4 ms·

> If you want to link crime rates to political leadership in some kind of causal fashion, you need to at least try controlling for basic things like rural vs ur

by gzer0 5y ago

> If you want to link crime rates to political leadership in some kind of causal fashion, you need to at least try controlling for basic things like rural vs urban areas, or domestic violence vs street crime. Why would they control for domestic violence or street crime at all? This piece is strictly talking about the rate of murders. Your proposal is not relevant to this discussion. If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. Dismissing this entire argument simply because "rural/urban" is quite frankly, deceitful and serves to help no one.

long_time_gone 5y ago
> If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. I think this is the part that is causing the malfunction. None of the traditional arguments work against this simple data set.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
giantg2 5y ago
"If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't." Why would this be shocking? The measure is per capita. I can see why it could lead to higher numbers within a small geographic area. But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?
- cbsmith 5y ago
  "But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?" It's about opportunity. A kleptomaniac is going to find they steal left often when they're in the middle of a 100 acre property that they own than in a dense apartment complex. One of the most significant criteria for committing murder (as opposed to suicide) is other people. You can have all the murderous intent in the world, but if there is no one else around, you're unlikely to pull it off. On the other hand, even if you don't generally have murderous intent, if a place is packed with other people, that increases the chances that for one reason or another you'll develop murderous intent towards one of them.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Hmm, I'd like to see more data around that. For example, it's not like there aren't other people around in rural areas, so you certainly could perform a murder. The idea of developing murderous intent just does being exposed to more people seems far fetched to me. Murder isn't really like a crime of opportunity where you pick up some item as you walk by.
    - cbsmith 5y ago
      Murder can absolutely be a crime of opportunity. I think you're limiting your thinking of murder to premeditated cases where someone selects a target and then does whatever they need to do to get that target, and it didn't matter where that target was. Let's assume for a moment that that was actually the case... wouldn't an area with a high murder rate be indicative of a lot of murder victims in the area, rather than murderers? I mean, if someone is murdered in New York City, and proximity to other people doesn't matter, it would follow that the murderer is just as likely to be in Cheyenne, WY as NYC. ;-)
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Murder can absolutely be a crime of opportunity." Can, but not usually. It's more likely to be a crime of passion. 80% of murder victims knew their attackers. "I mean, if someone is murdered in New York City, and proximity to other people doesn't matter, it would follow that the murderer is just as likely to be in Cheyenne, WY as NYC. ;-)" You're conflating necessary means to commit a single occurrence with population level causes. I'm questioning whether population density is a cause of murder. Which I don't see why it would be.
        cbsmith 5y ago
        I'm not sure about the 80% number, but I know the number is certainly high. > Can, but not usually. It's more likely to be a crime of passion. Crimes of passion require opportunity for that passion. They tend to not occur with people you've not been in the vicinity of. If you're in a more densely populated area, you're more likely to be in the vicinity of more people and know more people. It's not necessarily causal, but it is an emergent statistical phenomenon. > You're conflating necessary means to commit a single occurrence with population level causes. I'm questioning whether population density is a cause of murder. Which I don't see why it would be. The narrative is that the political leadership is encouraging/enabling/whatever criminals, not victims, who reside in the area. If you are arguing that geography doesn't impact the distribution crime, then the victims would be spread throughout the country. It's not that population density causes murder, but it affords more opportunity. I think we all understand that murderers are much more likely to know and live near their victims. It should not be surprising that more densely populated areas would have a higher murder rate. What is surprising is when the less densely populated areas have the higher rate.

by gzer0 5y ago

long_time_gone 5y ago

> If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. I think this is the part that is causing the malfunction. None of the traditional arguments work against this simple data set.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

giantg2 5y ago

"If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't." Why would this be shocking? The measure is per capita. I can see why it could lead to higher numbers within a small geographic area. But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?

cbsmith 5y ago
"But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?" It's about opportunity. A kleptomaniac is going to find they steal left often when they're in the middle of a 100 acre property that they own than in a dense apartment complex. One of the most significant criteria for committing murder (as opposed to suicide) is other people. You can have all the murderous intent in the world, but if there is no one else around, you're unlikely to pull it off. On the other hand, even if you don't generally have murderous intent, if a place is packed with other people, that increases the chances that for one reason or another you'll develop murderous intent towards one of them.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Hmm, I'd like to see more data around that. For example, it's not like there aren't other people around in rural areas, so you certainly could perform a murder. The idea of developing murderous intent just does being exposed to more people seems far fetched to me. Murder isn't really like a crime of opportunity where you pick up some item as you walk by.
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    Murder can absolutely be a crime of opportunity. I think you're limiting your thinking of murder to premeditated cases where someone selects a target and then does whatever they need to do to get that target, and it didn't matter where that target was. Let's assume for a moment that that was actually the case... wouldn't an area with a high murder rate be indicative of a lot of murder victims in the area, rather than murderers? I mean, if someone is murdered in New York City, and proximity to other people doesn't matter, it would follow that the murderer is just as likely to be in Cheyenne, WY as NYC. ;-)
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "Murder can absolutely be a crime of opportunity." Can, but not usually. It's more likely to be a crime of passion. 80% of murder victims knew their attackers. "I mean, if someone is murdered in New York City, and proximity to other people doesn't matter, it would follow that the murderer is just as likely to be in Cheyenne, WY as NYC. ;-)" You're conflating necessary means to commit a single occurrence with population level causes. I'm questioning whether population density is a cause of murder. Which I don't see why it would be.
      - cbsmith 5y ago
        I'm not sure about the 80% number, but I know the number is certainly high. > Can, but not usually. It's more likely to be a crime of passion. Crimes of passion require opportunity for that passion. They tend to not occur with people you've not been in the vicinity of. If you're in a more densely populated area, you're more likely to be in the vicinity of more people and know more people. It's not necessarily causal, but it is an emergent statistical phenomenon. > You're conflating necessary means to commit a single occurrence with population level causes. I'm questioning whether population density is a cause of murder. Which I don't see why it would be. The narrative is that the political leadership is encouraging/enabling/whatever criminals, not victims, who reside in the area. If you are arguing that geography doesn't impact the distribution crime, then the victims would be spread throughout the country. It's not that population density causes murder, but it affords more opportunity. I think we all understand that murderers are much more likely to know and live near their victims. It should not be surprising that more densely populated areas would have a higher murder rate. What is surprising is when the less densely populated areas have the higher rate.