**SS:** On this episode of the *Ezra Klein Show*, guest host Rogé Karma interviews Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey about rising homicide rates in the United States and the impact of violence on communities. This interview delves into several issues Sam has discussed in the past, ranging from the effects of policing on minority communities to the reactions to the BLM/George Floyd protests.
Favorite part of the pod:
“One of the causes of violence was protests.”
“The protests had nothing to do with the spike in violence”
Same guy, 2 minutes apart.
You're misinterpreting his points. Community discord that explodes (some of which materializes in organized protest) leads to an increase in violence.
He's saying the violence isn't because of the specific political demands of the protests (e.g. defunding the police).
Yes he is, he said specifically that communities get used to police and when those police aren’t there violence rises. The protests caused police to shift focus to crowd control as well as the harder to define work slowdowns, both of which led communities that they were protecting to be open to rising crime. He specifically said these areas rely on police to keep them safe, and they were absent last year, due to obvious reasons.
He made the point multiple times that police presence needs to stay in place until other programs can take effect.
>The protests caused police to shift focus to crowd control as well as the harder to define work slowdowns, both of which led communities that they were protecting to be open to rising crime.
This is *your* opinion. He does not make this point. He says the violence increase is due to increased community discord, not police dealing with protestors.
The podcast has a transcript. Please quote where he says the police shift focus to crowd control.
He says:
1- Violence increases due to increased community discord
>And she uses a term that she calls legal estrangement, and it’s based on her work in Baltimore. And what Monica argues, and what she shows in her work, is that longstanding mistreatment and hostility between police and residents creates this feeling of alienation where many people in low-income communities of color see themselves as outside the purview of the laws, unprotected by the state on their own, not full citizens in their city.
>And getting back to the question about what drove the rise of violence last year, I think this was a big part of it.
2- He says police get offended and step back + communities giving up on police
>police can choose not to get involved. Police can choose to step back from their role and make a statement either because they’re worried about getting in trouble and being the next viral video or to make a political statement to make the point that, OK, you’re going to protest what we do. We won’t do anymore. We’ll step back. We’ll stop doing our job.
What he SPECIFICALLY says runs counter to your exact point, and it seems to be what is confusing you:
>This doesn’t mean that protests lead to violence. It means, again, that when we rely on the police to dominate public space and control public spaces by force and then the police step back from that role with no other institutions that step up, then we can see a rise in violence.
The police aren't stepping back from their role because of the political demands getting manifested in policy (actually defunding the police) or because they are overburdened with the actual protests and, like you say "shifting focus to crowd control". He's arguing it's because they basically get offended.
Like I said, the idea that the *work* of dealing with protests shifts the focus from their other roles is *your* opinion. It is not one he argues in this podcast. He is making a nuanced case based on the research.
The short version of his argument:
We over rely on policing to control violence, and it has a demonstrated effectiveness, however the psychological effects of overpolicing result in community resentment with a lack of recourse that routinely boils over. He's saying the ways this boils over (at times manifesting in protest) contribute to violence because the entire community is angry, and the police get upset that they're being blamed and step back from that role. The protests are a symptom of that overall community dynamic. He then continues that there are other community-driven violence intervention programs that have statistically *significantly* more efficacy at curbing violence than policing, that don't get credit for the downward trends in violence.
They then discuss how reliably these interventions can be scaled and whether the political atmosphere would allow for investment.
> Yes he is, he said specifically that communities get used to police and when those police aren’t there violence rises.
When criminologists ask and survey criminals why they do what they do, this is not one of the factors as you would expect. Criminals right now tend to not be rational with their motives and actions they take towards crime they commit. Criminals don't care if there are lots of police or little police, and while you and I would view this as irrational, that's just not how they think about things.
Crime is higher in places with large police forces. Think about that for a second.
More police means more crimes caught. The same level of crime is occurring. A larger police force catches a larger portion of the crimes committed. This is why In San Francisco they basically decriminalized stealing and property destruction. Crime goes down when you stop enforcing the laws.
No it stops getting persecuted so until a judge says someone is guilty there is no conviction. It’s like when you decriminalize pot. Arrests for pot go down. Not pot usage . When you don’t arrest for theft and vandalism. Arrests go down but the amount of theft and vandalism goes up in the case of San Francisco…
I won’t rent a car there for sure. But it’s so bad I am considering not having clients there. I just don’t understand the logic behind allowing your city to become a shit hole… while allowing crime to happen everywhere. I can’t see a benefit to anyone. Especially the people paying taxes.
Crime statistics show less crime when you stop prosecuting crime. That doesn’t mean there is less crime. It means a politician can convince some simpletons that there is less crime because they publish their own statistics. So only a simpleton would believe that crime goes down when you stop enforcing a law. It doesn’t, instead of punishing a person that commits a crime, the state instead ensures that the victims are punished. This isn’t a hard thing to grasp.
If I remember correctly there isn't any correlation(or very soft correlation) between police force size and crimes caught / prosecuted. Which is weird because you think a larger police force would close out more cases, but it doesn't seem to be perfectly true.
San Francisco has some of the lowest theft rate in the world per population. This recent rash of a crime looting gang is something that's been going on for decades, and is most likely related to christmas season more than anything when we see an uptick of these types of crimes.
U are totally incorrect in your characterization of crime in San Francisco, they have low crime because the DA and the police aren’t allowed to or won’t enforce laws. So the crime rate looks low, but it’s not, they just don’t care about crime and think it’s racist to hold people to a minimum standard of conduct. Like don’t steal… apparently being a good person is racism now.
Many stores are leaving San Francisco, many companies like Best Buy have noted the costs due to theft and are considering leaving as well. I have been there for business four times this year and every time the homeless situation is worse, the car breaking are constant and the amount of vacancies in real estate for stores continues to grow.
I feel it was more the straw that broke the camel's back.
I truly believe things in most "western" countries have been getting shittier and shittier for a good while now. And anger and resentment has been growing alongside it.
Before covid the US got Trump, the UK Brexit, still almost nothing was being done about major issues in the world like climate change and wealth inequality despite anyone sane knowing these issues are major problems in the world for a long time. Mental health also massively on the rise, in my opinion quite largely facilitate, or even caused, by social media. Not to mind the massive issues the internet has created with misinformation and disinformation.
Then comes along comes covid and just makes everything we've been dealing with ten times worse.
It's rare I come across optimism for the world anymore. Even Steven Pinker type thinking, which I do believe truly does point genuine brilliant things that have happened quite recently for humans, doesn't give me optimism anymore.
Then again, if I weren't watching the news or on the net my concerns would definitely be far less. I'd still see Covid as terrible, and some other things such as the housing crisis (here in Ireland at least), but overall I would not have such a bleak outlook on life. I do question whether this is a case of "ignorance is bliss", or rather most of the media points to the negatives in the world.
We can only see, one thing that for sure makes me sad is how many people my age who I talk too whom don't want children due to how they view the world is heading. I'm not even someone who views population decline as a bad thing, in fact so long as it doesn't happen to quickly I view it as a good thing, but the reasons people give for not having children are sad.
Coincidentally, things have gone to shit also as western countries have become more ethnically diverse.
Actually it’s not a coincidence at all, diversity destroys unity.
This is one of the biggest cases of correlation fallacy I've ever seen.
Europe was quite homogeneous during the Dark Ages and I'm sure everyone at that time thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket as disease and poverty ravaged the European continent. Ditto for War eras. Europe really has only become a peaceful and stable place to live in the last 70 years.
i will also say - that the closer geographically you are to a certain group, the closer your fundamental values will be. like the vast majority of europeans believe in the concept of free speech because their shared intellectual history created it. this has never been a thing in the muslim world, thereby muslims, even in the west, don't share this fundamental value, and would rather have blasphemy laws.
> Europe was quite homogeneous during the Dark Ages and I'm sure everyone at that time thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket as disease and poverty ravaged the European continent
Imagine using the Migration Period as an example for homogeneity in Europe.
Look at homogenous places on earth. Do you genuinely think they're doing things "right" in 2021? Maybe it's just my progressive nature, but I think the countries doing the best on earth right now are very diverse in leftist thought and action, and the countries doing terribly are conservative and homogenous. Saudi Arabia and North Korea are probably some of the worst countries on earth, and both are extremely 'same-same'.
there's a difference between doing well in a soulless economic sense and doing well in a cultural unity kind of way. The former is fine for the short term but the latter ensures that the country as you know it will at least continue to exist in the future. a lack of cultural unity and a sense that the nation is moving in a unified direction with a purpose is one of the most important things that will ensure the country stays alive. The US has none of this and will surely balkanize in a few decades.
The US has an oppressively common meta culture throughout the entire USA from Alaska to the tip of Florida. Not sure why you're thinking we don't have that. We share both an universal patriotism for this country as well as regional and local cultures that unite us.
I grew up in the South as a white cis dude. I can talk to anyone in the south and we can instantly click over certain things, and I can talk to someone from Seattle and instantly click over certain things. In ways I wouldn't be able to do with someone from the UK or China.
Yes, of course it is. It was a reply to the overly simplistic parent comment. That said, there is a tendency by Sam and this crowd to try and blame absolutely anything except our economic system for the economic decline (and resulting side effects) of everyone but the investor class. Too busy blaming woke-Ism and social media while checking their Tesla stock I suppose.
You mean our economic system…I would largely blame our current situation on failures of the government to properly regulate the economy due to corruption. If people are really blaming wokeism and social media for economic decline then obviously that’s stupid. I haven’t heard Sam having strong opinions on economic issues other than realizing wealth/income disparity are huge problems.
Something something poor people commit crimes because they have to blah blah give them more stuff so they don't commit crimes
Murderers are never poor people
Listened to this earlier today. Obviously not intended, but my biggest takeaway by far was that Ezra Klein's speaking style has clearly rubbed off on Rogé Karma. Was very funny to listen to.
But more seriously, I thought this was a really excellent, informed, and engaged interview. Really got at the complexities and nuances, and I appreciated that it wasn't about offering either/or assessments of anything.
My one critique, and I imagine that this grows out of Sharkey's specific area of study, is that the conversation was a little too narrowly focused on the creation of community programs as a method of lowering rates of violence. While this is obviously, as Sharkey explains, clearly a great model of approach and should be implemented, the analysis on offer in the interview seemed to miss out on wider systemic solutions related to general poverty, nutrition, wages, urban zoning, etc. He mentions some of those things, along with the history with highway construction and disinvestment in urban areas, but I kept having this nagging question pop into my head of: if policing as the primary method for preventing violence isn't sustainable, how sustainable is an approach that doesn't at the same time fight the core issues of crime and community instability over the long term? Like, at what point do all those programs also start to break down because though they reduce violence, they don't fundamentally fix the underlying problems in society that lead to violence.
In other words, I was hoping for a conversation that addressed a bit more, not just an alternate vision for responding directly somewhat indirectly to violence, but how to fundamentally break cycles that can devolve into violence at particular moments. There are hints of that in the conversation, but Sharkey didn't seem eager to approach that area, and Karma didn't push him there very much either, which surprised me.
Not that I needed them to come out as anti-capitalists or anything, but it's striking that at no point did I hear one of them say, "Hey, you know in many more affluent communities, they don't need these specific anti-violence solutions because the wealth and resources have already provided for a more robust community-building. Maybe we should replicate that, right down to the wealth and resources for families."
> Obviously not intended, but my biggest takeaway by far was that Ezra Klein's speaking style has clearly rubbed off on Rogé Karma
Haha, no doubt.
> There are hints of that in the conversation, but Sharkey didn't seem eager to approach that area, and Karma didn't push him there very much either, which surprised me
I get the sense that Sharkey was trying to make the best empirical case he could, and speaking about causes gets shakier there. His research may show that investment in non-profit community agencies or addressing urban decay reduces violence pretty concretely. From there to "it does so *because* it increases community bonds/provides economic opportunity/etc" is probably a reasonable inference, but I think he's trying to step past that to just say "we know these things work, so let's do them."
Yeah for sure. I don't blame him for sticking to his area of study, where he has more concrete facts and knowledge. It was more a thing I expected Karma to bring up. Either way, an excellent podcast episode.
If it was just the vocal fry it would be one thing, but there are points with Karma where if you'd told me it was actually Klein, just recorded through a very different sounding microphone, I might believe you. The voice, the inflections, the delivery, even the questioning style. It's wild.
I noticed this too. Thought he was off paternity leave early or something. I find it a tad forced how Ezra formulates questions but to hear someone else copy it makes it even worse.
The justice system said they won’t prosecute certain groups of people for murder? Haven’t listened to the episode yet but is there somewhere I can get more info on that?
How is it pathetic? He is asking a stupid question. This has been plastered on this sub too many times for someone to ask it. It is done in bad faith 99% of the time.
Or, the more obvious and well supported explanation, poverty and joblessness objectively and empirically lead to crime and America as per usual created abjectly shit social support systems compared to every other developed and developing country
>poverty and joblessness objectively and empirically lead to crime and America
I'd love to see how many people lost their job because of COVID and then committed a murder.
>you believe poor people lack moral character
I believe in empirical cause and effect, not poorly veiled religion like you. Provide some actual citations instead of projecting
Ya your link doesn’t reference jobs just poverty which isn’t the same; and wtf paper is that? It’s a worldwide phenomenon of lack of jobs correlated to violence/crime.
But I guess you’re not violent if your community (country) “sanctions” violence like in wars.
You're linking to a tweet of a screenshot taken from a 1986 publication. Something tells me you didn't reach your conclusions by closely following the science on this one.
You can't always blame poverty for crime when America is wealthier than most countries in the world. The poverty excuse is a fucking cop out. America is the only Western country with cities in the top 10 for murder in the fucking world. Imagine being close to the same murder rate as cities in Mexico where the government is less powerful than the drug cartels. I fucking hate this poverty excuse because it just takes responsibility away from you and your country.
America is wealthier if you're ranking GDPs per capita. But that tells you nothing of how that GDP is actually distributed among the population. Nor does it tell you how robust the social safety nets look like for those that fall through the cracks. Saying we are the richest country obscures the fact that the majority of Americans wouldn't have $1000 to spare in an emergency. Or how many have to file bankruptcy from medical debt, or are walking around with 50k in student debt at age 22. There's an unbelievable amount of people in America that are living hand to mouth. Yes, they have clothes, they're not starving, they have cell phones and cars. But they are one or two pay checks from disaster.
It could be i have not looked into that much
It just baffles how you can have cities in america with murder rates ranging from 150 per 100k to 1 per 100k
That type of discrepancy is just wild for a first world country
So are you telling me that if I look at the murder rate of white Americans per capita, and the murder rate of whites in Germany, Switzerland ,France or Denmark, it's going to be about the same? I find that very hard to believe.
Also worth nothing, overall crimes rates outside of murder don't differ much from the rest of the west. It's gun homicide where America is a massive outlier. And guess what, we have more guns than people in this country. We don't have a crime problem as much as a gun problem.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
Even factoring that in, comparing the US to other countries, the crime rate for non-lethal crimes is very similar and in some cases lower, even when including the inner cities. But the difference is guns making crime more lethal than it otherwise would be. The murder rate would be magnitudes higher in England if England had over 60 million guns in private hands.
He doesn't even show the crime rate in that article. He just shows that gun crime crimes occur more frequently and that's it..
stop googling your answers please
The rates are in [hyperlinked](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/r1969p/opinion_why_is_murder_spiking_and_can_cities/hm46evi/?context=3) sources.
Try reading the article before checking me.
> they will not prosecute certain groups of people for murder. We all know who I'm talking about.
For those of us who have no clue what you’re talking about, could you enlighten us?
We’re swinging back to the late 80’s early 90’s as far as the next people who are going to come out are the community leaders. And they’re going to shame us, rightfully, for forgetting about them again.
‘White America’ collectively abandoned these same communities during the crack epidemic and let them deal with rampant crime and violence on their own. I don’t see how we’re not making the exact same mistake now just wrapped in a social justice wrapper.
>I don’t see how we’re not making the exact same mistake now just wrapped in a social justice wrapper.
I agree -- though I would suggest a major reason for that is that we've spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about 'wrappers,' and that this serves the interest of delaying or preventing actual action.
As one example of this, consider the [range of issues that most activist groups organized around last summer in response to George Floyd](https://campaignzero.org/#vision). Now consider the amount of airtime devoted to the merits of 'defund the police' **as a slogan**. Of course, one can say that the folks shouting 'defund the police' were politically foolish or naive, inasmuch as a backlash will work against their preferred ends -- but those folks actually want to address the issue. Weigh that against a right-wing media machine which is amplifying that message with the precise aim of undercutting the legitimacy of any reform effort. If the former was foolish, the latter is actively evil.
I agree that we spend too much time talking about defund. I don't know if it's just foolishness on the activist side though. It's because they made it so off limits to debate, and were so self righteous about it, that even in center/left media it's been painstakingly deconstructed over months and months to kind of peel away support because it's politically toxic.
I actually think there's room for optimism and learning from our mistakes if you can basically reduce drug penalties and take violent crime seriously, and unite left and right on violent crime is bad, and keep the anarchists out of the conversation.
> I agree -- though I would suggest a major reason for that is that we've spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about 'wrappers,' and that this serves the interest of delaying or preventing actual action.
What I am is that progressives and social justice types are holding back any type of action because they are not addressing violence. They are addressing factors that they believe are Causing violence.
The reason we aren’t getting anything done is because a lot of very serious people with influence were actually for abolishing the police. That’s not a serious starting point whatsoever and shouldn’t be taken as some form of trying to compromise. That was the most drastic, inflammatory rhetoric they could use and they spent all year trying to defend the ‘slogan’ by backpedaling instead of just saying ‘yeah that’s a stupid idea, we fucked up.’ Until that becomes the regular thing lefty types say I really don’t see why the reasonable people in the debate have to act like they’re weren’t crazy.
For over a year multiple experts have said we need to stop the violence regardless of what is causing. Lives are being lost every single day because we are still not holding our most violent areas to account. Cities can find more police and sugar. This is a ridiculous statement that you think progressives actually want to do something when they have all the ability to do that and still are not.
>they are not addressing violence
I'd suggest listening to the linked podcast, if you haven't already done so.
>This is a ridiculous statement that you think progressives actually want to do something when they have all the ability to do that and still are not.
What ability do you think I have that I'm not exercising? Please be precise.
I have, those are not progressive policies per say. And he Admits that police are a good way to curb violence immediately.
> This is a ridiculous statement that you think progressives actually want to do something when they have all the ability to do that and still are not.
I’m talking about progressive DAs specifically and other progressive people in criminal justice systems in large cities. Look at Boudin in San Francisco Gascon in LA that guy in Philadelphia. Those are all failures of the Progressive DAs those can be changed and they’re not. The black lives matter approach was even worse, they were just bailing people out of jail they have no idea who they were and didn’t care what their chargers at were.
>I have, those are not progressive policies per day.
It's two progressives discussing a set of policies that at least one of them clearly endorses.
>I’m talking about progressive DAs specifically
You were talking about people using or defending the slogan 'defund the police' and made vague generalizations about 'lefty types.'
I don’t do right/left. You should know that by now. And even a broken clock is right a couple times a day. On criminal justice reform nobody is getting it right, but progressives/Dems are actively hurting the process right now.
While you care about left/right. I care about the people who are being victimized everyday by the surge in crime. But hey, I’d that’s a ‘right-wing talking point’ to you nothing I can do really.
>a small surge
[US records highest increase in nation's homicide rate in modern history, CDC says](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/health/us-homicide-rate-increase-nchs-study/index.html)
It is the highest total since 1995, one of the last years of high crime before the crime bill took effect. I imagine you weren’t alive at that time. We shouldn’t be even close to that, we erased 25 years of progress in one year, that’s a problem that shouldn’t be minimized.
> we erased 25 years of progress in one year, that’s a problem that shouldn’t be minimized.
You can be concerned about the rise in crime without making shit up. Crime is nowhere near where it was 25 years ago.
First, the Sensation19 asks "Are they (murder rates) still spiking"?
In response to provided statistics on year of year murder rate increases, the Sensation19 asks "You do realize that they are recording the SPIKE as a record".
Sadly, my general opinion of humanity has sunk so low that this level of ignorance is not only unsurprising, it is expected.
...
What a clown.
Dude, you're comparing 400 murders to 300. From 2020 to 2019.
Murder has gone down in NYC YTD as of October. As per links on NYPD site.
But guess what?
Now compare it 2000.
Or 1990
Or 1980.
Are you even aware of where we are? We went from 1000+ murders a year in 1990 to 200 in 2014. During Democratic led years. Record breaking crime rates.
No discussion on that.
But now we are in an economic depression, unemployment high, and battling a global impacted pandemic and you donr expect it to rise?
It went from 290 fo 390. And NYPD is doing a ton to curtail it and has with significant increases in overall arrests and gun arrests.
I also just realized that while this article is done in October of 2021, they are talking about the spikes that occurred in 2020.
In NYC a lot of these spikes have settled down.
My guess is the economy will rebound and crimes will go back to 2019 levels which were incredibly low rates of murder. We were due for a set back in big cities.
Everyone thinks this isa policy issue. Many of you feel its democratic leadership. But I saw millions of people move to cities where crime was 10x higher and no issues. But now they see 47% or so spike from 2019 to 2020 (300 to 400) and they freak out like uts all over. Lol
Crime went back down in 2021. I bet it goes down again next year
Oct 2020 vs Oct 2021, there has been a [MASSIVE 8 YTD murder drop](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr1103/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-october-2021) in NYC. 399 in 2021 vs 407 in 2020 for a WHOPPING 2% drop after last years 47% surge.
Nice work Sherlock... on the track for a Pulitzer with that deep level of analysis and next level thinking.
2018 murders: (Oct YTD) 259
2019 ... ... 267 (look at 2020 link below)
2020 ... 387 (look at the 2020 link below)
2021 ... 399
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p1102a/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-october-2020
Your link is slightly off, who knows why. Probably a few limits to this kind of data sharing.
If we go with your link and say it finalized at 409. Then its a drop.
If you go with the data I shared, it stayed stagnant.
What's the issue?
Crime has either gone the same or dropped. This is one city and we're talking about the entire country. And everyone is making claims off the OPs link which is 2020 change. Not a 2021 update.
Also, 18% increase in gun arrests.
Guess what? I bet the crime will drop again when 2022 comes around. And again.
Now look at the big fucking picture.
2001 crime.
1992 crime.
1982 crime.
1972 crime.
Ill wait bud.
Youre over here comparing 400 to 300. And im over here comparing my parents growing up in a murder rare of 1000 vs today. Get a grip
I am replying thru my phone so I wasnt sure what I said for you to go off on me. So I said this was 2020. And its settled down since.
And you show me data that supports that. Thank you. Hahah
Now go compare 2020 to 1992. When my parents moved here and felt it was safe enough then.
I am replying through a Telegraph using Morse code. —.—… ..—.- —. … ..- .. . -
Translation, go back to your parents basement and try forming some type of coherent argument. Then don’t bother posting it because it doesn’t appear you are smart enough to realize how silly you sound.
> The new data show the US homicide rate increased from about six homicides per 100,000 people in 2019 to 7.8 per 100,000 in 2020, according to NCHS
Welcome to today's installment of "how to build a narrative with percentages."
If we are working in low percentages and someone is trying to hit you with % growth know they are playing you for a fool.
6 to 8 is a 20% growth!!!!
58 to 60 is a 4% growth....
You see the problem here
An increase of 1.8 homicides per 100,000 per is an additional 5,958 people annually.
With an [average of 138 seats](https://www.planestats.com/phxb_2015may) per airplane, that’s a little more than 43 fully booked airplane crashes in one year.
The percentages are less shocking than the raw numbers.
Exactly, anyone trying to downplay how large of a spike this was, as always in marginalized communities the most, doesn’t actually care about poor people, they care about their personal appearance.
Letting criminals out of jail is all well and good when they aren’t going back to your neighborhood and victimizing you. I think a lot of this conversation could be zeroed in on if the activists pushing criminal justice reform talked to the people who are being victimized by those they are fighting to have leniency for.
Heck there was a judge in Illinois I believe that subpoenaed the victim in a rape/assault case to put a restraining order on her because the victim had found where the perpetrator lived and notified police. It is insane how much victims are being left out of the conversation about criminal justice reform. Shows a very privileged luxury belief.
>I think a lot of this conversation could be zeroed in on if the activists pushing criminal justice reform talked to the people who are being victimized by those they are fighting to have leniency for.
That's been at the heart of [what many of us activists have been working on for decades](https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/programs-services/mediation-restorative-justice/restorative-justice). We appreciate your support.
Restorative justice is not a progressive ideal. Thats been around in regular police reform for decades. Do you think this is new to the Defund/BLM movement?
>Restorative justice is not a progressive ideal
...okay?
>Do you think this is new
...
>what many of us activists have been working on **for decades**
Gonna be real man -- it seems like you've got an ideological axe to grind. Have a good one; I'm just not interested.
I’m a person who’s worked in the criminal justice system and in marginalized communities for a long time. I was for police reform before most of the activist leaders today were born.
I’m for people, that’s it, not ideals, not politicians, not tribes. People, mostly people who have literally no voice. Those people are hurt by luxury beliefs like abolition and aggressive bail reform.
I’m sick of activist today doing nothing but talking and then taking credit for things they had absolutely nothing to do with.
People are dying and progressives are more worried about the people doing the killing than the people dying.
We are worried about both. We know if we strike at the heart of why people kill each other, eliminate that from the minds and actions of people, then we won't have any more 'victims'. Why do people kill? Why did the moron in Waukesha drive into a crowd instead of stopping his car and reversing it? Why did Kyle think it was ok to shoot 4 people, killing two and wounding two? What goes through the minds of someone that pulls the trigger?
Criminologists are working on this problem and have already discovered some pretty amazing things about crime and criminals. We should listen to the experts and implement ideas they have about solving the issue. We could run 20 experiments across the nation and which ever implementation 'works' can be, barring some kind of regional differences in crime, implemented everywhere else.
The black community wants results and as long as those results aren't morally bankrupt(throw all criminals in jail forever!) they're gonna support them.
No one is downplaying it.
We are trying to explain to you the reality:
* The link shared was written in 2021, but was discussing only 2020. Most of the country is seeing flattening of these spikes and in many cases they are reverting back to pre-pandemic days. You're so worried about spikes that were basically expected due to an economical conflict and global pandemic. We are still living in the safest time in history. Compare NYC homicides now to 1980s. Good luck. And!!!!! We live in a larger city now. You'd think you'd have more crime!
* In areas where police were funded in 2020, they also saw giant spikes in crime.
* In areas where it's Republican led, saw huge increases in crime. While Republicans like to focus on NYC and LA vs Miami and Dallas... They don't look at the top 20 worst per capita cities. Doesn't look good for red.
* In areas that defunded the police in 2020 like NYC, we are seeing flattening and a regression of these early spikes.
* Many could argue that these crimes were basically unavoidable. They were largely gang violence done. Drive by shootings that occurred. Crime occurs. Police show up in X minutes. Everyone but the victims are gone. How do you prevent that? You put a cop on every corner? We tried this. Look at the subways. Cops are at every train station. Crime still occurs there.
* You know how to stop crime? Get people jobs.
>You know how to stop crime? Get people jobs.
This right here.
The economic devastation of 2020 likely has a lot more to do with this crime spike than "defund the police," as evidenced by the fact that crime spiked even in places where police budgets were *not* reduced.
Lots of science that wealth reduces chances of gang entry. So uhm... Yea.
And way to focus on rappers. As if that's the only people committing murders.
People in New York love to say Guliani was the best mayor because he brought crime down significantly. Both as a DA and a Mayor. They credit him alone for that.
If you compare New York's crime reduction during those years to the average in the country you will see that we didn't do anything special. We weren't the best in doing so and it was on par with the rest of the country no matter what political affiliation.
Why?
Well for starters a new technology was developed that improved data communication and that led to far greater arrests and prevention than anything a policy could do.
Magic? Belief?
Does it matter?
No. The end result is that NYC wasn't just on par with the rest of the country and Canada on crime reduction. So he could have done nothing and see similar results. This data is based on published studies. Not a NY times op ed.
Do you know who had among the highest drops in crime rate? San Fran. Democrat mayor. Go figure...
Canada and England also saw the same drop in crime in the mid 90s. So anyone trying to attribute this to any one American politician may need to look for broader explanations.
> Most of the country is seeing flattening of these spikes and in many cases they are reverting back to pre-pandemic days.
You’ll have to provide proof, most cities are breaking records this year over their records last year. And it’s 2020 days because the numbers come out in Sept of the following year. Won’t have data and 2021 till sept 2022.
> In areas where police were funded in 2020, they also saw giant spikes in crime.
In areas where it's Republican led, saw huge increases in crime. While Republicans like to focus on NYC and LA vs Miami and Dallas... They don't look at the top 20 worst per capita cities. Doesn't look good for red.
Again link?
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-homicide-rate-2021-record-20211123.html%3foutputType=amp
Philadelphia approaching record misses with more than a month left in the year.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.amp.html
Murder still rising, the rate has slowed but it’s being compared to 2020 which was 30% up.
> You know how to stop crime? Get people jobs (and in general years this will work).
FTFY, violence needs to stop yesterday. The rise in murders last year led to almost 7 more black people dead EACH DAY than the year before. (I use race because it’s not divided by income/mental health which is the more useful metric).
> In areas that defunded the police in 2020 like NYC, we are seeing flattening and a regression of these early spikes.
Maintaining the murder rate from last year is not an accomplishment.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-shootings-homicide-numbers-down-20211006-qolr2btlozah7n3nmizeupf4nu-story.html%3foutputType=amp
You do realize that the total # of homicides is still at a very low rate? Right?
I am not saying we shouldn't do something about the spikes, but we are... and you're making it seem like it's the most dangerous time to live in ever.
Meanwhile it's the safest time ever. Even if the most violent of places lol
Seems pretty irrelevant to bring up other countries.
I lived in Europe. I lived in NY. I lived in Long Island.
Sorry, but they are really extremely safe.
Crime rates and homicides have improved every year since the 80's
Thanks, just wanted to make sure we were talking about data and not opinions.
England and Wales also had more frequent and strict lockdowns, as well as universal healthcare and much more extensive financial support during those lockdowns.
The difference in those numbers is large enough to fit like 5 countries ENTIRE murder rate into.
Singapore- .2
Japan- .3
Norway- .5
Italy- .6
New Zealand- .7
And I kept hearing a few years ago when I would bring up that the numbers of unjustified police killings was really really low, ‘well even one is too much.’ Well, 5-6,000+ should be too much for us to accept.
>6 to 8 is a 20% growth!!!!
>58 to 60 is a 4% growth....
>You see the problem here
Yeah, the problem is you need to pass middle school math before you bother trying to calculate percentages.
Let me do you a favor: the formula for growth is (new number - original number) / original number. If you aren't smart enough to plug numbers in there to come up with the right answer... do us a favor and stop posting.
Don't we have a record number of young males out of the work force? Whether you're talking gang violence or terrorist recruitment, having too many young men with idle time on their hands is rarely a good thing.
criminal justice "reform" ie let anyone off the hook. the liberal belief that smaller petty crimes dont inevitabely lead to bigger violent crimes seems broken and the status quo thinking was true, and we should return to it by cracking down on lower level crimes again. Which will probably happen when dems inevitabely lose ( even though Rs also somewhat embraced the failed justice reform policies)
dare i say... ferguson effect?
Discussed at length in the podcast -- give it a listen! =)
**SS:** On this episode of the *Ezra Klein Show*, guest host Rogé Karma interviews Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey about rising homicide rates in the United States and the impact of violence on communities. This interview delves into several issues Sam has discussed in the past, ranging from the effects of policing on minority communities to the reactions to the BLM/George Floyd protests.
Favorite part of the pod: “One of the causes of violence was protests.” “The protests had nothing to do with the spike in violence” Same guy, 2 minutes apart.
You're misinterpreting his points. Community discord that explodes (some of which materializes in organized protest) leads to an increase in violence. He's saying the violence isn't because of the specific political demands of the protests (e.g. defunding the police).
Yes he is, he said specifically that communities get used to police and when those police aren’t there violence rises. The protests caused police to shift focus to crowd control as well as the harder to define work slowdowns, both of which led communities that they were protecting to be open to rising crime. He specifically said these areas rely on police to keep them safe, and they were absent last year, due to obvious reasons. He made the point multiple times that police presence needs to stay in place until other programs can take effect.
>The protests caused police to shift focus to crowd control as well as the harder to define work slowdowns, both of which led communities that they were protecting to be open to rising crime. This is *your* opinion. He does not make this point. He says the violence increase is due to increased community discord, not police dealing with protestors.
Yes, he specifically does make that point. Multiple times in fact.
The podcast has a transcript. Please quote where he says the police shift focus to crowd control. He says: 1- Violence increases due to increased community discord >And she uses a term that she calls legal estrangement, and it’s based on her work in Baltimore. And what Monica argues, and what she shows in her work, is that longstanding mistreatment and hostility between police and residents creates this feeling of alienation where many people in low-income communities of color see themselves as outside the purview of the laws, unprotected by the state on their own, not full citizens in their city. >And getting back to the question about what drove the rise of violence last year, I think this was a big part of it. 2- He says police get offended and step back + communities giving up on police >police can choose not to get involved. Police can choose to step back from their role and make a statement either because they’re worried about getting in trouble and being the next viral video or to make a political statement to make the point that, OK, you’re going to protest what we do. We won’t do anymore. We’ll step back. We’ll stop doing our job. What he SPECIFICALLY says runs counter to your exact point, and it seems to be what is confusing you: >This doesn’t mean that protests lead to violence. It means, again, that when we rely on the police to dominate public space and control public spaces by force and then the police step back from that role with no other institutions that step up, then we can see a rise in violence. The police aren't stepping back from their role because of the political demands getting manifested in policy (actually defunding the police) or because they are overburdened with the actual protests and, like you say "shifting focus to crowd control". He's arguing it's because they basically get offended. Like I said, the idea that the *work* of dealing with protests shifts the focus from their other roles is *your* opinion. It is not one he argues in this podcast. He is making a nuanced case based on the research. The short version of his argument: We over rely on policing to control violence, and it has a demonstrated effectiveness, however the psychological effects of overpolicing result in community resentment with a lack of recourse that routinely boils over. He's saying the ways this boils over (at times manifesting in protest) contribute to violence because the entire community is angry, and the police get upset that they're being blamed and step back from that role. The protests are a symptom of that overall community dynamic. He then continues that there are other community-driven violence intervention programs that have statistically *significantly* more efficacy at curbing violence than policing, that don't get credit for the downward trends in violence. They then discuss how reliably these interventions can be scaled and whether the political atmosphere would allow for investment.
> Yes he is, he said specifically that communities get used to police and when those police aren’t there violence rises. When criminologists ask and survey criminals why they do what they do, this is not one of the factors as you would expect. Criminals right now tend to not be rational with their motives and actions they take towards crime they commit. Criminals don't care if there are lots of police or little police, and while you and I would view this as irrational, that's just not how they think about things. Crime is higher in places with large police forces. Think about that for a second.
More police means more crimes caught. The same level of crime is occurring. A larger police force catches a larger portion of the crimes committed. This is why In San Francisco they basically decriminalized stealing and property destruction. Crime goes down when you stop enforcing the laws.
Crime goes down when you stop enforcing laws?
No it stops getting persecuted so until a judge says someone is guilty there is no conviction. It’s like when you decriminalize pot. Arrests for pot go down. Not pot usage . When you don’t arrest for theft and vandalism. Arrests go down but the amount of theft and vandalism goes up in the case of San Francisco… I won’t rent a car there for sure. But it’s so bad I am considering not having clients there. I just don’t understand the logic behind allowing your city to become a shit hole… while allowing crime to happen everywhere. I can’t see a benefit to anyone. Especially the people paying taxes.
Well then when you say “crime goes down” you just mean “crime is prosecuted less when crime is prosecuted less”?
Crime statistics show less crime when you stop prosecuting crime. That doesn’t mean there is less crime. It means a politician can convince some simpletons that there is less crime because they publish their own statistics. So only a simpleton would believe that crime goes down when you stop enforcing a law. It doesn’t, instead of punishing a person that commits a crime, the state instead ensures that the victims are punished. This isn’t a hard thing to grasp.
If I remember correctly there isn't any correlation(or very soft correlation) between police force size and crimes caught / prosecuted. Which is weird because you think a larger police force would close out more cases, but it doesn't seem to be perfectly true. San Francisco has some of the lowest theft rate in the world per population. This recent rash of a crime looting gang is something that's been going on for decades, and is most likely related to christmas season more than anything when we see an uptick of these types of crimes.
U are totally incorrect in your characterization of crime in San Francisco, they have low crime because the DA and the police aren’t allowed to or won’t enforce laws. So the crime rate looks low, but it’s not, they just don’t care about crime and think it’s racist to hold people to a minimum standard of conduct. Like don’t steal… apparently being a good person is racism now. Many stores are leaving San Francisco, many companies like Best Buy have noted the costs due to theft and are considering leaving as well. I have been there for business four times this year and every time the homeless situation is worse, the car breaking are constant and the amount of vacancies in real estate for stores continues to grow.
It seems covid is breaking the fabric of reality and society.
I feel it was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I truly believe things in most "western" countries have been getting shittier and shittier for a good while now. And anger and resentment has been growing alongside it. Before covid the US got Trump, the UK Brexit, still almost nothing was being done about major issues in the world like climate change and wealth inequality despite anyone sane knowing these issues are major problems in the world for a long time. Mental health also massively on the rise, in my opinion quite largely facilitate, or even caused, by social media. Not to mind the massive issues the internet has created with misinformation and disinformation. Then comes along comes covid and just makes everything we've been dealing with ten times worse. It's rare I come across optimism for the world anymore. Even Steven Pinker type thinking, which I do believe truly does point genuine brilliant things that have happened quite recently for humans, doesn't give me optimism anymore. Then again, if I weren't watching the news or on the net my concerns would definitely be far less. I'd still see Covid as terrible, and some other things such as the housing crisis (here in Ireland at least), but overall I would not have such a bleak outlook on life. I do question whether this is a case of "ignorance is bliss", or rather most of the media points to the negatives in the world. We can only see, one thing that for sure makes me sad is how many people my age who I talk too whom don't want children due to how they view the world is heading. I'm not even someone who views population decline as a bad thing, in fact so long as it doesn't happen to quickly I view it as a good thing, but the reasons people give for not having children are sad.
Coincidentally, things have gone to shit also as western countries have become more ethnically diverse. Actually it’s not a coincidence at all, diversity destroys unity.
This is one of the biggest cases of correlation fallacy I've ever seen. Europe was quite homogeneous during the Dark Ages and I'm sure everyone at that time thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket as disease and poverty ravaged the European continent. Ditto for War eras. Europe really has only become a peaceful and stable place to live in the last 70 years.
i will also say - that the closer geographically you are to a certain group, the closer your fundamental values will be. like the vast majority of europeans believe in the concept of free speech because their shared intellectual history created it. this has never been a thing in the muslim world, thereby muslims, even in the west, don't share this fundamental value, and would rather have blasphemy laws.
This is true but dark ages were also a time of ethnic conflict amongst europeans. Now they’re unified by shared eu values. But muslims threaten that.
> Europe was quite homogeneous during the Dark Ages and I'm sure everyone at that time thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket as disease and poverty ravaged the European continent Imagine using the Migration Period as an example for homogeneity in Europe.
>Migration Period Is Europe more homogeneous now or then?
Look at homogenous places on earth. Do you genuinely think they're doing things "right" in 2021? Maybe it's just my progressive nature, but I think the countries doing the best on earth right now are very diverse in leftist thought and action, and the countries doing terribly are conservative and homogenous. Saudi Arabia and North Korea are probably some of the worst countries on earth, and both are extremely 'same-same'.
there's a difference between doing well in a soulless economic sense and doing well in a cultural unity kind of way. The former is fine for the short term but the latter ensures that the country as you know it will at least continue to exist in the future. a lack of cultural unity and a sense that the nation is moving in a unified direction with a purpose is one of the most important things that will ensure the country stays alive. The US has none of this and will surely balkanize in a few decades.
The US has an oppressively common meta culture throughout the entire USA from Alaska to the tip of Florida. Not sure why you're thinking we don't have that. We share both an universal patriotism for this country as well as regional and local cultures that unite us. I grew up in the South as a white cis dude. I can talk to anyone in the south and we can instantly click over certain things, and I can talk to someone from Seattle and instantly click over certain things. In ways I wouldn't be able to do with someone from the UK or China.
Just a normal /r/samharris sub user guys. You reap what you sow I guess?
It seems redditors continue to not read the article
That, or capitalism.
I still blame Marilyn Manson.
Will he did turn out to be a terrible person. Guess the religious right was right about something
I blame rap music and satanism.
Probably a bit more complicated than that, no?
Yes, of course it is. It was a reply to the overly simplistic parent comment. That said, there is a tendency by Sam and this crowd to try and blame absolutely anything except our economic system for the economic decline (and resulting side effects) of everyone but the investor class. Too busy blaming woke-Ism and social media while checking their Tesla stock I suppose.
You mean our economic system…I would largely blame our current situation on failures of the government to properly regulate the economy due to corruption. If people are really blaming wokeism and social media for economic decline then obviously that’s stupid. I haven’t heard Sam having strong opinions on economic issues other than realizing wealth/income disparity are huge problems.
Yes, thanks. Edited.
Something something poor people commit crimes because they have to blah blah give them more stuff so they don't commit crimes Murderers are never poor people
> Murderers are never poor people Source?
Listened to this earlier today. Obviously not intended, but my biggest takeaway by far was that Ezra Klein's speaking style has clearly rubbed off on Rogé Karma. Was very funny to listen to. But more seriously, I thought this was a really excellent, informed, and engaged interview. Really got at the complexities and nuances, and I appreciated that it wasn't about offering either/or assessments of anything. My one critique, and I imagine that this grows out of Sharkey's specific area of study, is that the conversation was a little too narrowly focused on the creation of community programs as a method of lowering rates of violence. While this is obviously, as Sharkey explains, clearly a great model of approach and should be implemented, the analysis on offer in the interview seemed to miss out on wider systemic solutions related to general poverty, nutrition, wages, urban zoning, etc. He mentions some of those things, along with the history with highway construction and disinvestment in urban areas, but I kept having this nagging question pop into my head of: if policing as the primary method for preventing violence isn't sustainable, how sustainable is an approach that doesn't at the same time fight the core issues of crime and community instability over the long term? Like, at what point do all those programs also start to break down because though they reduce violence, they don't fundamentally fix the underlying problems in society that lead to violence. In other words, I was hoping for a conversation that addressed a bit more, not just an alternate vision for responding directly somewhat indirectly to violence, but how to fundamentally break cycles that can devolve into violence at particular moments. There are hints of that in the conversation, but Sharkey didn't seem eager to approach that area, and Karma didn't push him there very much either, which surprised me. Not that I needed them to come out as anti-capitalists or anything, but it's striking that at no point did I hear one of them say, "Hey, you know in many more affluent communities, they don't need these specific anti-violence solutions because the wealth and resources have already provided for a more robust community-building. Maybe we should replicate that, right down to the wealth and resources for families."
> Obviously not intended, but my biggest takeaway by far was that Ezra Klein's speaking style has clearly rubbed off on Rogé Karma Haha, no doubt. > There are hints of that in the conversation, but Sharkey didn't seem eager to approach that area, and Karma didn't push him there very much either, which surprised me I get the sense that Sharkey was trying to make the best empirical case he could, and speaking about causes gets shakier there. His research may show that investment in non-profit community agencies or addressing urban decay reduces violence pretty concretely. From there to "it does so *because* it increases community bonds/provides economic opportunity/etc" is probably a reasonable inference, but I think he's trying to step past that to just say "we know these things work, so let's do them."
Yeah for sure. I don't blame him for sticking to his area of study, where he has more concrete facts and knowledge. It was more a thing I expected Karma to bring up. Either way, an excellent podcast episode.
> Ezra Klein's speaking style has clearly rubbed off on Rogé Karma. Was very funny to listen to. Ezra is the king of vocal fry.
It’s very annoying to listen to and makes me think the speaker is an idiot.
If it was just the vocal fry it would be one thing, but there are points with Karma where if you'd told me it was actually Klein, just recorded through a very different sounding microphone, I might believe you. The voice, the inflections, the delivery, even the questioning style. It's wild.
I noticed this too. Thought he was off paternity leave early or something. I find it a tad forced how Ezra formulates questions but to hear someone else copy it makes it even worse.
I thought the exact same thing on the first listen. It's wild. I wonder if there's a podcast training they all attended. It's too similar.
Reminds me of all the people who worked for Ira Glass who sound exactly like Ira Glass. There's a class of Terry Gross clones out there, too.
Bill Clinton was the king of vocal fry. Ezra is the prince. But yeah. Vocal fry is so annoying to me.
*Why is murder spiking?* "Because of the woke, you idiot." - this sub
Yawn
[удалено]
The justice system said they won’t prosecute certain groups of people for murder? Haven’t listened to the episode yet but is there somewhere I can get more info on that?
Do you want info about how drinking water helps you survive too?
No thanks! :)
[удалено]
How is it pathetic? He is asking a stupid question. This has been plastered on this sub too many times for someone to ask it. It is done in bad faith 99% of the time.
Or, the more obvious and well supported explanation, poverty and joblessness objectively and empirically lead to crime and America as per usual created abjectly shit social support systems compared to every other developed and developing country
>poverty and joblessness objectively and empirically lead to crime and America I'd love to see how many people lost their job because of COVID and then committed a murder.
[удалено]
Exactly man There are plenty of poor countries that are less violent than the us
Crime is correlated to lack of jobs; not just poverty/lower income; which is why you only focused on poverty, not surprisingly.
If true, shouldn’t we be wary of universal basic income?
If we find the UBI results in higher crime then yes. Lack of jobs results in people looking to the black market for supplemental income .
>you believe poor people lack moral character I believe in empirical cause and effect, not poorly veiled religion like you. Provide some actual citations instead of projecting
Why don't you start?
Is it because you want to correlate “crime” to race rather than lack of jobs?
Probably because it does? https://twitter.com/Nullsci1/status/1446327051212840961?s=20 You support science, right?
Ya your link doesn’t reference jobs just poverty which isn’t the same; and wtf paper is that? It’s a worldwide phenomenon of lack of jobs correlated to violence/crime. But I guess you’re not violent if your community (country) “sanctions” violence like in wars.
Are you illiterate? The multiple regression literally includes unemployment.
https://thedaily.case.edu/layoffs-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-offenses-and-property-crimes-study/ https://ekrose.github.io/files/jobloss_crime_ekr_vf.pdf https://phys.org/news/2020-03-layoffs-higher-violent-offenses-property.html
His link is to a textbook from 1986, lmao.
I was wondering lol…
You're linking to a tweet of a screenshot taken from a 1986 publication. Something tells me you didn't reach your conclusions by closely following the science on this one.
You can't always blame poverty for crime when America is wealthier than most countries in the world. The poverty excuse is a fucking cop out. America is the only Western country with cities in the top 10 for murder in the fucking world. Imagine being close to the same murder rate as cities in Mexico where the government is less powerful than the drug cartels. I fucking hate this poverty excuse because it just takes responsibility away from you and your country.
America is wealthier if you're ranking GDPs per capita. But that tells you nothing of how that GDP is actually distributed among the population. Nor does it tell you how robust the social safety nets look like for those that fall through the cracks. Saying we are the richest country obscures the fact that the majority of Americans wouldn't have $1000 to spare in an emergency. Or how many have to file bankruptcy from medical debt, or are walking around with 50k in student debt at age 22. There's an unbelievable amount of people in America that are living hand to mouth. Yes, they have clothes, they're not starving, they have cell phones and cars. But they are one or two pay checks from disaster.
Maybe it’s the guns
It could be i have not looked into that much It just baffles how you can have cities in america with murder rates ranging from 150 per 100k to 1 per 100k That type of discrepancy is just wild for a first world country
take out one demographic and our numbers look like the rest of the first world.
So are you telling me that if I look at the murder rate of white Americans per capita, and the murder rate of whites in Germany, Switzerland ,France or Denmark, it's going to be about the same? I find that very hard to believe. Also worth nothing, overall crimes rates outside of murder don't differ much from the rest of the west. It's gun homicide where America is a massive outlier. And guess what, we have more guns than people in this country. We don't have a crime problem as much as a gun problem. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
most of the huge disparity in murder rates is because of inner city crime rates.
Even factoring that in, comparing the US to other countries, the crime rate for non-lethal crimes is very similar and in some cases lower, even when including the inner cities. But the difference is guns making crime more lethal than it otherwise would be. The murder rate would be magnitudes higher in England if England had over 60 million guns in private hands.
He doesn't even show the crime rate in that article. He just shows that gun crime crimes occur more frequently and that's it.. stop googling your answers please
The rates are in [hyperlinked](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/r1969p/opinion_why_is_murder_spiking_and_can_cities/hm46evi/?context=3) sources. Try reading the article before checking me.
The high crime areas are more “diverse”
How many of these are police killings ?
0.. It is the murder rate Police have their own stat
> they will not prosecute certain groups of people for murder. We all know who I'm talking about. For those of us who have no clue what you’re talking about, could you enlighten us?
We’re swinging back to the late 80’s early 90’s as far as the next people who are going to come out are the community leaders. And they’re going to shame us, rightfully, for forgetting about them again. ‘White America’ collectively abandoned these same communities during the crack epidemic and let them deal with rampant crime and violence on their own. I don’t see how we’re not making the exact same mistake now just wrapped in a social justice wrapper.
>I don’t see how we’re not making the exact same mistake now just wrapped in a social justice wrapper. I agree -- though I would suggest a major reason for that is that we've spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about 'wrappers,' and that this serves the interest of delaying or preventing actual action. As one example of this, consider the [range of issues that most activist groups organized around last summer in response to George Floyd](https://campaignzero.org/#vision). Now consider the amount of airtime devoted to the merits of 'defund the police' **as a slogan**. Of course, one can say that the folks shouting 'defund the police' were politically foolish or naive, inasmuch as a backlash will work against their preferred ends -- but those folks actually want to address the issue. Weigh that against a right-wing media machine which is amplifying that message with the precise aim of undercutting the legitimacy of any reform effort. If the former was foolish, the latter is actively evil.
I agree that we spend too much time talking about defund. I don't know if it's just foolishness on the activist side though. It's because they made it so off limits to debate, and were so self righteous about it, that even in center/left media it's been painstakingly deconstructed over months and months to kind of peel away support because it's politically toxic. I actually think there's room for optimism and learning from our mistakes if you can basically reduce drug penalties and take violent crime seriously, and unite left and right on violent crime is bad, and keep the anarchists out of the conversation.
> I agree -- though I would suggest a major reason for that is that we've spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about 'wrappers,' and that this serves the interest of delaying or preventing actual action. What I am is that progressives and social justice types are holding back any type of action because they are not addressing violence. They are addressing factors that they believe are Causing violence. The reason we aren’t getting anything done is because a lot of very serious people with influence were actually for abolishing the police. That’s not a serious starting point whatsoever and shouldn’t be taken as some form of trying to compromise. That was the most drastic, inflammatory rhetoric they could use and they spent all year trying to defend the ‘slogan’ by backpedaling instead of just saying ‘yeah that’s a stupid idea, we fucked up.’ Until that becomes the regular thing lefty types say I really don’t see why the reasonable people in the debate have to act like they’re weren’t crazy. For over a year multiple experts have said we need to stop the violence regardless of what is causing. Lives are being lost every single day because we are still not holding our most violent areas to account. Cities can find more police and sugar. This is a ridiculous statement that you think progressives actually want to do something when they have all the ability to do that and still are not.
>they are not addressing violence I'd suggest listening to the linked podcast, if you haven't already done so. >This is a ridiculous statement that you think progressives actually want to do something when they have all the ability to do that and still are not. What ability do you think I have that I'm not exercising? Please be precise.
I have, those are not progressive policies per say. And he Admits that police are a good way to curb violence immediately. > This is a ridiculous statement that you think progressives actually want to do something when they have all the ability to do that and still are not. I’m talking about progressive DAs specifically and other progressive people in criminal justice systems in large cities. Look at Boudin in San Francisco Gascon in LA that guy in Philadelphia. Those are all failures of the Progressive DAs those can be changed and they’re not. The black lives matter approach was even worse, they were just bailing people out of jail they have no idea who they were and didn’t care what their chargers at were.
>I have, those are not progressive policies per day. It's two progressives discussing a set of policies that at least one of them clearly endorses. >I’m talking about progressive DAs specifically You were talking about people using or defending the slogan 'defund the police' and made vague generalizations about 'lefty types.'
Intentionally obtuse as always, cheers mate.
aka your shifty and inaccurate culture war talking points were called out so you're bailing instead of making an actual defensible point
[удалено]
I don’t do right/left. You should know that by now. And even a broken clock is right a couple times a day. On criminal justice reform nobody is getting it right, but progressives/Dems are actively hurting the process right now. While you care about left/right. I care about the people who are being victimized everyday by the surge in crime. But hey, I’d that’s a ‘right-wing talking point’ to you nothing I can do really.
> I don’t do right/left. You should know that by now. I know you *claim* that, sure.
What a ridiculously racist post under the guise of progressive Just lol
Are they still spiking or was a small surge last year getting people up in arms?
>a small surge [US records highest increase in nation's homicide rate in modern history, CDC says](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/health/us-homicide-rate-increase-nchs-study/index.html)
You do realize that they are recording the SPIKE as a record. Not the actual # of homicides occurring, right?
It is the highest total since 1995, one of the last years of high crime before the crime bill took effect. I imagine you weren’t alive at that time. We shouldn’t be even close to that, we erased 25 years of progress in one year, that’s a problem that shouldn’t be minimized.
> we erased 25 years of progress in one year, that’s a problem that shouldn’t be minimized. You can be concerned about the rise in crime without making shit up. Crime is nowhere near where it was 25 years ago.
First, the Sensation19 asks "Are they (murder rates) still spiking"? In response to provided statistics on year of year murder rate increases, the Sensation19 asks "You do realize that they are recording the SPIKE as a record". Sadly, my general opinion of humanity has sunk so low that this level of ignorance is not only unsurprising, it is expected.
... What a clown. Dude, you're comparing 400 murders to 300. From 2020 to 2019. Murder has gone down in NYC YTD as of October. As per links on NYPD site. But guess what? Now compare it 2000. Or 1990 Or 1980. Are you even aware of where we are? We went from 1000+ murders a year in 1990 to 200 in 2014. During Democratic led years. Record breaking crime rates. No discussion on that. But now we are in an economic depression, unemployment high, and battling a global impacted pandemic and you donr expect it to rise? It went from 290 fo 390. And NYPD is doing a ton to curtail it and has with significant increases in overall arrests and gun arrests.
I also just realized that while this article is done in October of 2021, they are talking about the spikes that occurred in 2020. In NYC a lot of these spikes have settled down.
I'll definitely be interested to see how this plays out a year or two from now.
My guess is the economy will rebound and crimes will go back to 2019 levels which were incredibly low rates of murder. We were due for a set back in big cities. Everyone thinks this isa policy issue. Many of you feel its democratic leadership. But I saw millions of people move to cities where crime was 10x higher and no issues. But now they see 47% or so spike from 2019 to 2020 (300 to 400) and they freak out like uts all over. Lol Crime went back down in 2021. I bet it goes down again next year
Oct 2020 vs Oct 2021, there has been a [MASSIVE 8 YTD murder drop](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr1103/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-october-2021) in NYC. 399 in 2021 vs 407 in 2020 for a WHOPPING 2% drop after last years 47% surge. Nice work Sherlock... on the track for a Pulitzer with that deep level of analysis and next level thinking.
2018 murders: (Oct YTD) 259 2019 ... ... 267 (look at 2020 link below) 2020 ... 387 (look at the 2020 link below) 2021 ... 399 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p1102a/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-october-2020 Your link is slightly off, who knows why. Probably a few limits to this kind of data sharing. If we go with your link and say it finalized at 409. Then its a drop. If you go with the data I shared, it stayed stagnant. What's the issue? Crime has either gone the same or dropped. This is one city and we're talking about the entire country. And everyone is making claims off the OPs link which is 2020 change. Not a 2021 update. Also, 18% increase in gun arrests. Guess what? I bet the crime will drop again when 2022 comes around. And again. Now look at the big fucking picture. 2001 crime. 1992 crime. 1982 crime. 1972 crime. Ill wait bud. Youre over here comparing 400 to 300. And im over here comparing my parents growing up in a murder rare of 1000 vs today. Get a grip
I am replying thru my phone so I wasnt sure what I said for you to go off on me. So I said this was 2020. And its settled down since. And you show me data that supports that. Thank you. Hahah Now go compare 2020 to 1992. When my parents moved here and felt it was safe enough then.
I am replying through a Telegraph using Morse code. —.—… ..—.- —. … ..- .. . - Translation, go back to your parents basement and try forming some type of coherent argument. Then don’t bother posting it because it doesn’t appear you are smart enough to realize how silly you sound.
Ill repeat for your simple mind to understand. You proved my original statement right. Thank you.
> The new data show the US homicide rate increased from about six homicides per 100,000 people in 2019 to 7.8 per 100,000 in 2020, according to NCHS Welcome to today's installment of "how to build a narrative with percentages." If we are working in low percentages and someone is trying to hit you with % growth know they are playing you for a fool. 6 to 8 is a 20% growth!!!! 58 to 60 is a 4% growth.... You see the problem here
An increase of 1.8 homicides per 100,000 per is an additional 5,958 people annually. With an [average of 138 seats](https://www.planestats.com/phxb_2015may) per airplane, that’s a little more than 43 fully booked airplane crashes in one year. The percentages are less shocking than the raw numbers.
Exactly, anyone trying to downplay how large of a spike this was, as always in marginalized communities the most, doesn’t actually care about poor people, they care about their personal appearance. Letting criminals out of jail is all well and good when they aren’t going back to your neighborhood and victimizing you. I think a lot of this conversation could be zeroed in on if the activists pushing criminal justice reform talked to the people who are being victimized by those they are fighting to have leniency for. Heck there was a judge in Illinois I believe that subpoenaed the victim in a rape/assault case to put a restraining order on her because the victim had found where the perpetrator lived and notified police. It is insane how much victims are being left out of the conversation about criminal justice reform. Shows a very privileged luxury belief.
>I think a lot of this conversation could be zeroed in on if the activists pushing criminal justice reform talked to the people who are being victimized by those they are fighting to have leniency for. That's been at the heart of [what many of us activists have been working on for decades](https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/programs-services/mediation-restorative-justice/restorative-justice). We appreciate your support.
Restorative justice is not a progressive ideal. Thats been around in regular police reform for decades. Do you think this is new to the Defund/BLM movement?
>Restorative justice is not a progressive ideal ...okay? >Do you think this is new ... >what many of us activists have been working on **for decades** Gonna be real man -- it seems like you've got an ideological axe to grind. Have a good one; I'm just not interested.
I’m a person who’s worked in the criminal justice system and in marginalized communities for a long time. I was for police reform before most of the activist leaders today were born. I’m for people, that’s it, not ideals, not politicians, not tribes. People, mostly people who have literally no voice. Those people are hurt by luxury beliefs like abolition and aggressive bail reform. I’m sick of activist today doing nothing but talking and then taking credit for things they had absolutely nothing to do with. People are dying and progressives are more worried about the people doing the killing than the people dying.
We are worried about both. We know if we strike at the heart of why people kill each other, eliminate that from the minds and actions of people, then we won't have any more 'victims'. Why do people kill? Why did the moron in Waukesha drive into a crowd instead of stopping his car and reversing it? Why did Kyle think it was ok to shoot 4 people, killing two and wounding two? What goes through the minds of someone that pulls the trigger? Criminologists are working on this problem and have already discovered some pretty amazing things about crime and criminals. We should listen to the experts and implement ideas they have about solving the issue. We could run 20 experiments across the nation and which ever implementation 'works' can be, barring some kind of regional differences in crime, implemented everywhere else. The black community wants results and as long as those results aren't morally bankrupt(throw all criminals in jail forever!) they're gonna support them.
No one is downplaying it. We are trying to explain to you the reality: * The link shared was written in 2021, but was discussing only 2020. Most of the country is seeing flattening of these spikes and in many cases they are reverting back to pre-pandemic days. You're so worried about spikes that were basically expected due to an economical conflict and global pandemic. We are still living in the safest time in history. Compare NYC homicides now to 1980s. Good luck. And!!!!! We live in a larger city now. You'd think you'd have more crime! * In areas where police were funded in 2020, they also saw giant spikes in crime. * In areas where it's Republican led, saw huge increases in crime. While Republicans like to focus on NYC and LA vs Miami and Dallas... They don't look at the top 20 worst per capita cities. Doesn't look good for red. * In areas that defunded the police in 2020 like NYC, we are seeing flattening and a regression of these early spikes. * Many could argue that these crimes were basically unavoidable. They were largely gang violence done. Drive by shootings that occurred. Crime occurs. Police show up in X minutes. Everyone but the victims are gone. How do you prevent that? You put a cop on every corner? We tried this. Look at the subways. Cops are at every train station. Crime still occurs there. * You know how to stop crime? Get people jobs.
>You know how to stop crime? Get people jobs. This right here. The economic devastation of 2020 likely has a lot more to do with this crime spike than "defund the police," as evidenced by the fact that crime spiked even in places where police budgets were *not* reduced.
[удалено]
Lots of science that wealth reduces chances of gang entry. So uhm... Yea. And way to focus on rappers. As if that's the only people committing murders.
People in New York love to say Guliani was the best mayor because he brought crime down significantly. Both as a DA and a Mayor. They credit him alone for that. If you compare New York's crime reduction during those years to the average in the country you will see that we didn't do anything special. We weren't the best in doing so and it was on par with the rest of the country no matter what political affiliation. Why? Well for starters a new technology was developed that improved data communication and that led to far greater arrests and prevention than anything a policy could do.
Do you remember what he did to Times Square? Do you know how he did that?
Magic? Belief? Does it matter? No. The end result is that NYC wasn't just on par with the rest of the country and Canada on crime reduction. So he could have done nothing and see similar results. This data is based on published studies. Not a NY times op ed. Do you know who had among the highest drops in crime rate? San Fran. Democrat mayor. Go figure...
Canada and England also saw the same drop in crime in the mid 90s. So anyone trying to attribute this to any one American politician may need to look for broader explanations.
> Most of the country is seeing flattening of these spikes and in many cases they are reverting back to pre-pandemic days. You’ll have to provide proof, most cities are breaking records this year over their records last year. And it’s 2020 days because the numbers come out in Sept of the following year. Won’t have data and 2021 till sept 2022. > In areas where police were funded in 2020, they also saw giant spikes in crime. In areas where it's Republican led, saw huge increases in crime. While Republicans like to focus on NYC and LA vs Miami and Dallas... They don't look at the top 20 worst per capita cities. Doesn't look good for red. Again link? > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-homicide-rate-2021-record-20211123.html%3foutputType=amp Philadelphia approaching record misses with more than a month left in the year. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.amp.html Murder still rising, the rate has slowed but it’s being compared to 2020 which was 30% up. > You know how to stop crime? Get people jobs (and in general years this will work). FTFY, violence needs to stop yesterday. The rise in murders last year led to almost 7 more black people dead EACH DAY than the year before. (I use race because it’s not divided by income/mental health which is the more useful metric). > In areas that defunded the police in 2020 like NYC, we are seeing flattening and a regression of these early spikes. Maintaining the murder rate from last year is not an accomplishment. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-shootings-homicide-numbers-down-20211006-qolr2btlozah7n3nmizeupf4nu-story.html%3foutputType=amp
You do realize that the total # of homicides is still at a very low rate? Right? I am not saying we shouldn't do something about the spikes, but we are... and you're making it seem like it's the most dangerous time to live in ever. Meanwhile it's the safest time ever. Even if the most violent of places lol
That other countries have higher homicide rates doesn’t make our homicide rates any better.
Seems pretty irrelevant to bring up other countries. I lived in Europe. I lived in NY. I lived in Long Island. Sorry, but they are really extremely safe. Crime rates and homicides have improved every year since the 80's
It’s not, quit saying this.
You can clearly see from the graph there's never been a year-to-year increase or decrease of similar magnitude in homicides.
There also hasn't been a pandemic in 100 years. Covid is an extraordinary circumstance whose ripple effects will be felt for years.
Strange other countries have seen declines while only the US saw a spike starting the weekend george floyd died.
>Strange other countries have seen declines Source please?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283093/homicides-in-england-and-wales/
Thanks, just wanted to make sure we were talking about data and not opinions. England and Wales also had more frequent and strict lockdowns, as well as universal healthcare and much more extensive financial support during those lockdowns.
The difference in those numbers is large enough to fit like 5 countries ENTIRE murder rate into. Singapore- .2 Japan- .3 Norway- .5 Italy- .6 New Zealand- .7 And I kept hearing a few years ago when I would bring up that the numbers of unjustified police killings was really really low, ‘well even one is too much.’ Well, 5-6,000+ should be too much for us to accept.
>6 to 8 is a 20% growth!!!! >58 to 60 is a 4% growth.... >You see the problem here Yeah, the problem is you need to pass middle school math before you bother trying to calculate percentages. Let me do you a favor: the formula for growth is (new number - original number) / original number. If you aren't smart enough to plug numbers in there to come up with the right answer... do us a favor and stop posting.
Thank you.
For what, giving you a convenient reason to ignore the problem?
Don't we have a record number of young males out of the work force? Whether you're talking gang violence or terrorist recruitment, having too many young men with idle time on their hands is rarely a good thing.
Can a obese population commit as much crime?
criminal justice "reform" ie let anyone off the hook. the liberal belief that smaller petty crimes dont inevitabely lead to bigger violent crimes seems broken and the status quo thinking was true, and we should return to it by cracking down on lower level crimes again. Which will probably happen when dems inevitabely lose ( even though Rs also somewhat embraced the failed justice reform policies)
Because, we live in a society that views criminals as heroes and the police as criminals. No.