3 ms·

Violent crime was at extremely negligible levels in the fifties. In just 3-4 decades to the 90s it ended up increasing (per rate) by around 800%. That's a part

by rjf72 7y ago

Violent crime was at extremely negligible levels in the fifties. In just 3-4 decades to the 90s it ended up increasing (per rate) by around 800%. That's a part of where the hyper-tough on crime laws came from, and it's also when you started seeing an increasing militarization of the police. Violent crime then decreased by about 50% to 2014, though that still of course leaves us at a level multiple times higher than where we started. And it's now back on the rise. Here are the raw numbers [1]. They're quite interesting to consider. Something I'm quite curious about on Hacker News, preempting the downvotes can people explain what they find offensive about data? [1] - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

bena 7y ago
Eh. This might be a case of not really having good data. Looking at the "data", one would conclude that Autism is on the rise. But we didn't even know what it was not too long ago. And we sure as hell didn't check for it. There are more diagnoses of Autism because we're actually looking now. Today, domestic violence would be classified as a violent crime. In the fifties, it was called keeping your wife in line. Lynching a black man was a way to keep him away from your pristine daughter in the fifties. Now. It's a crime.
- rjf72 7y ago
  I think this is a rather extreme mischaracterization of a society, but proving things like this statistically is not possible. Because, while it may be a mischaracterization, you are certainly correct that domestic violence was much more normalized (even if still extremely rare) and you likely would have seen a much lower reporting rate because of this. So that problem does cause an issue with getting down to the very exact number. Fortunately, there's a much simpler response. Just referencing the data from the provided link (starting in the 60s) [1], the increase in crime is for literally every single category of crime. And most saw very dramatic increases: robbery 400%, assault 500%, burgularly 300%, theft 300%, auto theft 300% increase, etc. You can cast uncertainty on some of the figures but the extremely high rate increases paired with the fact it was spread across literally every single crime leaves little 0 doubt that there was absolutely an exponentially increasing crime rate between 1960 and 1991. As one aside, that 1991 date is really quite peculiar. Nearly every single crime hit its peak in that year. You'd expect different crimes to decline at different rates or even statistical noise to have played a role. Yet at a glance the only crime that didn't hit its peak in 1991 was forcible rape, which peaked in 1992. The 'Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act' [2] formalizing the increasing militarization of police (which would really go into overdrive after the North Hollywood shootout) was passed in 1981. [1] - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civilian_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civi...
philipkglass 7y ago
I didn't downvote you. In the past I have referred to the same table that you link. But it doesn't substantiate your point about crime rates in the 1950s because the data set starts at 1960. You may be correct, but your link doesn't show it. I would be interested in US violent crime rates in the decades before 1960 if you can find a similar table covering that time range.

by rjf72 7y ago

bena 7y ago

Eh. This might be a case of not really having good data. Looking at the "data", one would conclude that Autism is on the rise. But we didn't even know what it was not too long ago. And we sure as hell didn't check for it. There are more diagnoses of Autism because we're actually looking now. Today, domestic violence would be classified as a violent crime. In the fifties, it was called keeping your wife in line. Lynching a black man was a way to keep him away from your pristine daughter in the fifties. Now. It's a crime.

rjf72 7y ago
I think this is a rather extreme mischaracterization of a society, but proving things like this statistically is not possible. Because, while it may be a mischaracterization, you are certainly correct that domestic violence was much more normalized (even if still extremely rare) and you likely would have seen a much lower reporting rate because of this. So that problem does cause an issue with getting down to the very exact number. Fortunately, there's a much simpler response. Just referencing the data from the provided link (starting in the 60s) [1], the increase in crime is for literally every single category of crime. And most saw very dramatic increases: robbery 400%, assault 500%, burgularly 300%, theft 300%, auto theft 300% increase, etc. You can cast uncertainty on some of the figures but the extremely high rate increases paired with the fact it was spread across literally every single crime leaves little 0 doubt that there was absolutely an exponentially increasing crime rate between 1960 and 1991. As one aside, that 1991 date is really quite peculiar. Nearly every single crime hit its peak in that year. You'd expect different crimes to decline at different rates or even statistical noise to have played a role. Yet at a glance the only crime that didn't hit its peak in 1991 was forcible rape, which peaked in 1992. The 'Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act' [2] formalizing the increasing militarization of police (which would really go into overdrive after the North Hollywood shootout) was passed in 1981. [1] - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civilian_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civi...

philipkglass 7y ago

I didn't downvote you. In the past I have referred to the same table that you link. But it doesn't substantiate your point about crime rates in the 1950s because the data set starts at 1960. You may be correct, but your link doesn't show it. I would be interested in US violent crime rates in the decades before 1960 if you can find a similar table covering that time range.