4 ms·
I am not a statistician, but I don't know if this figure is very interesting. The article says that "3.9% had at least one violent conviction", so it is kind of
by selcuka 3y ago
I am not a statistician, but I don't know if this figure is very interesting. The article says that "3.9% had at least one violent conviction", so it is kind of expected that 1% (i.e. 25.6% of that 3.9%) to have multiple convictions. Yeah, it's a bit skewed (63%) but still doesn't sound totally unexpected to me.
The Odds Ratio of 2.5 for male offenders is actually more interesting.
- n2d4 3y agoA less misleading title: "25% of all convicted violent offenders are accountable for 63% of all violent convictions", but those numbers aren't big enough to be interesting.
- langsoul-com 3y ago25% causing 63% violent convictions is still pretty crazy
- selcuka 3y agoIs it, though? It's 5 times as many crimes per person on average, and remember we are talking about the top 1/4 of all perpetrators.
- jcranmer 3y agoThe article is mostly about demographic analysis of violent criminals, comparing groups of population by number of violent convictions they have: high (> 10 convictions), medium (3-10), low (1-2), or none. The title here is... not really what the article is about, but it feels like someone tried for a punchier title than "demographic analysis of violent criminals" and missed the mark completely. I'm not sure I can even call it clickbait, since the main reason why the 1% = 63% is brought up at all is a half-baked "why we should care about this demographic analysis" and not really explored any further.
- ASalazarMX 3y agoI also am not an statiscian, but this has the same energy as "1% of the population is accountable for 63% of all major wood works made". Duh, it's called having "carpenters". Carpenters repeteadly do carpentry, criminals repeteadly commit crimes.