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 [ie: why I can't source it, textbooks and all]) 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:. 4,743Oslo: 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
LOLok, 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, [b] 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 [/B]
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.
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
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.
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.
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)*([4-1]*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 [themselves] that if they target for crime, it is considered within family crime).
(OP/24)*([4*10]-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 breakersorry, 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.htmlinteresting 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 breakersorry, tired, couldn't resist
looking at this:
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.htmlinteresting 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.
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.
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
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".