Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Rule #1: Cops lie, do not trust them.

Don't use this as an excuse for being a dick to the police officer. I can promise you that will never end in your favor.

 Breotan wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Rule #1: Cops lie, do not trust them.

Don't use this as an excuse for being a dick to the police officer. I can promise you that will never end in your favor.

Never been a dick to a police officer and never advocated it. However, I have called them out on their BS before. I was once pulled over for driving too close to the white line. I let him know that was not alright. We parted ways amicably.

 sebster wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
I should totally believe any link to an article done by a "news source" owned by Jeff Bezos and not question anything about it. Got it.

You only have to believe maths to know the rates of incarceration in the US are massively greater than any other developed country, and as such your claim that the US 'indulges' in crime is pretty clearly wrong.

Did the maths account for any variables?

How was criminal history accounted for? History is a factor in sentencing. If so, how was juvenile history accounted for? You can't FOIA that information.

Did the researchers account for what was originally charged or just the final disposition?

Did the researchers account for companion charges or did they just slide everyone with any drug charge into the incarcerated on drugs column?

Did the researchers account for encounters that didn't lead to incarceration due to officer discretion?

Did those categorized first violate a non-incarceration order of probation, supervision, or conditional discharge?

Did any of those categorized as incarcerated first participate in a drug court program?

If any of these are a yes the study, and therefore the conclusion is flawed.



Throwing up some numbers and telling me what conclusion to draw is amateur hour style argument. In any study you put trash in you get trash out. Having a "study" these days means little, if anything, given how certain variables are ignored in favor of a pre-determined outcome. I eat defense expert witnesses for breakfast and crap out divorce attorneys by lunch. If you're going to throw a study down make sure it isn't missing pertinent data. The average study produced by a right or left leaning entity is missing so much I can just about squeeze it into the Grand Canyon. The washington post article was a hit piece, meant to evoke a certain response, much like most of the news I see today. I find it sad our citizenry (and those of other nations as well) has been indoctrinated to believe authority at first blush without any critical thinking. In these modern times of misinformation readers need to be more scrutinizing. The governor of my state owns a media outlet so he can take potshots at his political rival, the speaker of the house. Rich people with think tanks and media outlets aren't above pushing an agenda. But if you want to believe everything Fox and MSNBC spews it's your life. I gave my perspective not just on my experience, but also cited law showing the sentencing alternatives, and that personal use amounts of pot will never land you in DOC. You can call me mister anecdotal to discredit me, but when I see a myth about the justice system I will debunk it. Now go out there and believe you can't get caught with a hitter pipe or you'll be bubba's new girlfriend.

Quite frankly any time you try to do international comparisons you need to take it with a grain of salt. What you are often doing is comparing what one country self-reports, as opposed to what another country self-reports.

Often the devil is in the details, and one of those details is that there are no standard definitions of what any particular thing is.

For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.

 Breotan wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Rule #1: Cops lie, do not trust them.

Don't use this as an excuse for being a dick to the police officer. I can promise you that will never end in your favor.

Problem is that it is often the police officer who is the one who decides whether you are being a dick and some may view anything less than worshipping their boots as being a dick.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Quite frankly any time you try to do international comparisons you need to take it with a grain of salt. What you are often doing is comparing what one country self-reports, as opposed to what another country self-reports.

Often the devil is in the details, and one of those details is that there are no standard definitions of what any particular thing is.

For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.

even accounting for those factors, the US has a much higher incidence of murder than other industrialized nations. Police for example simply dont kill many people in Japan, Iceland, the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Korea, Germany, etc to make a significant impact.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Quite frankly any time you try to do international comparisons you need to take it with a grain of salt. What you are often doing is comparing what one country self-reports, as opposed to what another country self-reports.

Often the devil is in the details, and one of those details is that there are no standard definitions of what any particular thing is.

For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.

even accounting for those factors, the US has a much higher incidence of murder than other industrialized nations. Police for example simply dont kill many people in Japan, Iceland, the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Korea, Germany, etc to make a significant impact.

While true, there are also other factors to consider. The mentally ill or minors can add up fast. Some countries only report homicide CONVICTIONS. When the chance of being convicted for a murder is under 60% that's a huge hit. Also, in some instances "murders" that are plead out to a lower offence, something equivalent to negligent death for example, are also not counted. The US also counts all homicide victims found within its boarders as a US homicide, regardless of where they were actually killed. Someone killed in Canada and thrown in the river? If the body is found in the US that's counted as a US murder. Mexican Cartel kill someone in Mexico and dump their body in the US or on a US bound freight car? That's a US murder. Other countries disavow such instances. Also, in some countries infanticide is not counted as murder if it occurs shortly after birth.

I admit that the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as high as you'd think.


There are other statistic anomalies when you compare international statics. Life expectancy in a very interesting one. Some countries like Cuba flat out lie, while a single definition of a death can effect calculated life expectancy as a whole. I believe France, for example, doesn't count infant death against the life expectancy if it occurs within 72 hours of birth. The US not only counts infant death, but also late term miscarriages. That alone is enough to bridge the gap.

 cuda1179 wrote:
The US also counts all homicide victims found within its boarders as a US homicide, regardless of where they were actually killed. Someone killed in Canada and thrown in the river? If the body is found in the US that's counted as a US murder. Mexican Cartel kill someone in Mexico and dump their body in the US or on a US bound freight car? That's a US murder. Other countries disavow such instances. Also, in some countries infanticide is not counted as murder if it occurs shortly after birth.

Could you provide information about any of those things happening at a rate in which they are throwing off numbers as much as you are implying?

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Broken Windows is a 1Up Mushroom excuse to profile, rack-up ticket revenue, and violate the Constitution's intent whenever possible.

No, it isn't. It has been used in that way, but that doesn't mean that is what it is.

I think a lot of people are talking about the NY 'stop and question' policy, which is used Broken Windows as a justification but is not what the theory is about.

You know what Sebs, you are right. It was the practices that the Police adopted and claimed were justified by the theory that were out of wack.

As everyone said, crime is a complicated subject and as a result requires a multi-pronged approach to solving.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Did the maths account for any variables?

You're not so much failing to see the wood for the trees, as you are claiming that because you can't see every single tree there might not be a wood at all.

The US has more people in prison than any other developed country. But a long way. This is despite having crime figures that are basically on par with other developed countries. These numbers are what these numbers are, and they aren't changed even if you could somehow produce some kind of ridiculous theory that criminal history was somehow uniquely different in the US.

The simple reality is clear - the US imprisons a much greater % of its population than other countries. It is possible, and maybe even reasonable, to defend that practice - afterall maybe those crimes do need incarceration, and maybe society is better off if people are given jail time for things that might result in a suspended sentence or a fine elsewhere. But claiming that it might not be true and that the numbers might just be misleading because maybe just maybe in the US people on probation for drugs might breach parole with other offences (as one your defences claimed) is really just an internet version of 'lalala i can't hear you'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.

Much like the variables given by Monkey Tamer, any look at these data issues reveals a lot more smoke than actual problems. The areas of inconsistency add up to very few murders each year. When the US has about 8,000 murders in a year, to give it about 4 times the murder rate of the United Kingdom, then +/- 50 for police actions and legal defence is just noise - the overall conclusion is still very obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
You know what Sebs, you are right. It was the practices that the Police adopted and claimed were justified by the theory that were out of wack.

Cool. And I don't want to sound like I think the Broken Windows theory is the great way forward, it was way oversold in the first place. But the counter-reaction is about as much of an over-reaction, in part because the theory was used to sell some policing theories that were very iffy.

As everyone said, crime is a complicated subject and as a result requires a multi-pronged approach to solving.

This is definitely true.

 sebster wrote:
[

 cuda1179 wrote:
For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.

Much like the variables given by Monkey Tamer, any look at these data issues reveals a lot more smoke than actual problems. The areas of inconsistency add up to very few murders each year. When the US has about 8,000 murders in a year, to give it about 4 times the murder rate of the United Kingdom, then +/- 50 for police actions and legal defence is just noise - the overall conclusion is still very obvious.


.

Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK. As I stated previously, there are many other factors in play other than police actions and legal defense to consider. As I've all ready pointed out, or killings by minors and the mentally ill. Those in and of themselves would drop the US murder rate by 15%. There are a few more, but really, I all ready pointed out that I admit the US still has a higher murder rate, just not as bad as you'd think.

Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.

Thats because we're number #1!

A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.

 Frazzled wrote:

Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.

Thats because we're number #1!

A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.

You're saying the richest country in the world has a culture more similar to that of third world countries with long histories of political uncertainty and dictatorship than that of rich, democratic nations?

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
For example, the US murder rate looks incredibly high for an industrialized nation. This is true, however our murder rate is exaggerated because we have a broader definition of what "murder" is than most other countries. Among other things the US, unlike other countries, count police actions and legal self defense as "murder". Other countries not only don't count that, they also don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill.

Much like the variables given by Monkey Tamer, any look at these data issues reveals a lot more smoke than actual problems. The areas of inconsistency add up to very few murders each year. When the US has about 8,000 murders in a year, to give it about 4 times the murder rate of the United Kingdom, then +/- 50 for police actions and legal defence is just noise - the overall conclusion is still very obvious.

Per the FBI.

2014 saw 11,961 murder victims. 721 were justifiable. A bit more then your 50 +/-.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2010-2014.xls

When you actually calculate that into the per 100k numbers, it drops it from 3.9 to 3.5. That is a pretty significant shift, not just smoke and mirrors.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.

Thats because we're number #1!

A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.

You're saying the richest country in the world has a culture more similar to that of third world countries with long histories of political uncertainty and dictatorship than that of rich, democratic nations?

Are you saying South America is the third world?

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Currently the murder rate of the US is a little over 3 times that of the UK.

Thats because we're number #1!

A better comparison would be US rates vs. Central and South American countries. This isn't Europe. Its a completely different environment.

You're saying the richest country in the world has a culture more similar to that of third world countries with long histories of political uncertainty and dictatorship than that of rich, democratic nations?

Are you saying South America is the third world?

By all measurements of "third world" it is.

This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.

Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)

UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)

 Frazzled wrote:
This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.

Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)

UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)

Brazil per Capita is 11,000.

UK is 42,000.

Notice the real difference?

 Frazzled wrote:
This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.

Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)

UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)

And that's why GDP is a bollocks measurement of development.

 Frazzled wrote:
This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.

Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)

UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)

I really don't think they would be that surprised considering the rampant corruption in their governments and high murder rates. Have you read up on Brazil lately? Its looking pretty rough. Civil War kinda rough.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This would come as a surprise to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, considering their GDPs relative to European nations.

Brazil GDP: 2.24Trillion (2013)

UK GDP 2.67 Trillion (2013)

I really don't think they would be that surprised considering the rampant corruption in their governments and high murder rates. Have you read up on Brazil lately? Its looking pretty rough. Civil War kinda rough.

Not to mention their problems with the Olympics. I don't think most first world countries have difficulty in filling a swimming pool with water which isn't contaminated with sewage.

How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?

Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.

 Frazzled wrote:
How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?

Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.

How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?

Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.

How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.

The issues in South America predate the US and our involvement in the region. Europe screwed that place up early on and they've been battling political instability ever since.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?

Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.

How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.

The issues in South America predate the US and our involvement in the region. Europe screwed that place up early on and they've been battling political instability ever since.

Absolutely, Pizarro and Cortez (depending on whether you count Mexico as South America or not) have made their mark on history.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How many EU countries have had bailouts since 2008?

Well we are a bit off topic. We are located in the Americas. Our history, trade, and borders (or lack thereof) are tied to the Americas and have different conditions than Europe. I don't see why this is a big issue for you.

How many of the countries with bail-outs still have a better standard of living than most of the South American countries? Pretty damn near all of them.

The issues in South America predate the US and our involvement in the region. Europe screwed that place up early on and they've been battling political instability ever since.

Absolutely, Pizarro and Cortez (depending on whether you count Mexico as South America or not) have made their mark on history.

Agreed. NAFTA was supposed to help Central and South America gain more economic stability but it's been a bit of a mixed bag. There are a lot of long term social issues affecting Central and South America, political histories full of dictators and despots and economies that are overly dependent on single commodity exports. Much like Africa there is a lot of potential in the region due to natural resources but the inertia of the problems of the status quo make the kind of large scale overhaul needed to really fix the problems unlikely to occur.So it leads the US to have foreign policy for the region based on mitigating the problems not fixing them and maintaining the status quo.

Again, my point is that there are many factors that make us closer to the rest of the Americas than Europe.

Europe never had a frontier. Europe hasn't dealt with cartel members (look how Italy and Sicily have fared with organized crime). Each country defines crime in different manners. We could note that assaults are much higher in Britain than the US.

Its apples to oranges.

 Frazzled wrote:


Its apples to oranges.

Sure if you focus on those factors. From what I know of the USA it seems to have more in common with european countries (similar levels of political stability and wealth) than with south american countries, thus USA - SA seems like an apples to cabbage comparison (it's only useful in this thread because it makes the US problems look better).

The wealth differentiation actually is moving towards Latin America.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Agreed. NAFTA was supposed to help Central and South America gain more economic stability but it's been a bit of a mixed bag. There are a lot of long term social issues affecting Central and South America, political histories full of dictators and despots and economies that are overly dependent on single commodity exports. Much like Africa there is a lot of potential in the region due to natural resources but the inertia of the problems of the status quo make the kind of large scale overhaul needed to really fix the problems unlikely to occur.So it leads the US to have foreign policy for the region based on mitigating the problems not fixing them and maintaining the status quo.

The status qou is what got them this far. When do our partners do anything for themselves? This empire, but totallly not an empire, really thing is really draining. Can we just colonize them already. It'll work faster. That way we'll have to pick and choose who we really like, rather than tell everybody we love them all equally, trying to figure out who to give what gift.


Ignore me, I don't know anything.