• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tennessee school will no longer teach Nazi salute after 11-year-old complains

Frigidweirdo said:
Sure, there will be a link between age and crime, seeing how a lot of murderers and violent criminals are in their teens and twenties.

However if you look at the statistics

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017


You'll see that crime is actually getting lower even as the population rises.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/?currentTimeframe=9&sortModel=%7B"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"%7D

A Century of Population Change in the Age and Sex Composition of the Nation

In 2008 there were 27 million 19-25 year olds.
In 2017 there were 28 million 19-25 year olds.

And yet crime had dropped from 11 million to 9 million.
Click to expand...

Did you know that, in 2008 the 19-25 year-old cadre comprised 8.88% of the total population while in 2017 it comprised 8.60%. That means that a smaller percentage of the total population was committing the crimes.

Now if you are going to try and tell me that there were ONLY 9,000,000 violent crimes committed in the US in 2017, I am going to burst out laughing.

Frigidweirdo said:
Violent crime had dropped, though murder increased, though there was a spike in 2016-2017. Murder had been dropping up to 2014.

Also, for example, Maine has a higher rate of old people, lower crime, but then Florida does too and a much higher rate of crime.
Click to expand...

And the wealth disparity between social strata in Maine and Florida is absolutely identical - right?

Frigidweirdo said:
The hardest part with some of these statistics is that crime has a tendency of going down in recession periods, due to there being less things to steal, people going out less because they have less money.

However crime increased from the 1960s to 1993 even though the population was getting older.

So what has changed since 1993? Entertainment.
Click to expand...

Oh PIFFLE!

What has changed is that there is a growing NUMBER (which is NOT the same thing as percentage) of people who appear to believe that the use of violence is an acceptable way of resolving trivial disputed. PROPORTIONATELY the number of crimes may well be decreasing, but in absolute terms the number of crimes could well be growing (and there is also, it appears, a shifting "up scale" on the degree of violence employed).
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Another theory is leaded gas and lead in the environment
There is much less of it in the environment to effect the brains of growing children than there was in the early 70s. The generation exposed to lead heavily is now to old too be hard criminals

Childhood Lead Exposure Linked To Criminal Behavior In Adulthood -- ScienceDaily



Helps explain higher crime rates in much older communities in which the housing is old enough to have lead paint and pipes
Click to expand...

Interesting article, but I wonder if they took a look at the economic stratification to see if those at the bottom end of the economic ladder had a higher percentage of housing that was still using lead piping?

Would you like to take a guess as to whether people who DID NOT have enough money to buy housing without lead piping (or to replace the lead piping in the housing that they did have) would be more, or less, likely to have children whose blood-lead levels were elevated than would people who DID have enough money to buy housing without lead piping (or to replace the lead piping in the housing that they did have)?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that, in 2008 the 19-25 year-old cadre comprised 8.88% of the total population while in 2017 it comprised 8.60%. That means that a smaller percentage of the total population was committing the crimes.

Now if you are going to try and tell me that there were ONLY 9,000,000 violent crimes committed in the US in 2017, I am going to burst out laughing.



And the wealth disparity between social strata in Maine and Florida is absolutely identical - right?



Oh PIFFLE!

What has changed is that there is a growing NUMBER (which is NOT the same thing as percentage) of people who appear to believe that the use of violence is an acceptable way of resolving trivial disputed. PROPORTIONATELY the number of crimes may well be decreasing, but in absolute terms the number of crimes could well be growing (and there is also, it appears, a shifting "up scale" on the degree of violence employed).
Click to expand...

Right, so your argument is the stats are wrong. Well, you'd be right, only they've ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

However you have to compare something to something else.

Different places have different things going on, which is why it's also hard to say an aging population is the main cause of reduced crime.

You say it's "PIFFLE" that crime goes down in recessions.

Crime rates plummet during recession despite mounting fear

"Crime rates plummet during recession despite mounting fear" That's in Ireland

The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession - University of Birmingham

"The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession"

"Socio-economic factors of course matter but their impact on crime is more complex. Unemployment may increase crime as unemployed people often have fewer options but unemployment is also accompanied by people spending less which means there is less to steal. Further, with more people at home rather than at work, property is left unguarded less often making it more difficult to steal. Average earnings also have an ambiguous effect on crime. Increased earnings suggest people do not need to steal but at the same time it also implies greater spending on goods which can become targets for theft. Hence, the combined effect of unemployment and depressed wages may paradoxically reduce crime."

So much for your piffle.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Right, so your argument is the stats are wrong. Well, you'd be right, only they've ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. My "argument" is that the "rate per whatever" is much more indicative of what has been happening than the absolute number of happenings is.

For Example 1 - If you have a population of 1,000,000 and something happens 1,000 times, is it happening more (or less [or just as]) likely than if you have a population of 2,000,000 and it happens 2,000 times? If one looks at data the way that you want everyone to look at it, then the odds of it happening would have doubled. What has actually happened to the odds of it happening?

For Example 2 - If you have a population of 1,000,000 and something happens 1,000 times, is it happening more (or less [or just as]) likely than if you have a population of 2,000,000 and it happens 1,500 times? If one looks at data the way that you want everyone to look at it, then the odds of it happening would have increased by 50%. What has actually happened to the odds of it happening?

Frigidweirdo said:
However you have to compare something to something else.
Click to expand...

Oh WOW!!! I never knew that.

Frigidweirdo said:
Different places have different things going on, which is why it's also hard to say an aging population is the main cause of reduced crime.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Of course if one of the factors in ALL of the areas that you look at where crime has gone down is that the average age has increased and if the variations in the other factors are controlled for, then you can make a pretty good guess - ASSUMING that you have more knowledge of statistics than how to spell the word (with the assistance of a spell checker).

Frigidweirdo said:
You say it's "PIFFLE" that crime goes down in recessions.
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. Why is that? Because, once the economic change has been controlled for, the only remaining substantive variable is the change in age.

Crime rates plummet during recession despite mounting fear

"Crime rates plummet during recession despite mounting fear" That's in Ireland

The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession - University of Birmingham

"The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession"[/quote]

Did you happen to notice the first linked article does not actually discuss crime RATES? Do you know the difference between "number of occurrences" and "rate of occurrence"?

Did you happen to notice the

First, policing seems to have become more effective. Targeted intervention has led to better detection of crime and indeed the inverse relationship between crime and detection has been well documented (including in a series of recent papers of mine with several co-authors. Further, at least for the UK and US, a large increase in prison population may have been partly contributory. However, policing is not the only factor as a recent article in the Economist points out. This is again borne out by our research which shows that even after controlling for policing and socio-economic factors the trend is consistently downwards.

That of course is not the whole story either and indeed the downward trend that I mentioned suggests there are additional factors not related to policing and the economy which are responsible. Theories abound but two of the most interesting are the abortion crime link and the impact of unleaded petrol.
(emphasis added)
​

bits in your second linked article, or did you simply read the headlines and then C&P something?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
No, it isn't. My "argument" is that the "rate per whatever" is much more indicative of what has been happening than the absolute number of happenings is.

For Example 1 - If you have a population of 1,000,000 and something happens 1,000 times, is it happening more (or less [or just as]) likely than if you have a population of 2,000,000 and it happens 2,000 times? If one looks at data the way that you want everyone to look at it, then the odds of it happening would have doubled. What has actually happened to the odds of it happening?

For Example 2 - If you have a population of 1,000,000 and something happens 1,000 times, is it happening more (or less [or just as]) likely than if you have a population of 2,000,000 and it happens 1,500 times? If one looks at data the way that you want everyone to look at it, then the odds of it happening would have increased by 50%. What has actually happened to the odds of it happening?



Oh WOW!!! I never knew that.



Indeed it is. Of course if one of the factors in ALL of the areas that you look at where crime has gone down is that the average age has increased and if the variations in the other factors are controlled for, then you can make a pretty good guess - ASSUMING that you have more knowledge of statistics than how to spell the word (with the assistance of a spell checker).



Indeed I do. Why is that? Because, once the economic change has been controlled for, the only remaining substantive variable is the change in age.

Crime rates plummet during recession despite mounting fear

"Crime rates plummet during recession despite mounting fear" That's in Ireland

The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession - University of Birmingham

"The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession"
Click to expand...

Did you happen to notice the first linked article does not actually discuss crime RATES? Do you know the difference between "number of occurrences" and "rate of occurrence"?

Did you happen to notice the

First, policing seems to have become more effective. Targeted intervention has led to better detection of crime and indeed the inverse relationship between crime and detection has been well documented (including in a series of recent papers of mine with several co-authors. Further, at least for the UK and US, a large increase in prison population may have been partly contributory. However, policing is not the only factor as a recent article in the Economist points out. This is again borne out by our research which shows that even after controlling for policing and socio-economic factors the trend is consistently downwards.

That of course is not the whole story either and indeed the downward trend that I mentioned suggests there are additional factors not related to policing and the economy which are responsible. Theories abound but two of the most interesting are the abortion crime link and the impact of unleaded petrol.
(emphasis added)
​

bits in your second linked article, or did you simply read the headlines and then C&P something?[/QUOTE]

Struggling to find anything to bother replying to here.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Did you happen to notice the first linked article does not actually discuss crime RATES? Do you know the difference between "number of occurrences" and "rate of occurrence"?

Did you happen to notice the

First, policing seems to have become more effective. Targeted intervention has led to better detection of crime and indeed the inverse relationship between crime and detection has been well documented (including in a series of recent papers of mine with several co-authors. Further, at least for the UK and US, a large increase in prison population may have been partly contributory. However, policing is not the only factor as a recent article in the Economist points out. This is again borne out by our research which shows that even after controlling for policing and socio-economic factors the trend is consistently downwards.

That of course is not the whole story either and indeed the downward trend that I mentioned suggests there are additional factors not related to policing and the economy which are responsible. Theories abound but two of the most interesting are the abortion crime link and the impact of unleaded petrol.
(emphasis added)
​

bits in your second linked article, or did you simply read the headlines and then C&P something?

Struggling to find anything to bother replying to here.
Click to expand...

Well, you did pretty well simply by re-posting my entire post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom