Government Fails at Background Checks

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

LordofHats wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I mean the stuff that state/local cops hand over to the FBI for the UCR is just a statistics dump. I doubt they include more than numbers; certainly not names, case status, etc.

What KK is suggesting is that they're purposely underselling crime reports, which shouldn't be that surprising. NYC had an unspoken policy for several years where the cops would just let you go if they decided you weren't worth their time, including possible robbers, murderers, and rapists. All so they could then report back to the high command that they'd 'reduced crime' which is how Bloomberg made his silly statement that he'd won the war on crime even though its been suggested crime went up under his tenure, not lower since then.

Wasn't Chicago caught doing the same recently?

**Kilkrazy**

I am not suggesting that specifically, it is one possibility, and another is simple mistakes of reporting, but in either case the result would be that the UCR stats would be wrong -- most likely under-reported.

If you do not have reliable statistics on criminal behaviour you cannot formulate and test policies to deal with it effectively.

**djones520**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I mean the stuff that state/local cops hand over to the FBI for the UCR is just a statistics dump. I doubt they include more than numbers; certainly not names, case status, etc.

What KK is suggesting is that they're purposely underselling crime reports, which shouldn't be that surprising. NYC had an unspoken policy for several years where the cops would just let you go if they decided you weren't worth their time, including possible robbers, murderers, and rapists. All so they could then report back to the high command that they'd 'reduced crime' which is how Bloomberg made his silly statement that he'd won the war on crime even though its been suggested crime went up under his tenure, not lower since then.

Wasn't Chicago caught doing the same recently?

I believe so. I didn't read the story on it though, because honestly how many "corrupt gak occurs in Chicago" stories can you read before you just get sick of hearing about it?

**whembly**

And people always tries to give me a hard time when I question other statistic on other subject matters.... Like Cuba has better healthcare than the US.

**easysauce**

nothing new...

even in canada where you not only need to pass BG checks, but need to get a valid license to buy FA's, the government still issues licenses to people with records on occasion due to sheer stupidity.

which is why I keep talking about things like national, up to date, transparent lists of all people banned from owning FA"s as opposed to trying to maintain lists of those who are allowed to own them.

much easier to maintain a smaller list after all.

**LordofHats**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I mean the stuff that state/local cops hand over to the FBI for the UCR is just a statistics dump. I doubt they include more than numbers; certainly not names, case status, etc.

What KK is suggesting is that they're purposely underselling crime reports, which shouldn't be that surprising. NYC had an unspoken policy for several years where the cops would just let you go if they decided you weren't worth their time, including possible robbers, murderers, and rapists. All so they could then report back to the high command that they'd 'reduced crime' which is how Bloomberg made his silly statement that he'd won the war on crime even though its been suggested crime went up under his tenure, not lower since then.

Wasn't Chicago caught doing the same recently?

A good question.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Realisticly, how does the federal government punish states and local areas that fail to report?

Send John Kerry to give a major speech in every city in their state. The prospect is absolutely terrifying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
I've always said the Civil War was a big temper tantrum

And please. Everyone knows Texas is the adopted child who broods in the corner about how no one understands him

Texas is California's drunken obnoxious older brother that is always being picked up by the police for starting a fight at the bar, again.