II Gyan II is on the mark. The principles of liberty and justice are summarized as follows:
All are equal in peaceful pursuits.
All are innocent until proven guilty of threat to peaceful pursuit.
It is the duty of government to secure these rights through regulation and justice.
Our incarceration rate is high because we create criminals and violence through unjust laws.
Peace only through Liberty
rwjefferson
They also have the massive disadvantage of being almost impossible to correlate.
In the figures you just posted their definition of murder is simply “intentional homicides” and excludes manslaughter, depraved indifference and so forth. Given the widespread use of plea bargaining and similar systems in other countries that reduce murder down to negligent homicide, manslaughter and so forth I wonder what exactly you think those figures are really telling us? I doubt they are in any way a reflection of actual instances of people deliberately stetting out to kill other people.
Agreed.
Er. High intracountry crime variance does not refute (or even address) intercountry crime differentials, or their statistical significance.
These are based on statistical surveys. The underlying sample sizes are a great deal larger.
Actually, in 1988 (prior to fall of the Berlin Wall and its associated spike in East European migration), the largest discrepancy was a great deal larger (more like 70%).
You cannot conclude this without knowing the sample sizes of the underlying survey (and therefore their confidence intervals).
For the casual reader: my impression of the data conflicts with Blake. (I think the US usually has higher rates of violent crime and much higher murder rates (props to jshore for digging up that data), relative to other first world countries. Nonviolent crime is more difficult to characterize (translation: I’m not sure.)). I, however, have substantiated my remarks with an actual dataset.
I concede that my report is not conclusive: the evidence is middling (though not weak, I’d argue). Typically, telephone surveys have a precision of around 3%. So differentials of 6% or more are likely to be significant (assuming independently distributed measurement errors). Yes the actual math is more complicated and would require sample variances and probably an assumption of normality. See variance, rule 4. So Britain had practically the same violent crime as the US in 1995, while that of Canada, Finland and the Netherlands was lower than the US.
It would be better though if a had a more recent data point than 1995. Also, inquiring minds might wonder about France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I see that my “violent crime index” consists of the simple sum of 3 crime rate categories: robbery, sexual offences and “assault and threat”. I then normalized that summed rate against the US.
I welcome links to more considered investigations.
Interesting point. I had not considered this.
Why do you doubt this? Recall that the US murder rate is over twice that of the UK, Canada and France. What is your basis for ascribing the entire gap to differences in judicial policies?
Heck, what’s your cite that suggests that plea bargaining (which occurs in all countries) is more generous for murder in the UK, Canada, Japan etc.?
A healthy skepticism is generally a good thing, but substantiated assertions are even better.
Rats. I retract this. The index was generated by myself, so the precision may be much much lower.
I think we are back to, “You have to be careful with these figures…”, as Blake said (vis a vis my violent crime survey).
According to this article violent crime is now much higher in London than New York.
I apparently got my data from the International Victim Crime Survey: the full data table is here:
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/data/i_VIC.HTM
Significance levels aside, they do not support Blake’s initial contention that US rates of violent crime are, “… much lower than countries such as England, The Netherlands or Australia.” Quite the opposite.
Within the US, New York City murder rates are not particularly high:
For 2001
Rates per thousand:
NY 8.2
Los Ang 15.6
Chicago 22.9
Phili 20.4
Detroit 41.3
It might be better to compare Britain to the US as a whole.
Looks like you are right.
Most people outside the US still assume that New York is the most violent city in the US - or even the world. Its surprising to see how much safer it actually is than other US cities. What the hell is going on in Detroit?
Speaking of staggering, check out the share of the US adult population that is incarcerated, on parole or on probation. It rose from 1.7% in 1985 (high) to 3.1% in 2000 (wow).
Source: Statistical Abstract, 2003, Table 350.
Yes, actually they are. Less of their populace is behind bars and their crime rate is also rather low.
Well, jails here in America are overwhelmingly minority. I suppose, in jail at least, that doesn’t make them the “minority” anymore.
Link
There’s also relatively little that a municipal government can do about crime in our system. The most effective thing that a government can do is to hire more cops, which positively affects crime. Even then, the difference that creates is negligible. Sometimes these things run in cycles or have a seemingly unrelated cause, like gonzomax is alluding to from Freakonomics, where the big drop in crime in NYC wasn’t due to Giulliani or his new police chief being “tough on crime”, it was the perfect time after abortion was legalized. The kids that would have caused the trouble were never born and therefore, never caused the crime, making the crime rate drop.
In my opinion, if we’re to do something that affects crime, we’ve got to turn back more towards rehabilitation for prisoners. When those ones make their way through this new system, they won’t repeat nearly as much and jail won’t act (at least as much of) a classroom in how to commit more varied crime.
Yes, it’s Canada, but I’d venture to say the US has a similar, if not the exact, problem.
That particular part of Freakonomics has been thoroughly debunked.
Not really. Sailer seems to have a big axe to grind. You can view some of Levitt’s responses to Sailer’s claims on his blog.
A conference to watch: Abortion Legalization and Crime Rates.
Bullshit. Did you read the link? The graphs don’t lie. Don’t shoot the messenger. Here is another link. Here’s the WSJ article. Face it, the chapter on abortion is dubious, at best. In fact, most of the book is suspicious and predictable. Please read the links before you respond. Countless studies have come to the opposite conclusion Levitt did, and basic statistical info readily available to the average person makes his claim implausible.
that should be “countless studies have come to different conclusions”
Your original link seems to talk mainly about homicide rates, whereas Levitt talks about violent crime of all stripes, and addresses the homicide spike as a result of the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s, which Sailer doesn’t respond to anywhere that I can see. Also, where he does address overall violent crime, Sailer only addresses national statistics, whereas Levitt correctly adjusts for results based on
Where Sailer quotes the WSJ article, he conveniently leaves out the part where the referee of Levitt’s 2001 paper points out that the Foote paper only challenges one of several points made in the original, and that while the mistakes Foote points out are valid, the results stand.
Your first link in my quoted post above is hopelessly confused mentally, challenging Leavitt’s findings that increased policing had a minimal effect on crime compared to other factors by presenting a set of facts showing the effects of policing are all over the map.
You’ve made your point the there are challenges to Levitt’s findings. Rather than continue the hijack why don’t you read these PDFs, which are bound to have less spun information than a bunch of blogs and newspaper columns:
Levitt and Donahue’s original, refereed 2001 paper, The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime
Ted Joyce’s criticism, Did Legalized Abortion Lower Crime?
Levitt and Donahue’s Response to Joyce, Further Evidence that Legalized Abortion Lowered Crime
Goetz and Foote’s paper, Testing Economic Hyptheses with State-Level Data: A Comment on Donahue and Levitt
And lastly, the official response to the material in your original link, Measurement Error, Legalized Abortion, the Decline in Crime: A Response to Foote and Goetz
And start a thread when you’re done.
What should we makeof it? Well, one conclusion to be drawn is that we have a highly effective law enforcement/court system. Another conclusion is that our penalties are not strong enough to be effective deterrants, because we are too interested in “correction” rather than “penal” systems.
But an even better conclusion is that we should stop creating violent crime with our prohibitions. We should eliminate old covenant religious “morality" from government.
You cannot expect peace if you prohibit peace(ful pursuit).
rwj