Printable View
This essay stresses that the sharp increase in homicide in 2015 was limited to a small number of large cities. Few data are presented but the map reports that Detroit was one of five cities where homicide declined sharply. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2015 has not been released yet so data are not readily available.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...bexchange&_r=0
This is, of course, a hot political topic -- and I think most know I have a strong opinion. This post isn't to focus on that, but to argue that we need to be careful of assumptions here.Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
I'm suspicious of any figures that relate to 'increase/decrease' of crime. Biggest increase. Trending up. 'Skyrocketing'. 'Plummeting'.
Percentage increases in the NYT article are comparing current year to most recent 3 years. Fine. Its a stat. But without some knowledge, I don't think you can draw a lot of conclusions from it. Maybe the last few years were a fluke. I'd rather see comparisons to the past 10 years average, or maybe last 20 or 30. And rather than focusing so much on percentages, we need to look at the multi-year trends, and the rate of change. Is the 3 year average trending up or down? Is the rate decreasing or increasing. Stats are great, but we can't take them too seriously in a complex environment like murders. And we have to remember that the base # of murders is most cities [[except the really big ones) is a small number. So a 50% increase in Des Moines might be one mass murder. Be careful.
It is suspicious that the cities where police brutality has been highlighted [[St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee) do stand out. Is it Ferguson Effect? I think its a little too early to tell. Even if it is, a short-term spike might be tolerable if it brings long-term relief to the community and can find a way to control the larger problem of non police-related deaths. Of course if your son is killed by a gang this year, it hurts now -- and the future gains may never materialize.
I also would point out that the article closes with a single positive stat -- and associates that unique drug-related issues in a single city. That kind of single data point citation is exactly what many criticize in Ms. MacDonald's FE argument. That there's not enough data. Both sides pick their stats.
Me, I believe in FE. But the causes of urban violence are far too complex to assume a single cause. We both need to re-tool urban policing AND support the police in their efforts. They're not mutually exclusive.
I agree. I think the New York Times article does too. There are four different graphs that illustrate murder rates over the last 30 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
They also say it's a complex environment and we can't draw too many conclusions from the stats.
From the article:
I think they did a pretty good job. And we agree more research is necessary.Quote:
There is no consensus on what caused the recent spike, and each city appears to have unique circumstances contributing to the uptick.
“Cities are obviously heterogeneous,” said Robert Sampson, a Harvard professor who is an expert on crime trends. “There is tremendous variation across the largest cities in basic features such as demographic composition, the concentration of poverty, and segregation that relate to city-level differences in rates of violence.”
Many crime experts warn against reading too much into recent statistics. In fact, murder rates remained largely unchanged in 70 cities, and decreased significantly in five.
It's nice to have something we agree on. :rolleyes:
Agreement would be nice, but I'm sure we don't agree on everything. What's missing in most discourse is respect for the opinions of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
The trend to demonize the enemy seems to me to have been spreading. If you deny climate change [[or any part thereof), if you think illegal aliens can be a positive contribution to America -- some with think you to be evil. The truth is often somewhere in-between our positions. Intelligent immigration is great for America [[just not unbridled). Unions are valuable [[but can't have a monopoly on the public service). Climate change is real [[but its overblown and won't go into a death spiral). BLM is right that there is too police brutality [[but they don't realize how important respect for most cops is critical to urban safety).
We need to create a middle space where we can have different opinions, yet believe that others have some valid points that need to be respect, and included.
If someone categorically denies basic science or economics, or bases judgement on ethnic background, then it isn't unreasonable to consider that individual ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
All opinions aren't equally valid. Joe the Plumber's opinions on climate change aren't equal to those of climatologist PhDs. There's no reason for a civil society to validate the views of the ignorant or bigoted.
I agree with all of this. And when you criticize the discourse I hope you're not talking about me. I often have strong opinions, but rarely when they're not backed up by clear evidence. In those cases I often preface my thoughts with "I suggest" or "I think" to indicate they're opinions, and to invite people to contribute contrary views. In fact I often invite them explicitly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
"Please let us know if any of this information is incorrect."
"I'm curious to learn."
"I'm not misinterpreting... am I? Let's hope I am..."
"If you see any mistakes or hold a different opinion, don't hesitate to say so."
A few other things I've said here and am likely to say again:
"I understand your frustration."
"great point."
"There is no easy answer to this..."
"No source is perfect."
"What unbiased sources do you turn to and what ones do you consider bought-and-paid-for?"
"Do you know how we should factor in [X]? I don't either..."
"I'm not sure..."
"I'm sorry..."
"My reading comprehension isn't 100%."
"Please pardon my sometimes unusual opinions."
"Just my two cents, and I hope I haven't offended anybody."
"Please excuse any errors, omissions, and simplifications."
And so on.
I encourage respect and tolerance for differences of opinion, and I hope I do so by example.
But not everything exists in a gray area. Facts are facts. And facts are important. I sometimes state things unequivocally too:
"That's a lie being circulated by the Trump campaign."
"Muslim No-Go Zones have been totally debunked."
"The data you're using is a year and a half old, and things have improved a lot since then."
"They are lying to you. The map you posted was originally created by [X], and it had nothing to do with [Y]. Someone changed the labels on the bar chart to fool you!"
I always back up statements like those with facts and links to where they can be retrieved for your own investigation. I hope you agree I'm pretty good about that.
I strongly discourage lazily stating controversial opinions as if they were facts, with no proof to back them up, or with references to untrustworthy sources. That does not contribute positively to the discussion. I strongly discourage lazily accepting it.
And I strongly discourage demonizing those who hold contrary views. Not only is it disrespectful, it never changes anyone's opinion, except perhaps in a way that's not intended. I think you're pretty good about that too.
Of course you're right: we don't agree on everything. But do we agree we agree on this? :rolleyes:
It would be off-topic fun to head into this chat, but we also here pretty much agree. We have, however, also agreed to allow opinions to carry weight by granting the vote liberally. Of course we have dampening mechanisms like Representation and Administration, as well as a founding document of principles [[Constitution) to control impulsive action. All serve to prevent mob rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Mobs can be ignorant. And Mobs can also be informed [[i.e. Bolshevik Revolution or BLM). But we all vote our opinion -- both ignorant and informed. Sometimes the results aren't pleasing.
What I see all of us doing more and more is self-selecting our 'experts'. In a court, experts show up to argue both sides. Is Johnny the Murderer crazy, or not.
In this article, the article did a good job in at least citing the Ferguson Effect. Why? Because to me its obvious that random, intense scrutiny of officer's actions will result in more careful actions. Yet they decided to close the article with a plea that the data might just turn out to show that there is another cause. On one data point, and a few anecdotes. With that, they say that the clear evidence that four of the five biggest increases in crime were in cities where you'd expect the strongest Ferguson Effect. Which one of these cities didn't have a major, national BLM 'unarmed murder by cop'?
The FIVE cities with highest increase shown:
Baltimore +20
St. Louis +18
Las Vegas +14
Cleveland +10
Milwaukee +9
I found it noteworthy that Minneapolis didn't make the list.
Yeah, only 5 dead, no biggie...
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ings/89909374/
Two thoughts:
1). Murder data are the most reliable crime data we have. Hard to conceal, not report, etc. murders. They are widely reported in the media, etc.
2). When one reports data for a large number of elements, e.g., 100 largest cities, one needs some type of summary data otherwise one can cherry pick individual cases to make whatever point one wants. E.g., "For the 100 largest U.S. cities, homicides in 2015 were N, which is a X% increase from the number reported in 2014 for those same cities.' As the article indicates, homicides rose for a number of cities and declined in others. This is what one would expect with this type data.
Although most don't care, one could use rates of homicides per 100,000 U.S. population. The U.S. population has increased much which would lower homicide rates.
Whoop de doo!
Homicides are down, but the robberies by the hoodies are up. Looks like it's for the job from Project Greenlight.
bust, appreciate the diplomacy.
Back in the 90's I was the Grand Duke of fastidious personal disclaimers that preluded any diatribe I offered up in a discussion [["If I may say this, and I don't claim to be an expert, and this is just my opinion and we are all entitled to our opinions, and if you don't agree with me that's cool and all and etc. and etc. and so on...").