5 ms·

The data you linked and the comparison you suggest (2014 vs 2021) shows a ~54% increase in homicides over that time period ((6.81 homicides / 100k people / yr)

The data you linked and the comparison you suggest (2014 vs 2021) shows a ~54% increase in homicides over that time period ((6.81 homicides / 100k people / yr) / (4.40 / homicides / 100k people / yr) ~= 1.54.

Clubber 3y ago
I'm bad at math today. We do have an uptick, but calling it a "crime wave," is loaded language. Last time we had something like this, the word "super predators," was thrown around and we got the 1994 crime bill which put a whole bunch of petty (drug users) criminals and minorities behind bars. It also was the start of really aggressive policing and little care for constitutional rights, which lead to the state they are in today. All this while crime was actually going down. Be very careful with the hysterics in the news. Sry for the double post, replacing my bad math comment with a more meaningful one.
- nxm 3y ago
  I don’t care what the rate was in the 90s… that rate should not be the point where we start caring about the ever increasing crime around us. “It’s not as bad as it once was” is not the marker we should use with crime
- lambdaphagy 3y ago
  It's not my method, it's the calculation of the percentage increase, which is the way of comparing 2021 and 2014's homicide rates that you originally proposed. The y-axis of the chart you linked records the national homicide rate in units of homicides / 100k capita / yr, the standard units for reporting homicide rates. Those aren't percentages-- they have exactly the dimensions that the chart, and I, are talking about. So it's not correct to refer to "6.81%" in any way, because it's not a percentage. Subtracting the 2021 rate from the 2014 rate gives you a difference of 2.41 homicides / 100k / yr, which is also not a percentage. In order to express that as a percentage increase, you need to divide by the rate against which you're comparing (4.4 homicides / 100k / yr), which gives you ~1.5, i.e. a 50% increase. We can discuss why that might have happened and whether you consider it notable, but we really can't debate a "2% increase" because that's just mathematically incorrect. To your broader point, when we make diachronic comparisons of crime there's no particular reason to start the clock in 1990. The homicide rate is still higher than it was in 1950: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-h.... And, crucially, there were many changes between 1950 and 2023 that made it easier to prevent homicides: material technology got way better in the form of smartphones, ubiquitous cameras, DNA evidence, shock trauma units (that turn would-be murders into attempted murders), and an aging population that's less prone to homicide in general. If you took all of those things away and tried to fight 2023's homicide rate with 1950's tech, you'd find we have quite a few thumbs on the scale today.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    Yup, sorry for the bad math. Brain fart. >And, crucially, there were many changes between 1950 and 2023 that made it easier to prevent homicides: material technology got way better in the form of smartphones, ubiquitous cameras, DNA evidence These are good at solving crimes, but not preventing them. As BLM rioters (not protesters) knew and Jan 6 people didn't is that a simple surgical mask will foil most camera system identification. >shock trauma units (that turn would-be murders into attempted murders) This is true, but you still have to get the patient into the hospital in time. Gunshots and stab woulds turn fatal really fast. >and an aging population that's less prone to homicide in general. We are aging, but our largest demographic currently is between 19-40 (prime time age). >If you took all of those things away and tried to fight 2023's homicide rate with 1950's tech, you'd find we have quite a few thumbs on the scale today. Perhaps a little.
    - lambdaphagy 3y ago
      > These are good at solving crimes, but not preventing them. In the long run, solving crimes is preventing them because crime (especially serious violent crime) is Pareto-distributed. > This is true, but you still have to get the patient into the hospital in time. Gunshots and stab woulds turn fatal really fast. The major innovation of shock trauma units just was getting patients to high-end hospitals really fast. In the 1970's, Baltimore began using helicopters to airlift critical patients to a city-wide shock center, which was considered outlandish at the time but paid off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Adams_Cowley_Shock_Trauma_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Adams_Cowley_Shock_Trauma_Ce.... The system works well enough that Baltimore now has roughly two non-fatal shootings for every fatal one. That's great for the survivors but tends to mask the scale of the violence, as a lot fewer of those victims would have survived without Dauphin helicopters. > We are aging, but our largest demographic currently is between 19-40 (prime time age). This sounds like a statement about one possible way to divide the population into histogram bins in 2023 rather than a comparison of population structure between 1950 and 2023. Since 1950, the most murder-prone fraction of the population (men in their 20's) has decreased by about 10%. (https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2023/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...). There are various reasonably ways of making that comparison but they all give the same qualitative answer supporting the common-sense observation that the US population pyramid has aged.
EA-3167 3y ago
Are people held under suspicion of murder being released without bail? If not, how could that possibly be related to issues of minor crimes leading to de facto release? We need to look specifically at the sorts of crimes sensitive to these measures right?
- lambdaphagy 3y ago
  OP originally disputed the claim of a "crime wave", arguing with mistaken math that homicides--the most statistically reliable measure of crime--have only increased by 2% since 2014. (In fact it's more like 50%.) I corrected OP's math and OP edited the comment to remove the claim about the increase in homicides being negligible, so now the thread doesn't really make any sense. But that's why I was talking about homicides.

Clubber 3y ago

I'm bad at math today. We do have an uptick, but calling it a "crime wave," is loaded language. Last time we had something like this, the word "super predators," was thrown around and we got the 1994 crime bill which put a whole bunch of petty (drug users) criminals and minorities behind bars. It also was the start of really aggressive policing and little care for constitutional rights, which lead to the state they are in today. All this while crime was actually going down. Be very careful with the hysterics in the news. Sry for the double post, replacing my bad math comment with a more meaningful one.

nxm 3y ago
I don’t care what the rate was in the 90s… that rate should not be the point where we start caring about the ever increasing crime around us. “It’s not as bad as it once was” is not the marker we should use with crime
lambdaphagy 3y ago
It's not my method, it's the calculation of the percentage increase, which is the way of comparing 2021 and 2014's homicide rates that you originally proposed. The y-axis of the chart you linked records the national homicide rate in units of homicides / 100k capita / yr, the standard units for reporting homicide rates. Those aren't percentages-- they have exactly the dimensions that the chart, and I, are talking about. So it's not correct to refer to "6.81%" in any way, because it's not a percentage. Subtracting the 2021 rate from the 2014 rate gives you a difference of 2.41 homicides / 100k / yr, which is also not a percentage. In order to express that as a percentage increase, you need to divide by the rate against which you're comparing (4.4 homicides / 100k / yr), which gives you ~1.5, i.e. a 50% increase. We can discuss why that might have happened and whether you consider it notable, but we really can't debate a "2% increase" because that's just mathematically incorrect. To your broader point, when we make diachronic comparisons of crime there's no particular reason to start the clock in 1990. The homicide rate is still higher than it was in 1950: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-h.... And, crucially, there were many changes between 1950 and 2023 that made it easier to prevent homicides: material technology got way better in the form of smartphones, ubiquitous cameras, DNA evidence, shock trauma units (that turn would-be murders into attempted murders), and an aging population that's less prone to homicide in general. If you took all of those things away and tried to fight 2023's homicide rate with 1950's tech, you'd find we have quite a few thumbs on the scale today.
- Clubber 3y ago
  Yup, sorry for the bad math. Brain fart. >And, crucially, there were many changes between 1950 and 2023 that made it easier to prevent homicides: material technology got way better in the form of smartphones, ubiquitous cameras, DNA evidence These are good at solving crimes, but not preventing them. As BLM rioters (not protesters) knew and Jan 6 people didn't is that a simple surgical mask will foil most camera system identification. >shock trauma units (that turn would-be murders into attempted murders) This is true, but you still have to get the patient into the hospital in time. Gunshots and stab woulds turn fatal really fast. >and an aging population that's less prone to homicide in general. We are aging, but our largest demographic currently is between 19-40 (prime time age). >If you took all of those things away and tried to fight 2023's homicide rate with 1950's tech, you'd find we have quite a few thumbs on the scale today. Perhaps a little.
  - lambdaphagy 3y ago
    > These are good at solving crimes, but not preventing them. In the long run, solving crimes is preventing them because crime (especially serious violent crime) is Pareto-distributed. > This is true, but you still have to get the patient into the hospital in time. Gunshots and stab woulds turn fatal really fast. The major innovation of shock trauma units just was getting patients to high-end hospitals really fast. In the 1970's, Baltimore began using helicopters to airlift critical patients to a city-wide shock center, which was considered outlandish at the time but paid off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Adams_Cowley_Shock_Trauma_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Adams_Cowley_Shock_Trauma_Ce.... The system works well enough that Baltimore now has roughly two non-fatal shootings for every fatal one. That's great for the survivors but tends to mask the scale of the violence, as a lot fewer of those victims would have survived without Dauphin helicopters. > We are aging, but our largest demographic currently is between 19-40 (prime time age). This sounds like a statement about one possible way to divide the population into histogram bins in 2023 rather than a comparison of population structure between 1950 and 2023. Since 1950, the most murder-prone fraction of the population (men in their 20's) has decreased by about 10%. (https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2023/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...). There are various reasonably ways of making that comparison but they all give the same qualitative answer supporting the common-sense observation that the US population pyramid has aged.

EA-3167 3y ago

Are people held under suspicion of murder being released without bail? If not, how could that possibly be related to issues of minor crimes leading to de facto release? We need to look specifically at the sorts of crimes sensitive to these measures right?

lambdaphagy 3y ago
OP originally disputed the claim of a "crime wave", arguing with mistaken math that homicides--the most statistically reliable measure of crime--have only increased by 2% since 2014. (In fact it's more like 50%.) I corrected OP's math and OP edited the comment to remove the claim about the increase in homicides being negligible, so now the thread doesn't really make any sense. But that's why I was talking about homicides.