5 ms·

"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

"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.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "It's not that population density causes murder, but it affords more opportunity." I still don't think this opportunity explains the higher rate, at least not a 3-5x difference. Opportunity is only one small part. I would think that socioeconomic factors are the bigger issue, and that some predictors or correlated metrics might be more common in cities. I get that someone in a denser area is going to come into contact with potential situations more often. But when we're talking about decades of opportunity to be exposed to such a scenario, I would expect the difference to be negligible as the exposure becomes an eventual given. The claim that someone in the city knows more people is a little suspect. You can live in a small town and know hundreds or thousands of the people in the small town(s) near you. Everyone knows everyone, being in your neighbor's business, and can lead to a lot of gossip, opportunity/drama.
        cbsmith 5y ago
        > I still don't think this opportunity explains the higher rate, at least not a 3-5x difference. I didn't say that it explains the data at all. I'm just saying it's the statistical outcome one would expect given no other factors. > I would think that socioeconomic factors are the bigger issue, and that some predictors or correlated metrics might be more common in cities. Yes. That's entirely the point. > I would expect the difference to be negligible as the exposure becomes an eventual given. I wouldn't expect it to be negligible at all. You're more likely to have more frequent contact and with a much broader selection of people the over a long period of time, creating something akin to a network effect. On a given day, someone in rural Wyoming might come in contact with far more people than I'd come in contact with in my day. However, over longer periods of time, the average number of interactions and the aggregate number of people they interact with is far more likely to be dwarfed by mine. That significantly increases the chance for interpersonal crimes of all sorts, including murder. > You can live in a small town and know hundreds or thousands of the people in the small town(s) near you. Everyone knows everyone, being in your neighbor's business, and can lead to a lot of gossip, opportunity/drama. I've lived in small town settings, so I don't deny you can't end up knowing a lot of people. One might easily have more close friends or family than someone in a larger urban settings (the opposite might also be true). However, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that you'd come in to contact with more people, and come in contact with them more regularly, than someone in a denser urban environment. Keep in mind there's a difference between specific traits and circumstances an aggregate statistical data. You might have more people you interact with in a small town setting, what's the aggregate set of interactions for the community? Does the community as a whole have a broader population and more frequent set of interactions than in a more densely populated community? Particularly when you eliminate interactions that don't afford much opportunity for murder (like interactions online), those numbers start to drop off much more rapidly, and it becomes all numerically impossible for them to be comparable.
sharemywin 5y ago
There are studies with rats that show a link between population density and violence. Not that people are rats but they are mammals sometimes animal studies can shed light on human behavior.

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.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "It's not that population density causes murder, but it affords more opportunity." I still don't think this opportunity explains the higher rate, at least not a 3-5x difference. Opportunity is only one small part. I would think that socioeconomic factors are the bigger issue, and that some predictors or correlated metrics might be more common in cities. I get that someone in a denser area is going to come into contact with potential situations more often. But when we're talking about decades of opportunity to be exposed to such a scenario, I would expect the difference to be negligible as the exposure becomes an eventual given. The claim that someone in the city knows more people is a little suspect. You can live in a small town and know hundreds or thousands of the people in the small town(s) near you. Everyone knows everyone, being in your neighbor's business, and can lead to a lot of gossip, opportunity/drama.
      - cbsmith 5y ago
        > I still don't think this opportunity explains the higher rate, at least not a 3-5x difference. I didn't say that it explains the data at all. I'm just saying it's the statistical outcome one would expect given no other factors. > I would think that socioeconomic factors are the bigger issue, and that some predictors or correlated metrics might be more common in cities. Yes. That's entirely the point. > I would expect the difference to be negligible as the exposure becomes an eventual given. I wouldn't expect it to be negligible at all. You're more likely to have more frequent contact and with a much broader selection of people the over a long period of time, creating something akin to a network effect. On a given day, someone in rural Wyoming might come in contact with far more people than I'd come in contact with in my day. However, over longer periods of time, the average number of interactions and the aggregate number of people they interact with is far more likely to be dwarfed by mine. That significantly increases the chance for interpersonal crimes of all sorts, including murder. > You can live in a small town and know hundreds or thousands of the people in the small town(s) near you. Everyone knows everyone, being in your neighbor's business, and can lead to a lot of gossip, opportunity/drama. I've lived in small town settings, so I don't deny you can't end up knowing a lot of people. One might easily have more close friends or family than someone in a larger urban settings (the opposite might also be true). However, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that you'd come in to contact with more people, and come in contact with them more regularly, than someone in a denser urban environment. Keep in mind there's a difference between specific traits and circumstances an aggregate statistical data. You might have more people you interact with in a small town setting, what's the aggregate set of interactions for the community? Does the community as a whole have a broader population and more frequent set of interactions than in a more densely populated community? Particularly when you eliminate interactions that don't afford much opportunity for murder (like interactions online), those numbers start to drop off much more rapidly, and it becomes all numerically impossible for them to be comparable.

sharemywin 5y ago

There are studies with rats that show a link between population density and violence. Not that people are rats but they are mammals sometimes animal studies can shed light on human behavior.