Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/prison_norway/prison5.jpg

They even have a TV with a remote.

We are so unsuccussful as a country that some now believe we can't have heathcare for innocent old retired people.

Norway doesn't do prison right.

Btw, old people are evil.

Norway has a population about 1/75th that of America, what does this prove?

Looks like the cabin of a Carnival Cruise ship.

I think it proves a lot. Norway actually cares about the quality of life for it's citizens. A very high life expectancy rate. A very low crime rate. Excellent healthcare. One of the best standards of living on earth and this from a very socialist country.

The US on the other hand has the highest incarceration rate in the world, even higher than China, 1 out of 7 of us now live below the poverty line, our primary education system is a joke, healthcare is there...IF you can afford it. It isn't our population size, it's our approach to how we run our society.

I love Norwegian criminal justice. It makes so much more sense than the US approach.

So when you get anally gang-raped, at least you'll have it happen in a nice room.

About the equivilant of a college dorm (single occupant) to me... which seems fair.

That Prison is art. It has an aesthetic, I don't believe it's garden maze is accidental either.

I want to be a norwegian criminal.

Originally posted by Robtard
So when you get anally gang-raped, at least you'll have it happen in a nice room. That's how they say hello in Norway.

Big deal.

A golden prison is still a prison...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Big deal.

A golden prison is still a prison...
By that logic, there's nothing wrong with the gulags as they were "just prisons". Obviously there is something to be said for trying to make it as humane as you can.

Originally posted by Mindset
I want to be a norwegian criminal.

So what's stopping you?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I think it proves a lot. Norway actually cares about the quality of life for it's citizens. A very high life expectancy rate. A very low crime rate. Excellent healthcare. One of the best standards of living on earth and this from a very socialist country.

The US on the other hand has the highest incarceration rate in the world, even higher than China, 1 out of 7 of us now live below the poverty line, our primary education system is a joke, healthcare is there...IF you can afford it. It isn't our population size, it's our approach to how we run our society.
You really think population size has nothing to do with it?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You really think population size has nothing to do with it?

Not to be an idiot...but...


You really think population size has anything to do with it?

The HDI, social policies, and mentality of the people have everything to do with it. Yes, that's the end. Population is no where in that.

The HDI is a derrivative of the social policies and mentality of the people.

The HDI is the END result, not the cause.

Could you argue per capita income?

Nope! Because Norway used to be lower, per capita, in income than the US just 3-5 decades ago. So what happened? They did better at governing than the US did. It is possible to obtain the same HDI as Norway, in the US. We just have to be smarter.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So what's stopping you? A plane ticket.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not to be an idiot...but...


You really think population size has anything to do with it?

The HDI, social policies, and mentality of the people have everything to do with it. Yes, that's the end. Population is no where in that.

The HDI is a derrivative of the social policies and mentality of the people.

The HDI is the END result, not the cause.

Could you argue per capita income?

Nope! Because Norway used to be lower, per capita, in income than the US just 3-5 decades ago. So what happened? They did better at governing than the US did. It is possible to obtain the same HDI as Norway, in the US. We just have to be smarter.

I think you would be hard pressed to argue that population size has nothing to do with crime rate and seriousness

I don't believe it is as important as stuff like the racial demographics of America, or the history of slavery/second class citizens, but even comparing rural and urban areas within a nation would seem to indicate that there is more crime with more people (per capita, of course).

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you would be hard pressed to argue that population size has nothing to do with crime rate and seriousness

You're not serious, are you? Cause Japan takes a shit all over the idea that population and/or population density are primary contributors to crime rates.

Sure, it's harder to provide for 310,000,000 people rather than 4,900,000 million people, but I reconciled that difference by referencing Norway's previous state as a smaller "per capita" country than the US just a few decades ago. I then explained why the per capita income argument is not sustainable, longer term.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't believe it is as important as stuff like the racial demographics of America, or the history of slavery/second class citizens, but even comparing rural and urban areas within a nation would seem to indicate that there is more crime with more people (per capita, of course).

I don't really think population density has anything to do with crime rate - it's just factually true that crime is not a function of population density or even "population" period. Sure, it's a small portion of the "crime" pie, but it's not even close to representing the differences in criminal activities of each nation.

Edit - If population density were the "answer" then crime should be half as much as it is, per capita, in Norway. It's not. Control for per capita income because we know crime decreases with social strata. They mame roughly four times as much as the people in the US. Doe they have four times less crime per capita than the US?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're not serious, are you? Cause Japan takes a shit all over the idea that population and/or population density are primary contributors to crime rates.

Sure, it's harder to provide for 310,000,000 people rather than 4,900,000 million people, but I reconciled that difference by referencing Norway's previous state as a smaller "per capita" country than the US just a few decades ago. I then explained why the per capita income argument is not sustainable, longer term.

no it doesn't. I don't have the data in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet crime is higher in urban centers in Japan than it is in rural...

you can't compare across cultures here, as I said above, there are things that are much more important than simply population density, but living in a place with high population density in a lot of ways simply a) brings you in contact with other people more often (independent of any "per capita" correction too, living conditions in urban areas simply cause more interaction above what you would expect from simply there being more people, this is intro social psych ) b) provides more opportunity to commit crime, and in some ways that aren't available in rural areas and c) has a greater safety net for people who engage in criminal activities ("ghettos", homelessness, services like that, criminal infrastructure, etc). We can also talk about wealth disparity in urban centers compared to rural, which again, is more a byproduct of population size, and totally drives types of crime.

Ideally, you would want to compare a small rural community with large urban centers very close to each other, but then there are always issues with how much funding and mandates local police services have, and urban centers almost always have much greater population diversity. For instance, Winnipeg is a much smaller city than Toronto, but has a much higher crime rate. However, it is issues of employment, population diversity, ethnicity, etc, rather than simply population. However, a city with the same demographics as winnipeg, with a smaller population (all other things being equal) would almost certainly have a lower crime rate

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't really think population density has anything to do with crime rate - it's just factually true that crime is not a function of population density or even "population" period. Sure, it's a small portion of the "crime" pie, but it's not even close to representing the differences in criminal activities of each nation.

how are you concluding "factually true" here? what facts are you basing this on, the fact there is less crime in Tokyo than New York? that type of comparison is nonsense. There is more crime in Chicago than Winnipeg, and more in Mexico City than both. These simple apples to oranges comparisons are not really appropriate, and you know that

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - If population density were the "answer" then crime should be half as much as it is, per capita, in Norway. It's not. Control for per capita income because we know crime decreases with social strata. They mame roughly four times as much as the people in the US. Doe they have four times less crime per capita than the US?

I said above that population doesn't play as much of a role as do demographic or social issues. That certainly shouldn't insinuate that I think it is an "answer" to any problem.

Think of it like this: it is something like a 90% chance that the person who commits a crime against you is someone you know. You have 10 people, in one scenario they live in different homes and have few interactions during the day. In the other, some share rooms, and all live in a single building where they see eachother frequently. basic probability would suggest people in the latter situation would commit more crime against one another, and this is supported by a host of criminal and psychological data

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2010/prison_norway/prison5.jpg

They even have a TV with a remote.

We are so unsuccussful as a country that some now believe we can't have heathcare for innocent old retired people. So are those windows made of diamond?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You really think population size has nothing to do with it?

It depends on what priorities the government has for the money it takes in. Norway seems to like to give it back to the people who pay in by making their lives easiers. The US on the other hand tends to spend trillions on weapons, warfare and sending billion dollar things into space.

Maybe that has something to do with it.

Originally posted by inimalist
no it doesn't. I don't have the data in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet crime is higher in urban centers in Japan than it is in rural...

Per person or per square unit? I'd agree that it is definitely true per square unit.

Originally posted by inimalist
you can't compare across cultures here, as I said above, there are things that are much more important than simply population density, but living in a place with high population density in a lot of ways simply a) brings you in contact with other people more often (independent of any "per capita" correction too, living conditions in urban areas simply cause more interaction above what you would expect from simply there being more people, this is intro social psych ) b) provides more opportunity to commit crime, and in some ways that aren't available in rural areas and c) has a greater safety net for people who engage in criminal activities ("ghettos", homelessness, services like that, criminal infrastructure, etc). We can also talk about wealth disparity in urban centers compared to rural, which again, is more a byproduct of population size, and totally drives types of crime.

Why can't we compare cross cultures?

Additionally, I already made reference to the cultures as being a major contributing factor. (mentality of the people) We are just saying the same things.

Also, population is still not a major factor in crime...you're making an argument that I never argued against. I argued against "population" being the difference. Not population density. I only referenced Japan because they are an anomaly with really high population density and low crime. It was a message that "not all people are equal" when all things are considered.

The original point I took issue with was "population", not "population density."

The reason Norway makes the US look barbaric when it comes to crime are these reasons:

social policies and mentality of the people


IE: culture and the laws derived from that culture.


Also, I'd say the crime "trends" like you are discussing was covered in my criminal psychology "101" or "202". 313 I think Canada covers criminal psychology differently than the US does. hmm

Originally posted by inimalist
Ideally, you would want to compare a small rural community with large urban centers very close to each other, but then there are always issues with how much funding and mandates local police services have, and urban centers almost always have much greater population diversity. For instance, Winnipeg is a much smaller city than Toronto, but has a much higher crime rate. However, it is issues of employment, population diversity, ethnicity, etc, rather than simply population. However, a city with the same demographics as winnipeg, with a smaller population (all other things being equal) would almost certainly have a lower crime rate.

Ideally, you'd want parallel comparisons (since we are doing country to country comparisons). More specifically, you'd want to compare cities with equal density, size, diversity, etc. In this case, we'd compare Oslo with Albuquerque because they have similar land areas, population sizes, reasonable diversity similarities, and by default, similar population densities.

Annual Crime rates in Albuquerque:

Total Crime:.... 35,166
Violent Crime:. 4,743



Oslo: I couldn't find jack. I found stuff about rape increasing in Oslo over the last 5 years, but I could not find total crimes to compare with Abq.


Oh well...I tried.

I also found stuff that stated Oslo was the most different of all the Norwegian cities being the most "dangerous."

Anyway, in country comparisons are great...but we are not comparing cities within countries to each other, we are comparing country to country to see why Norway has a much better criminal justice system than the US or other countries.


I often do forget that Canada is next door and it's just as good of a "contrasting" tool to make points about why the US fails. In fact, I would think that using Canada would be a much better option due to how close we are with similar diversities.

Originally posted by inimalist
how are you concluding "factually true" here? what facts are you basing this on, the fact there is less crime in Tokyo than New York? that type of comparison is nonsense. There is more crime in Chicago than Winnipeg, and more in Mexico City than both. These simple apples to oranges comparisons are not really appropriate, and you know that

I consider your comparison of urban centers and rural areas within the same country apples to oranges and completely irrelevant to what is being discussed so I guess we're even?

This discussion was never about same country city to city crime comparisons: it was always about why some countries succeed where others fail. If you think that it's a retarded comparison due to cultural differences being a major x-factor, I don't know what to tell you because that's was really part of my original point.

Originally posted by inimalist
I said above that population doesn't play as much of a role as do demographic or social issues. That certainly shouldn't insinuate that I think it is an "answer" to any problem.

Think of it like this: it is something like a 90% chance that the person who commits a crime against you is someone you know. You have 10 people, in one scenario they live in different homes and have few interactions during the day. In the other, some share rooms, and all live in a single building where they see eachother frequently. basic probability would suggest people in the latter situation would commit more crime against one another, and this is supported by a host of criminal and psychological data

I think this is getting way off track of what I was talking about. Not that I find it stupid, lame, or uninteresting: it's just stuff I already know and don't need to be educated on. This is not to say that you don't often provide awesome or insightful posts: it's just that this time, I think your posts are misplaced towards me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Per person or per square unit? I'd agree that it is definitely true per square unit.

Anecdotal, if you look up the 2009 crime rates for California (5.3/100000) and compare them to the 2009 crime rates for cities the average is marginally higher(6.3/100000), even if you leave out the extraordinary outlier of Oakland.

It's not Japan but it seems worth noting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Per person or per square unit? I'd agree that it is definitely true per square unit.

LOL

ok, well, first off, "population" as a variable is meaningless if it isn't in some "per capita" reference. Knowing how many there are of something, with no respect to some "area" being studied is, pretty much, non-informative and essentially undefined (maybe better stated as "defined in a meaningless way". So, if your entire point is to quibble about population vs population density, lol, ok, you have dismissed a baseless strawman.

the other point would be that in all of my examples where I didn't specify "population density" specifically were based around population density.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why can't we compare cross cultures?

Additionally, I already made reference to the cultures as being a major contributing factor. (mentality of the people) We are just saying the same things.

your second paragraph here answers the first, though I explain a bit better below

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, population is still not a major factor in crime...you're making an argument that I never argued against. I argued against "population" being the difference. Not population density. I only referenced Japan because they are an anomaly with really high population density and low crime. It was a message that "not all people are equal" when all things are considered.

The original point I took issue with was "population", not "population density."

see above

Originally posted by dadudemon
The reason Norway makes the US look barbaric when it comes to crime are these reasons:

social policies and mentality of the people


IE: culture and the laws derived from that culture.


Also, I'd say the crime "trends" like you are discussing was covered in my criminal psychology "101" or "202". 313 I think Canada covers criminal psychology differently than the US does. hmm

I haven't contested any of those points. Merely you saying population is not a factor in determining crime rates.

if you really are trying to quibble between some ill-defined "population" (which, by definition, couldn't be a cause as it isn't defined in an operational sense) and "population density", then, again, see my first answer in this post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ideally, you'd want parallel comparisons (since we are doing country to country comparisons). More specifically, you'd want to compare cities with equal density, size, diversity, etc. In this case, we'd compare Oslo with Albuquerque because they have similar land areas, population sizes, reasonable diversity similarities, and by default, similar population densities.

Annual Crime rates in Albuquerque:

Total Crime:.... 35,166
Violent Crime:. 4,743



Oslo: I couldn't find jack. I found stuff about rape increasing in Oslo over the last 5 years, but I could not find total crimes to compare with Abq.


Oh well...I tried.

I also found stuff that stated Oslo was the most different of all the Norwegian cities being the most "dangerous."

Anyway, in country comparisons are great...but we are not comparing cities within countries to each other, we are comparing country to country to see why Norway has a much better criminal justice system than the US or other countries.

not really...

we are trying to see if "population" has an effect on crime rates, independent of things like culture. In this case, we would need population centers that have the same culture, police mandates, budgets, demographics, employment opportunities, etc. The only thing we would want to be different is population.

now, you are right, if you wanted to see what impact "culture" has, you would want cities that varied in nothing but culture. But you have to have equivalent cultures if you want to have a controlled measure of the impact of population.

Something you have said, point blank, has no impact on crime. The specific thing I took you up on from your earlier posts.

so sure, there are other things that are much more important, I said as much in my opening post, but there is some impact from population.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I often do forget that Canada is next door and it's just as good of a "contrasting" tool to make points about why the US fails. In fact, I would think that using Canada would be a much better option due to how close we are with similar diversities.

certain areas of Canada might work for different comparisons, yes, and it might be a better control on some things than European centers are, however, there are still issues with it. Our social welfare programs probably being the most significant, and lower population in general (we only have ... maybe 4-5 "metropolises"

Originally posted by dadudemon
I consider your comparison of urban centers and rural areas within the same country apples to oranges and completely irrelevant to what is being discussed so I guess we're even?

well, you might, but I've controlled to test the variable in question, population, whereas you controlled to test the variable we don't disagree on, culture.

laugh all you want

Originally posted by dadudemon
This discussion was never about same country city to city crime comparisons: it was always about why some countries succeed where others fail. If you think that it's a retarded comparison due to cultural differences being a major x-factor, I don't know what to tell you because that's was really part of my original point.

this might have been what you were talking about with a different poster, but the only topic my posts have been on is whether population is a contributing factor to crime rates.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think this is getting way off track of what I was talking about. Not that I find it stupid, lame, or uninteresting: it's just stuff I already know and don't need to be educated on. This is not to say that you don't often provide awesome or insightful posts: it's just that this time, I think your posts are misplaced towards me.

well, I gave an example of how to test if population were a contributing variable in crime rates, something you plainly said was not the case, and your response to me is to talk about how places of equal population might differ.

clearly I'm misdirected

Originally posted by inimalist
LOL

ok, well, first off, "population" as a variable is meaningless if it isn't in some "per capita" reference. Knowing how many there are of something, with no respect to some "area" being studied is, pretty much, non-informative and essentially undefined (maybe better stated as "defined in a meaningless way". So, if your entire point is to quibble about population vs population density, lol, ok, you have dismissed a baseless strawman.

the other point would be that in all of my examples where I didn't specify "population density" specifically were based around population density.



your second paragraph here answers the first, though I explain a bit better below



see above



I haven't contested any of those points. Merely you saying population is not a factor in determining crime rates.

if you really are trying to quibble between some ill-defined "population" (which, by definition, couldn't be a cause as it isn't defined in an operational sense) and "population density", then, again, see my first answer in this post.



not really...

we are trying to see if "population" has an effect on crime rates, independent of things like culture. In this case, we would need population centers that have the same culture, police mandates, budgets, demographics, employment opportunities, etc. The only thing we would want to be different is population.

now, you are right, if you wanted to see what impact "culture" has, you would want cities that varied in nothing but culture. But you have to have equivalent cultures if you want to have a controlled measure of the impact of population.

Something you have said, point blank, has no impact on crime. The specific thing I took you up on from your earlier posts.

so sure, there are other things that are much more important, I said as much in my opening post, but there is some impact from population.



certain areas of Canada might work for different comparisons, yes, and it might be a better control on some things than European centers are, however, there are still issues with it. Our social welfare programs probably being the most significant, and lower population in general (we only have ... maybe 4-5 "metropolises"



well, you might, but I've controlled to test the variable in question, population, whereas you controlled to test the variable we don't disagree on, culture.

laugh all you want



this might have been what you were talking about with a different poster, but the only topic my posts have been on is whether population is a contributing factor to crime rates.



well, I gave an example of how to test if population were a contributing variable in crime rates, something you plainly said was not the case, and your response to me is to talk about how places of equal population might differ.

clearly I'm misdirected


I have no idea what you're talking about, at this point. I seriously cannot tell which points of yours are acting as a contrast or are agreeing. It's a combination of both but I'm not even going to try and figure out where is which and which is where.



Lemme restate:

Population has little to do with crime rates, when "things" are equal. Equal, as in, population density, income, etc.

What's the difference? The culture (mentality of the people towards crime and related items) and policies (governance). When said "population is no where in there" it's because it's understood you are using a proper comparison to begin with where populations are the same in the cross-country comparison. It makes no sense to compare two cities with hugely different densities.

Since you said we agree on culture, I still fail to see what you've even talked to me about.

I took issue with saying the population was the "answer" when it clearly is not.

Population density was not what I argued against or for, at any point. I only brought up Japan because you brought up density. Why? To support my original statement that even population density does not explain everything about crime frequency. Now what was my original point?: The people and policies.



Edit - Rereading your post, I THINK I understand where you are coming from and why you called it a "strawman": I take issue with the use of the word "population" and you take it to mean several things such as the total number and density.

IF he meant density, he would have said density. If he meant the total number, he would have just said "population." If he meant both, he should have said both. If he meant the total number, controlling for land area, he should have said so. Population alone is just the total number. That skips over a bunch of others things that need to be considered and at the end of the day, my original point was what I was on about: it's about the people and policies that make up the differences: not the total number of people.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anecdotal, if you look up the 2009 crime rates for California (5.3/100000) and compare them to the 2009 crime rates for cities the average is marginally higher(6.3/100000), even if you leave out the extraordinary outlier of Oakland.

It's not Japan but it seems worth noting.

Odd. I'd expect it to be significantly higher than "average." Oakland fits more of my expectation.

you have to consider that many cities may have lower rates, but this would be a part of how much and effective their police are

Originally posted by inimalist
you have to consider that many cities may have lower rates, but this would be a part of how much and effective their police are

Really? I thought that was policies.

I guess it's true that if the police are better at actually enforcing "good" policies, the better.





Some backwoods hick cities in the central US have really low crime rates...even with similar population densities. The police don't take shit and focus more on things useful.


Tangent: The city I grew up in is a good example: 10-20K in population...density just as high a the surrounding cities and it is near a large city (600K). The police are just very nicely organized in that city and highly trained. The difference? Income is almost double the surrounding cities and the police are highly trained and well paid.

Originally posted by inimalist
Think of it like this: it is something like a 90% chance that the person who commits a crime against you is someone you know. You have 10 people, in one scenario they live in different homes and have few interactions during the day. In the other, some share rooms, and all live in a single building where they see eachother frequently. basic probability would suggest people in the latter situation would commit more crime against one another, and this is supported by a host of criminal and psychological data
But in rural areas, you primarily live with your family unit in your own house, but in urban areas you interact with non-family members more often and during a greater part of the day. So by this logic, wouldn't rural areas actually have more crime?

Unless "rural area" means "your house is surrounded by 5 miles of wilderness", I really don't see how living in a rural environment compared to an urban one influences how much time you spend with you family.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Unless "rural area" means "your house is surrounded by 5 miles of wilderness", I really don't see how living in a rural environment compared to an urban one influences how much time you spend with you family.
I suppose you'd have to define rural then, but I typically don't think of people having too many office jobs in rural areas.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But in rural areas, you primarily live with your family unit in your own house, but in urban areas you interact with non-family members more often and during a greater part of the day. So by this logic, wouldn't rural areas actually have more crime?

I was thinking of 10 individual adults for the purpose of stats

it muddles things to make it more complex than that, but make it 10 family units of equal size (4) then. It is possible that within each of those units more crime might occur in rural rather than urban environments, but between the families it would be much higher in urban settings. this is pretty simple mathematically.

in both urban and rural cases, you would have the within and between "family unit" amounts of crime, which vary as a product of interaction time/chances to commit crime/motivation/etc.

Ugh, I spent way too long figuring this out, so bare with me, it is a stupid equation, but it works and I'm going to nerd out and share it:

ok, so lets say we want some numerical representation of how much crime there is an hour (with no actual data, these numbers are not going to represent actual crimes or anything like that, but the higher the value, the more crime).

so, the basic equation would be:

"crimes in a day"/24

"crimes in a day" could actually be described as the product of the amount of time (in hours) you would have to commit a crime (Opportunity = O) and some numerical representation of your motivation to commit crimes (Propensity = P), therefore:

"crimes in a day" = OP

This gives us a measure of hourly crime as:

OP/24

To tally within family crime, since we have 10 families and we are assuming all the families are identical (control for anything other than population), we would multiply the above equation by 4 (family members) times 10:

(OP/24)*(4*10)

To tally between family crime, the first part of the equation is the same, but it is multiplied by the total number of people in all families minus the number of people in your family.

(OP/24)*(100-4)

so, as long as you keep all the variables constant for all people being looked at, between family crime would produce so much more total crime per hour than would within family crime. Even if you argued that there was more opportunity within family, the disparity would have to be huge, or there would have to be other variables acting on those above that make rural and urban environments different

EDIT: because there might be more opportunity to commit crimes against your family in a rural setting, and may be more within family crime in general, just based on statistics at least, wont make crime rates higher than will more opportunity to commit crimes against more strangers.

I forgot to ad, the equation works best if P varies between 0 and 1

Originally posted by inimalist
To tally within family crime, since we have 10 families and we are assuming all the families are identical (control for anything other than population), we would multiply the above equation by 4 (family members) minus 1 (you, or rather, each person in the family can only victimize 3 others), times 10:

(OP/24)*(*10)

To tally between family crime, the first part of the equation is the same, but it is multiplied by the total number of people in all families minus the number of people in your family (or rather, for each family, there are 4 people that if they target for crime, it is considered within family crime).

(OP/24)*(-4)

c-c-c-c-combo breaker

sorry, tired, couldn't resist

looking at this:
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

interesting through from stuff in conclusions. rich people like space, not packed like sardines. high SES correlates with less property and violent crime due to greater security and less motivation. high population density would be expected to correlate with low SES and thus higher crime.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
c-c-c-c-combo breaker

sorry, tired, couldn't resist

Degrees of freedom has never made more sense....



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
looking at this:
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

interesting through from stuff in conclusions. rich people like space, not packed like sardines. high SES correlates with less property and violent crime due to greater security and less motivation. high population density would be expected to correlate with low SES and thus higher crime.

oh, no, totally. And I'm sure low SES plays a way more important role in people committing crimes than does pop. density

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
c-c-c-c-combo breaker

sorry, tired, couldn't resist

looking at this:
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

interesting through from stuff in conclusions. rich people like space, not packed like sardines. high SES correlates with less property and violent crime due to greater security and less motivation. high population density would be expected to correlate with low SES and thus higher crime.


I'd like to point out that I already mentioned SES as a contributing factor (so it has to be controlled for in a legitimate comparison unless you plan to re-invent the wheel):

Originally posted by dadudemon
Control for per capita income because we know crime decreases with social strata.


http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forums/images/smilies/large/smiley_smug.gif


But, I messed up the words: I needed to say "crime decreases as social-economic strata increases." But I could be sloppy like that with inimalist because he knew what I meant.

how exactly is this prison the right way?

some dumbass living in an abandoned building kills somebody & gets rewarded better living environment? do they serve caviar too?
dam bed is probably a tempur-pedic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

Whatever the cause and effect when it comes to this obviously every other country on earth is doing something better than we are

you think if our prisons were like that people would be incarcerated less? HA!

you're simply refusing to acknowledge thats theres more to it than you know.

america is different than all those places in more than a couple ways how about we leave it at that?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
you think if our prisons were like that people would be incarcerated less? HA!

you're simply refusing to acknowledge thats theres more to it than you know.

america is different than all those places in more than a couple ways how about we leave it at that?

Yes, I do think our incarceration rate would be lower if prisons were more like Norway, though by how much I don 't know. Our current prison system is run by gangs which nurture a criminal culture. And no, I'm not going to "leave it at that".

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Yes, I do think our incarceration rate would be lower if prisons were more like Norway, though by how much I don 't know. Our current prison system is run by gangs which nurture a criminal culture. And no, I'm not going to "leave it at that". this wouldn't lower at all. I don't know what america you live in but if a criminal isnt remotely afraid be incarcerated in a shitty prison. why would they not be incarcerated in nice one? what reason would a person who is afraid of prison have to not return?

hell why not treat prisoners even MORE better than that?
lets give them a air purifiers, puppies, tempur-pedic mattresses, & shopping privileges.

yeah that'll show those damn american criminals.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Yes, I do think our incarceration rate would be lower if prisons were more like Norway, though by how much I don 't know. Our current prison system is run by gangs which nurture a criminal culture. And no, I'm not going to "leave it at that".

47 years definitely afforded you wisdom and insight.

You're correct. Norway's prison system is run on a system of rehabilitation, not punishment and isolation. As such, they have a much much higher rate of re-integration and no-repeat offenders.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
this wouldn't lower at all. I don't know what america you live in but if a criminal isnt remotely afraid be incarcerated in a shitty prison. why would they not be incarcerated in nice one? what reason would a person who is afraid of prison have to not return?

hell why not treat prisoners even MORE better than that?
lets give them a air purifiers, puppies, tempur-pedic mattresses, & shopping privileges.

yeah that'll show those damn american criminals.

Maybe you should do some research as to why the "land of the free" has the highest incarceration on earth. Far higher than both China and India both of which have about 4 times our population and India having far less space in which those people live. Maybe you should research our prison gang culture. Like Dadudemon said, compare our rehabilitation rate and repeat offendor rates to other countries and then determine if what we are doing in our criminal justice system is really good for us.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Maybe you should do some research as to why the "land of the free" has the highest incarceration on earth. Far higher than both China and India both of which have about 4 times our population and India having far less space in which those people live. Maybe you should research our prison gang culture. Like Dadudemon said, compare our rehabilitation rate and repeat offendor rates to other countries and then determine if what we are doing in our criminal justice system is really good for us. maybe you should research the history of the US and its various differences from india & china. there are just too many factors of why US isnt doing better.
racketeering,shady government, racial discrimination, lack of places for a released con to go & not changing his peers.

you cant just go & blame the whole thing on the prison system itself.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
.

you cant just go & blame the whole thing on the prison system itself.


I'm not, but it has a lot to do with it

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
this wouldn't lower at all. I don't know what america you live in but if a criminal isnt remotely afraid be incarcerated in a shitty prison. why would they not be incarcerated in nice one? what reason would a person who is afraid of prison have to not return?

hell why not treat prisoners even MORE better than that?
lets give them a air purifiers, puppies, tempur-pedic mattresses, & shopping privileges.

yeah that'll show those damn american criminals.
If that's the case, then the Norwegian crime rate should be higher than the US one. Obviously the flaws in this logic are demonstrated by its lack of correlation to real life.

As far as your point goes, I would have no respect for a government that treats me horribly. Maybe if the government showed me some respect, I would respect it in turn. You do reap what you sow.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If that's the case, then the Norwegian crime rate should be higher than the US one. Obviously the flaws in this logic are demonstrated by its lack of correlation to real life.

As far as your point goes, I would have no respect for a government that treats me horribly. Maybe if the government showed me some respect, I would respect it in turn. You do reap what you sow. why? Norway & America are far different places. no?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
this wouldn't lower at all. I don't know what america you live in but if a criminal isnt remotely afraid be incarcerated in a shitty prison. why would they not be incarcerated in nice one? what reason would a person who is afraid of prison have to not return?

hell why not treat prisoners even MORE better than that?
lets give them a air purifiers, puppies, tempur-pedic mattresses, & shopping privileges.

yeah that'll show those damn american criminals.

You seem to think the purpose of prison is to punish or scare people. It's much more useful to have a prison system that takes actions which reduce crime.

If puppies and nice mattresses caused people to not be criminals when they got out that's what we should do. Certainly its better than placing them in an environment of systematic abuse where the only bonds they have a chance of form are with other, usually worse, criminals.


Unrelated question for the forum. Doesn't a for profit prison have a conflict of interest? As I understand it the more criminals they have the more money they make, so they would be motivated to keep crime rates (or at least imprisonment rates) high.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
why? Norway & America are far different places. no?
I'd work on changing that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unrelated question for the forum. Doesn't a for profit prison have a conflict of interest? As I understand it the more criminals they have the more money they make, so they would be motivated to keep crime rates (or at least imprisonment rates) high.
One of the many interests behind our drug policy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos



Unrelated question for the forum. Doesn't a for profit prison have a conflict of interest? As I understand it the more criminals they have the more money they make, so they would be motivated to keep crime rates (or at least imprisonment rates) high.

I agree

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unrelated question for the forum. Doesn't a for profit prison have a conflict of interest? As I understand it the more criminals they have the more money they make, so they would be motivated to keep crime rates (or at least imprisonment rates) high. thats racketeering.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unrelated question for the forum. Doesn't a for profit prison have a conflict of interest? As I understand it the more criminals they have the more money they make, so they would be motivated to keep crime rates (or at least imprisonment rates) high.

If the operation was incentivized towards rehabilitation (in other words, the incentives are tied to them not repeating offenses, say, in the first 2 years after release), then, yeah, that system could work really well.

If they fail to rehab the prisoner, they have to pay back half of what the state/federal governments paid them to house the prisoner.


That would make it impossible to create a prison system that would work, under the current system. I think it's possible that we could have a "test" prison in the US and we randomly select inmates and place them there. We would model the system after Norway's most successful prison and then see how it works. The only harm in that would be failing and we have everything to gain from trying to copy that system.

One must wonder if they'll send the Norway shooter to one of these deluxe prisons.

I don't see rehabilitation as a feasible outcome in his case, sad as that is.

This can't be the first time Norway has had a criminal that would be impossible to rehabilitate. I imagine they have some way of accommodating them, though, I still don't think the purpose of prison should be to punish him, merely to keep the rest of society safe from them.

I see the prisoner policed prison ripping him apart.

Originally posted by inimalist
??

I work hard and nobody hands me drugs 1. You're healthy and sane
2. Doesn't your country have it legal?

lol, no

also, marijuana is the worst thing to give people with psychosis. It actually has very little use as a mental health medication, as it increases symptoms of depression, anxiety, psychosis, schizophrenia, etc.

THC does, but Cannabis contains CBD as well, which does the opposite.

There's some lab that uses CBD to help with mental illnesses in some country. Do a google search if you're interested.

But here's a pdf on CBD: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/6164.pdf


All the methods, results etc. are in the pdf and worth reading. Don't take my word for it! ermm

I, in fact, follow the marijuana medical literature pretty closely

Well, does my joke or that paper have any credibility then?

sure, nobody smokes CBD alone though, and tests on marijuana show it increases rather than decreases the symptoms of many mental health issues

your point would be like saying "there are cancer fighting chemicals in tobacco". There very well might be, but that is irrelevant given that cigarettes as a whole are cancer causing

I think it would be pretty neat to try pure CBD.

Originally posted by lord xyz
(I think the shooter can speak English too since he listened to Pat Condell).

And here's his response to the shooting:

MVbUzbLC5GE

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think it would be pretty neat to try pure CBD.

I don't think it is psychoactive

EDIT: it also increases cortisol levels, so it would not be a good treatment for stress

Originally posted by inimalist
This can't be the first time Norway has had a criminal that would be impossible to rehabilitate. I imagine they have some way of accommodating them, though, I still don't think the purpose of prison should be to punish him, merely to keep the rest of society safe from them.
I think it is the first time in a long time they've had someone this bad or close to it.

Norway has one of the lowest murder rates in the world and before this incident one of the most heinous crimes in the country's modern history was the burning of a centuries' old church by Varg Vikernes (sp?).

From an article I read a few days ago I don't think the security standards of Norwegian prisons will keep this guy in.

I also disagree that punishment should be the aim of prisons, but I don't think Norway are living in the real world if their guards don't have any guns to speak of and play sports with the inmates. He'd just walk right out of a prison like that or take it over from the inside.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think it is psychoactive

EDIT: it also increases cortisol levels, so it would not be a good treatment for stress
I have heard that it is responsible for many of the "body" effects of weed. In which case, there would definitely be noticeable activity.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it is the first time in a long time they've had someone this bad or close to it.

Norway has one of the lowest murder rates in the world and before this incident one of the most heinous crimes in the country's modern history was the burning of a centuries' old church by Varg Vikernes (sp?).

From an article I read a few days ago I don't think the security standards of Norwegian prisons will keep this guy in.

I also disagree that punishment should be the aim of prisons, but I don't think Norway are living in the real world if their guards don't have any guns to speak of and play sports with the inmates. He'd just walk right out of a prison like that or take it over from the inside.

well sure, but something doesn't have to be of this level to be a serious crime. I'd imagine sexual predators are still about as common there as everywhere else, and many rapists cannot be reformed.

iirc, there was a school shooting in Norway not that many years ago as well. Actually, looking at suicide statistics, there is a huge number of male suicides in scandanavia... I wonder if that has any impact on this shooting...

anyways, I really can't imagine Norway's prisons are entirely unable to deal with a violent criminal, and Sym pointed out they can renew sentences in 5 year increments if people are deemed a danger to society.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
From an article I read a few days ago I don't think the security standards of Norwegian prisons will keep this guy in.

What article made it sound like he was going to escape? They're comfortable prisons but afaik they're still prisons.

Sometimes people see reality differently to each other.

When nations do this we have wars, often caused by cultures or religions clashing. When individuals clash with the pervasive ideology or even the tenants a society is based on, they can be perceived as everything from lunatics to heroes and everything in between, to the left and to the right.

Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Do what thou wilt and that shall be the whole of the law? Or not.....

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have heard that it is responsible for many of the "body" effects of weed. In which case, there would definitely be noticeable activity.

the article xyz posted said it had no such effects, idk, maybe it does, I'm not really familiar with it

if it does have a significant impact on cortisol levels, sure, it totally would have some type of effect... I'm not sure how pleasurable that would be though... and the canabanoid system is really still poorly understood

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And here's his response to the shooting:

MVbUzbLC5GE About time, but Pat Condell is still anti-Muslim and prejudice. Ever see his "No mosque at ground zero" video, or his "Ban the Burka" video? They are against human rights, Pat is a hypocrite.

I imagine he sees his stance on the Burka as promoting human rights

Originally posted by inimalist
I imagine he sees his stance on the Burka as promoting human rights He does, because he's a prejudice idiot.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He does, because he's a prejudice idiot.

do you really believe it is as black and white as that?

When you make videos substituting "Muslim" with "terrorist", "extremist", "suicide bomber" etc. and follow it with "Quran teaches you to kill" then yeah, you're prejudice against Muslims. If you get featured on BNP websites and EDL websites and don't change or reiterate your stance, despite claiming to be against terror and for free speech, then you're an idiot.

He makes good points in some cases, n tbh, he was just an old bigot who exercised his right to free speech effectively. But he definitely has an irrational hatred towards a religion.

VyiodSMNv4E