NYC Subway Push Victims - demographics

[the_kaiser]

I live in New York City and have heard from more than one person that most subway push victims are white women who are pushed by their significant male other (husband or lover).

Is there any validity to this urban legend? The MTA doesn’t report these kinds of statistics.

[Colibri]

This article, published in 1992, indicates that all victims between 1975 and 1991 were pushed by strangers, the majority of whom were psychotic:

Mentally disordered offenders who push or attempt to push victims onto subway tracks in New York City

D. A. Martell and P. E. Dietz
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, New York, University School of Medicine, NY.

Violent offenders who pushed or attempted to push victims onto the subway tracks in New York City during the 17-year period from 1975 through 1991 were studied. Forty-nine incidents involving 52 victims were identified during this period. Of 36 perpetrators who acted alone, 25 (69%) were referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, as was one member of an offending gang. Data concerning 20 of these 26 offenders and their crimes were collected. At the time of the offense, 19 (95%) of these offenders were psychotic, and 13 (65%) were homeless. Most of these offenders had extensive histories of psychiatric hospitalization and several prior arrests and convictions, often for violent crimes. The offenders had extensive mental health and criminal histories. The victims of these crimes were always strangers. Half of the offenders killed or seriously injured victims. Since 1986, the incidence of this offense has increased, and offenders accounting for the increase are mostly psychotic and homeless.

[Danalan]

Another sad effect of Reagan’s dismantling of the mental health safety net.

Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness.

From here.

[samclem]

A quick reading of New York newspapers from 1990-2005 would back up the research Colibri found.

[Danalan]

@samclem

A quick reading of New York newspapers from 1990-2005 would back up the research Colibri found.

Did I miss the whoosh here?

[Colibri]

@Danalan

Did I miss the whoosh here?

I don’t think sam actually read each one all the way through, but it doesn’t really take very long to read the NY Post.

[samclem]

@Danalan

Did I miss the whoosh here?

I actually used Lexis/Nexis for New York Newspapers for the period. Skimmed each of about 39 articles. Didn’t take long.

[uglybeech]

@Colibri

This article, published in 1992, indicates that all victims between 1975 and 1991 were pushed by strangers, the majority of whom were psychotic:

Hey good research, but if I read that right they only looked at the percentage of people who were referred for psychiatric treatment. And the majority of *those * were psychotic.

Just to break it out:

49 total incidents13 perpetratators not acting alone
36 perpetrators acting alone[INDENT]of that 36:
11 not referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment
25 were referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment (+1 not acting alone) = 26[INDENT]*of that 26:*6 had no data collected
20 had data collected[INDENT]of that 20:
1 was not psychotic
19 were psychotic
7 were not homeless
13 were homeless[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]

So 19 out of 49 incidents were psychotic people. The other 30 were unreferred (and presumably mostly not psychotic). When they say that almost all were strangers, they’re only referring to 20 of the incidents (people referred for treament on whom they collected data.) So, presumably:

13 of the incidents were not lone perpectrators = 27%
19 of the incidents were psychotic individuals (and most of these were strangers) plus 6 people referred for treatment who had no data collected on them. Assume, most of these (if the trend holds) were psychotic = 25 = 51%
11 of the incidents were lone individuals not referred for treatment who may or may not have known their victims., presumably non-psychotic. Plus 1 person referred for treatment who turned out not to be psychotic = 12 = 24%

That last 24% may or may not be spouses and boyfriends, but even if all of them turned out to be spouses and boyfriends (unlikely) it would still be at most a quarter of all attacks. Half would be psychos, and the final quarter would be attackers in groups (e.g. gangs)

[Colibri]

@uglybeech

When they say that almost all were strangers, they’re only referring to 20 of the incidents (people referred for treament on whom they collected data.)

Thanks for the analysis; I should have worked through the figures more closely. However, I don’t think that it’s certain what this phrase in the abstract refers to:

The victims of these crimes were always strangers.

You read it as referring to only the 20 incidents on which data were collected; I on the other hand assumed that it referred to all 39 incidents. The antecedent to “these crimes” is not clear. Of course, it is not necessary to collect data on mental health in order to determine whether or not the perpetrator knew the victim or not. I presume this information would have been easily available on *all * the cases. Therefore this sentence could very well mean that strangers committed all of the crimes. However, it is impossible to be sure without reading the article itself.

[Colibri]

Sorry, all 49 incidents.

[uglybeech]

Ack you’re right and actually I got a little of the math wrong too, so taking your caution about the ambiguous antecedent, and those corrections, here’s my corrected interpretation (I’m so anal):

So 19 out of 49 incidents were psychotic people. 6 were evaluated but no data was collected, so that makes 25 likely psychotic. The other 24 were either not psychotic or unreferred (and presumably mostly not psychotic). So, presumably:

13 of the incidents were not lone perpetrators = 27%
19 of the incidents were psychotic individuals (and most of these were definitely strangers) plus 6 people referred for treatment who had no data collected on them. Assume, most of these (if the trend holds) were psychotic; subtract 1 who was referred for treatment who was not a lone perpetrator= 24 = 49%
11 of the incidents were lone individuals not referred for treatment who may or may not have known their victims., presumably non-psychotic. Plus 1 person referred for treatment who turned out not to be psychotic = 12 = 24%

That last 24% may or may not be spouses and boyfriends, but even if all of them turned out to be spouses and boyfriends (unlikely) it would still be at most a quarter of all attacks. Half would be psychos, and the final quarter would be attackers in groups (e.g. gangs)