Does poverty cause crime?

[Patroklos]

Here is a question for all of you.

Has anyone done a study on how many speeding suspects pulled over were actually visible to the cop before hand? If you breeze by a cop a 70 on a 55 highway with other moving cars in the back or foreground does the cop really see the person or the car? What about people pulled over from behind? What about the people pulled over at night?

Then of course a lot of you have mentioned that there are more cops in poverty or "black" districts (requested by the inhabitants, until of course they start getting caught for stuff, go figure). Does that mean that more people are simple getting caught in those districts than others because of the increased presence, and that speeding is actually the same in all districts?

I can tell you one thing, I usually have absolutely no clue what the drivers around me look like when they piss me off unless they are to my side or behind me long enough to look, the suns not in my eyes, the widows are not tinted, their vehicle is not low or high enough to prevent a good look, and of course clothing.

And half the time when I pull up next to them at a stop light 6 miles down the road, I am wrong on most of my observations.

[Kidlicious]

I'm suspicious of the crack use factor. Here's my take on it. People growing up in ghettos don't think the way the rest of us do. Going to prison or overdosing aren't as big of a cost to them, because life sucks there. So they commit more crimes. More cost/benefit analysis from me. Take it or leave it. To me using crack is a crime. I don't even consider it a factor to crime. If someone doesn't give a **** enough to refrain from using crack they aren't going to give a **** enough to refrain from criminal activity.

[Solly]

I have never broken the law.

[*End Is Forever*]

No. You've never been caught.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm suspicious of the crack use factor. Here's my take on it. People growing up in ghettos don't think the way the rest of us do. Going to prison or overdosing aren't as big of a cost to them, because life sucks there. So they commit more crimes. More cost/benefit analysis from me. Take it or leave it. To me using crack is a crime. I don't even consider it a factor to crime. If someone doesn't give a **** enough to refrain from using crack they aren't going to give a **** enough to refrain from criminal activity.

Did you read the article?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Did you read the article?

I looked for it, but didn't see it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
No. You've never been caught.

I suspected that was his slant. And in a way, he only affirmed what Laz was saying about crime statistics being utterly unreliable, as it measures who gets caught, not who commits them. Way to score one for the other team, PA.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Why is it cynical to be critical of crime statistics anyway? Isn't it far more cynical to place value in something which is so fundamentally flawed and vulnerable to skewing factors, and then use it as a means to prop up a socio-political agenda?

That's not being cynical, that's being stupid and political. Anyways, I don't feel like playing this little game with you. But I would like you to answer a few questions.

Do you believe that all statistics are unreliable?

If so, tell me why.

If not, tell me which ones are reliable and why, and tell me why crime statistics specifically are unreliable.

Now before you answer, know this. I am merely seeking your opinion on this matter. I am quite aware of how statistics can be skewed and abused, but I also believe that statistics can, in certain circumstances, have value.

[Solly]

"And in a way, he only affirmed what Laz was saying about crime statistics being utterly unreliable, as it measures who gets caught, not who commits them."

Why should we assume that those being caught are not a fair representation of who are doing the offences?

Ohj, police officers must be racist

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


That's a gross over-simplification, Cal.

I think some of them are ****wits. Others of them are gullible. A sector might be naive. Others are evil.

I am not about to make any apologies for that. You're quite right- I do feel morally and/or intellectually superior to people holding such views. What's more, I'm entirely comfortable with anyone else knowing that and the ramifications extending from it.

I feel absolutely no guilt or hurt about any of the consequences of any single view I have ever expressed on the subject of racism and race relations on the internet. That's where we differ.

Actually you missed (or ignored) my main point, and that's that you have zero evidence to back up your assertion that crime levels are virtually the same among all racial groups. Yet you treat anyone with a differing opinion with distain. You remind me of a religious fundimentalist.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"And in a way, he only affirmed what Laz was saying about crime statistics being utterly unreliable, as it measures who gets caught, not who commits them."

Why should we assume that those being caught are not a fair representation of who are doing the offences?

Ohj, police officers must be racist

New Jersey cops are often accused of being racist, but white NJ cops don't arrest any greater a percentage of minorities than minority cops do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I looked for it, but didn't see it.

You'll need to get it at the library or register to use sciam.com (which costs $). I posted the link so that people can see the synopsis.

A number of the hypotheses about crime seem to make sense, but the only one that roughly corresponds to the data seems to be the crack epidemic. As Skywalker points out, it has its problems, which the author pointed out, but of all the models it fits the data best.

While I think it true that people growing up in poor areas have less overall respect for the law and that the type of crime is more severe, I haven't seen any evidence that "middle-class" people don't commit lots of crime. It may be traffic crime, minor shop-lifting, stealing from the office, cheating on your taxes, etc. but it is crime nonetheless and it is quite frequent. And drug use is just as prevelent.

The rich commit quite a bit of crime. Fraud, tax cheating, polluting, etc. They just have better lawyers.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Actually you missed (or ignored) my main point, and that's that you have zero evidence to back up your assertion that crime levels are virtually the same among all racial groups. Yet you treat anyone with a differing opinion with distain. You remind me of a religious fundimentalist.

Really? Well you remind me of a racist. Deal with it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Lorizael


That's not being cynical, that's being stupid and political. Anyways, I don't feel like playing this little game with you. But I would like you to answer a few questions.

Do you believe that all statistics are unreliable?

No.

If not, tell me which ones are reliable and why

I'm buggered if I'm about to compile an exhaustive list. Try asking someone with huge quantities of free time. As a base rule, look for statistics covering finite and fully-quantifiable subjects that do not rely on multiple stages subject to significant skewing factors at each one. "Crime" stats are about as far away from that as it's possible to get.

, and tell me why crime statistics specifically are unreliable.

I already did. There is a vast quantity of unknowables and at every step of the judicial process there is the potential for significant skewing factors

Now before you answer, know this. I am merely seeking your opinion on this matter. I am quite aware of how statistics can be skewed and abused, but I also believe that statistics can, in certain circumstances, have value.

In certain circumstances they can, but this one?

If a set of stats (saying blacks commit more crimes than whites) is used as a justification to put more police in black areas, the chances are that they'll detect more crimes committed by blacks. Et cetera, et cetera.

However anyone suggesting that this corroborates a racial basis for increased propensity to commit crimes is a moron.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I looked for it, but didn't see it.

That's because it's in Scientific American. Pick up a copy and read the article. They weren't claiming exactly what you think they were.