockham’s Razor.
Therefore, I posit – the defund the police movement, the anti-bail movement, the let the criminals go movement are the cause for the rise in crime. Malls close in San Fran. Huge hotels walked away from. Stores with everything under lock and key.
And then things like this…https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/five-dead-democrats-to-blame.php
The ACAB Leftist lunacy is counterproductive, besides being a lie.
Sure, there are lots of factors. Illegitimacy is a huge one no one wants to acknowledge, but it is true. Every honest person knows it. Another that no one would like to acknowledge is no fault divorce. Just like the fake “studies” on “gender affirming care,” I bet the so called rationales for this being beneficial to the children were bogus. How about abortion and the cheapening of life? One way to recognize all the lies of the Left is the dishonesty in labelling. Since they are selling lies, they have to disguise them with euphemisms like “choice,” “gender affirming care,” “diversity, equity and inclusion,” and “divorce for the betterment of the children.”-
“Also, one would perhaps also be aware of Ockham’s Razor.”
Or at least how to spell it…
-
Nothing wrong with the way he spelled it.
-
Thanks for the defense, but Troll always throws in inane comments to change the subject, and ignore the point that he can’t deny. One of my faves from him is to respond is “no child is illegitimate” instead of acknowledging that illegitimacy plays a huge negative societal effect on young males, white and black, but worse for blacks due to the higher and more persistently higher illegitimacy rate.
Another I think false factoid he throws in is compared to 1959, the poverty rate for single parent households has been halved. Even if true, so what? The number of such households will have been… what…tripled? Quadrupled? Remember, he is talking rate of living in poverty, not number of such households. And, even with more money supposedly, did that ameliorate the pernicious effects of boys growing up without the influence of a loving father present every day?-
Who was it that was lecturing me the other day about the fallacy of citing gross numbers vs rates…. where is Wayne when you need them…?
And, it’s that every human being is legitimate… but you judge as you see fit…
-
So you agree that the baby in the womb is legitimate?
Surprise me and admit the “unwanted cells” are a human being.
And no Troll, your point was still inane. Let’s do math.
Suppose America population is 150 million and today is 330 million.
Single parent household poverty rate was 80% in 1959, and 40% in 2023.
The number of Single parent Households in 1959 was 200,000, and 20,000,000 in 2023.
So, 160,000 SPH’s lived in poverty out of 150 Million but 8,000,000 SPhs out of 330 Million. And, even if your monetary stat had any bearing to improvement, it does not answer the deterioration of values and increase in crime. In fact, it could be an indicator of the cause for the increase by making this known bad way to raise a family easier, so thanks for adding an additional point for removing the government incentive for the destruction of the nuclear family.
-
-
“Another I think false factoid he throws in is compared to 1959, the poverty rate for single parent households has been halved. Even if true, so what?”
More women in the workforce, probably. That just means more kids coming home to an empty house or going to daycare.
In the case of my parent’s divorce, neither of them was financially better off for it. $600/month child support doesn’t go far for two kids in 1991 Manassas. Would’ve gone further where my parents lived before (moving to Virginia was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as my parent’s marriage–and my dad did not move to Virginia for a high-paying, Federal job for life. In fact he got laid off from the job he moved here a few years later! Found out from the tax returns in the filing cabinet that he didn’t even get a raise for moving here)
-
“Another I think false factoid he throws in is compared to 1959, the poverty rate for single parent households has been halved. Even if true, so what?”
More women in the workforce, probably. That just means more kids coming home to an empty house or going to daycare.
In the case of my parent’s divorce, neither of them was financially better off for it. $600/month child support doesn’t go far for two kids in 1991 Manassas. Would’ve gone further where my parents lived before (moving to Virginia was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as my parent’s marriage–and my dad did not move to Virginia for a high-paying, Federal job for life. In fact he got laid off from the job he moved here a few years later! Found out from the tax returns in the filing cabinet that he didn’t even get a raise for moving here)
-
-
-
-
Well, recidivism rates would either support or discount your theory straight off since most of these changes involve previous offenders.
-
We know about recidivism. The answer to recidivism then would imply longer incarceration. It would also imply better policies in prison to change behavior to lessen recidivism. Longer incarceration means less time for the recidivist bound out of prison to commit crimes. But no Christianity in prison or else the convict might be positively changed for the better!
But meanwhile…maybe we could encourage policies to lessen kids growing up to be violent and without a conscience…-
First, you have a limited, albeit constantly refreshing supply of criminals.
Recidivism is measured in time intervals from the moment of release. The length of time incarcerated doesn’t lessen the opportunity to repeat except for LWOP or released for humanitarian reasons (straight to hospital to die).
The numbers published at the link above (see “Enjoy” post) would tend to support a contrary hypothesis to the one you’ve proposed.
-
Not talking about the rate your always inane Trollness. If incarcerated longer, less time out to commit crimes, even if recidivism remains the same.
-
“VADOC routinely studies three standard measures of recidivism—re-arrest, re-conviction, and re- incarceration—for time periods ranging from 6 to 36 months.”
Just as long as they live for 3 years after release, they are in the definition. Time in doesn’t matter.
Get it?
-
No. Do you get it? Assume 100% recidivism. If let out sooner and more often, more time out in the world for the criminal to commit more crimes = more crimes. Get it?
-
-
-
I would tend to agree with you regarding illegitimacy and a high divorce rate except those have been issues for many years and therefore could not explain the recent increase in crime.
Since we are throwing out hypotheses without offering any evidence, I posit that the increasing prevalence and availability of firearms, along with their increased lethality, is a leading cause of the increase in crime. My hypothesis has as much legitimacy as yours.
-
No it doesn’t.
The soft on crime is recent to add to illegitimacy and divorce. It exacerbates the bad behavior problem because of the lack of real consequences. We have always had guns, and the fallacy there is the belief that criminal will obey gun laws. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Now, take away all guns, even from the law abiding? When the politicians aren’t aremd either, maybe, but they will cheat on that because they are better and more important. So, a total non-starter. -
“I posit that the increasing prevalence and availability of firearms, along with their increased lethality, is a leading cause of the increase in crime.”
Increased availability? How so? The only recent change is mandatory background checks for private sales which took effect July 1, 2020. Wasn’t this supposed to make things better? That’s what we were told.
Increased lethality? Where the hell did you get that? I’m a certified instructor and have been teaching off and on for about 40 years. Please explain to me how guns today are more lethal.
Might correlate with the increase in new cases of different diseases we thought we’d seen the last of. Can’t imagine it would have anything to do with that open border. I’m just surprised no one yet has blamed Trump.
-
Well, anybody with eyes can see what COVID did to the way people drive….
-
Yeah, but wasn’t it sweet driving in the first months? It was like, I dunno, 1968 and a new highway all over again.
-
-
Hispanic or Latino made offenders made up about five percent of all incidents and about 9 percent of violent incidents. There goes the open border theory.
-
So if it isn’t impacting us, it doesn’t matter? Try visiting the border towns in Texas.
-
I think it has always been that way, Dick. What has changed is the reporting of rapes and sexual assaults by the victims of known offenders. The past two decades have seen women refusing to be stigmatized in the he said, she said situations anymore, i.e., “Me too.”
Plus, I’m betting cops and prosecutors (and superior officers in the military) ain’t pulling the old, “An accusation like this will ruin his career…”
-
You might be right. I did not check on the distribution in previous years. For the sake of my curiosity, I might do that.
Follow-up: Your theory is on shaky ground. In 2003, after eliminating the violent sexual incidents in which the relationship to the victim was either not reported or not known, 11.4 percent of those incidents were committed by strangers. That means that, in 2003, almost 89 percent of sexual violence victims knew their attackers, compared to 93 percent in 2022. Certainly the 2022 percentage is higher, but I am not certain if the difference is enough to reflect a sea change in societal attitudes.
-
It seemed too good to be true. My assumption would have been that the rates of rape by stranger or acquaintances would have remained relatively constant and the difference would have been in reporting from emboldening women.
But, I forgot a huge contributor to this game. DNA. A stranger’s claim of “consent” is less likely to succeed in court, and DNA will be the proof of the crime, as well as his ID.
So, it would appear that the predatory rapist is learning. Now, if we can just work on those dummies that hear “yes” in “no”.
-
-
Interesting, recidivism rates are lower than I would have expected, and declining. Also unsurprising that they vary inversely with employment.
I continue to be intrigued by the Richmond graduation shooting. The perp knew full well he had zero chance of not getting caught immediately, knew he would likely hurt bystanders firing like that, yet his rage overcame what little reasoning ability he had. Crime should be an economic “cost v benefit” equation and crime will rise when the prospect of punishment is low or lowered. In the case of property crimes, no question that is going on. But now there is a rage factor. And I remain convinced the cultural environment — music, video games, incredibly violent movies and TV — has desensitized millions and millions to violence. A cultural message of “off the oppressors” may be contributing, but instead they are “offing” each other mainly.
-
May also be that drugs impair the cost benefit analysis and facilitate the emotional disregard of consequences. OTOH it may just be young dumbasses who think they’re immortal and invincible.
-
Nineteen-year olds are not known for engaging in rational behavior. That being said, I have long thought along the same lines you mention–we have become desensitized to violence.
Society has been teaching that none of us should be confronted with anything we don’t like. We see planned censorship of books, both by banning them outright and by rewriting them to remove what some believe to be offensive. And, of course, everyone believes she or he can decide what is offensive and declare what others find to be offensive not to be offensive.
Life is all about being offended. In the old days, we were taught that we should be tolerant — respecting others’ beliefs that we find wrong. Toleration has been replaced by demands for universal approval.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.