Over at Think Progress, Aviva Shen takes a deep look at how police departments report the crime rate. As should be obvious, in the normal course of things, the incentives are all skewed toward underreporting crime so that the commissioner, department leaders, and city council can look like they’re doing a good job of reducing crime. But, sometimes, and maybe we’re experiencing one of those times right now, the incentives work the other way.
It’s less common for police to game statistics to exaggerate crime, as it’s usually not in their interests to make it seem like they’re not doing their jobs effectively. But over the past year, things have changed for police forces all over the country. Suddenly, the general public is asking questions about police departments’ respect for civil rights, whether or not a shooting was justified, why people of a certain race are being arrested more than another. People are starting to question if such tactics are truly necessary to fight crime.
And now, officers, police chiefs and union heads are lamenting to reporters that the recent scrutiny is getting in the way of their commitment to their jobs. “For that political purpose and presumably to remove some of that pressure, it may be useful for them to show that there’s been increases in crime,” [Clayton] Mosher [a professor at Washington State University who focuses on criminology and drug policy] said.
And, if that just happens to make Donald Trump seem like less of a bald-faced liar about the alleged crime wave sweeping the country, well that’s just serendipity.
Violent crime was so out of control that DC “had to do something;” presto, the draconian Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. And presto again, all that new money for law enforcement led to reduced crime. Numbers that research statisticians can’t explain. Could it be legalized abortion? The lead hypothesis
Of course the “noun, verb, and 9/11” mayor took full credit for the reduction in crime in his city because his administration was so awesome at policing. That would be policing the data:
The only crime rate that I’m convinced has gone up in the past fifty years is white collar crime. But “scary banksters” isn’t how politicians win elections or increase funding to nab these crooks.
We’ve seen a jump in deadly use of force by police (and also extrajudicial police murders) that never see the FBI or DOJ statistics. Even with the supposed increase in the crime rate.
And yesterday police in St. Louis helped their numbers by killing a teenager. That triggered a number of arsons and many other arrests. Chief Dotson is on the case.
The FBI crime reports from the beginning of Hoover’s administration of the FBI have been all about hype and funding.
There was no FBI before J Edgar Hoover.
More federal criminal statutes meant more work and funding for the FBI.
from 1992 from the LA Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-05/local/me-819_1_los-angeles-county
With this:
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/the-end-of-gangs-los-angeles-southern-california-epidemic-cri
me-95498
That was not faked. The increase in the murder rate isn’t being faked either. It is silly to suggest it is data manipulation. Tinfoil hat crowd stuff.
Now it would help if anyone gave a damn why crime fell so far so fast. But no one fing does. Seriously, it is amazing. I have long thought this was because if doesn’t fit the official story. Inequality increased – how can crime go down? We became culturally more liberal – how can the crime rate go down? Guns are everywhere – how can the crime rate go down?
You can round up the usual suspects for some explanations (more police, tougher sentencing) but no one really believes that accounts for much of this. There are other explanations – removal of lead – that seem promising but correlation does not equal causation. Maybe young males kill people on xbox and don’t feel the need to do it in real life (but of course shouldn’t violent video games INCREASE violence)
Murder rates are prone to spikes – because murder is pretty uncommon. And the lower the base number the fewer it takes to create a large % increase. I would take it seriously, though I must say, if we don’t know why it down to begin with, why would we think we know why it went up a little?
“Now it would help if anyone gave a damn why crime fell so far so fast. But no one fing does. “
I like the environmental lead pollution explanation . But it’s only a hypothesis.
I had a decent discussion about this with a staffer at the EPA – who said the data fall apart.
I have written about it – and what is compelling is it also explains reductions in other countries.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/04/1176311/-Did-Environmentalists-dramatically-reduce-the-murd
er-rate
What did the staffer mean that the data fall apart? I haven’t seen anything published so far that reveals an inconsistency with the lead-crime correlation
If you try to use the data to go beyond correlation and prove causation, you don’t get there. I don’t fully understand the statistical argument he was making.
One problem I have heard argued is it doesn’t explain the variability in different cohorts. I won’t pretend to understand all of the argument, but my friend is certainly a liberal and would have supported the explanation. Part of his reasoning is the chains in the link: lead causes brain damage which UNIQUELY increased a tendency to violence is REALLY hard to prove.
Read Kevin Drum in re. lead and gasoline.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
His was a great article.
I agree
But it might have mentioned the important role of Clair Patterson in uncovering lead contamination due to leaded gasoline.
… indictment of this particular type of madness. The blu-ray version just came out so I’m rewatching the show for the 5th or 6th time.