Originally posted by zeeblebotI'll look at the links, but you again present no facts. The New York and Pennslyvania data EXACTLY matches Levitt's theory; thanks for bringing it up!
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2001/03/02/1484594.html
there you go.
(re kansas, just so, and you'd expect the same for philadelpia vs pennsylvania, but how do you know how much? the ratios aren't going to be just the same, and how much does it skew the final result?)
Originally posted by zeeblebotPLEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I asked for a study; not a comment from a local police official happy he's getting more funding!! Be serious.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2001/03/02/1484594.html
there you go.
(re kansas, just so, and you'd expect the same for philadelpia vs pennsylvania, but how do you know how much? the ratios aren't going to be just the same, and how much does it skew the final result?)
EDIT: The second article is co-authored by Ed Meese; presents no facts other than the NYC crime decrease (which is explained by Levitt's theory) and does a lot of complaining about "liberal" judges. Please start presenting some actual evidence rather than politically inspired pap.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "Ivanhoe, again you don't know what a "strawman" argument is.[/b]
Give a link that actually compares the crime rates in Philly and New York City and we'll talk; right now all I have is an assertion by a columnist without any facts to support it. By contrast, Levitt supports his conclusions with published data. Whether anybody on this site "seconds" my FULL statement i.e. that no study has shown any link bet ...[text shortened]... u the same information.
Ivanhoe, again you don't know what a "strawman" argument is.
You keep repeating yourself. That however will not make your assertion true. You keep creating strawmen ..... in order to do what No1 ?
Originally posted by kirksey957that was ONE CASE, in 1997 ... Amadou Diallo is another ... but then, why not legislate for making police optional at the county or precinct level? ... you don't have to have police if you don't want them ...
I hope that young Haitian man that was raped with a toilet plunger by members of the NYC police department will have a say in this thread about lower crime rates and a strong police presence.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
"About as many Americans were killed (over 54,000) in New York City between 1962 and 2002 as died in the Vietnam War, but the murder rate in 2002 was only about a quarter what it was in 1990, when there were a record 2,245 murders. "
check out the graph re the last paragraph pasted below
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
"A study of dangerous neighborhoods in St.Louis & Chicago showed that every 10% increase in number of people incarcerated reduced the number of homicides 15-20%. Another researcher, however, estimated that 50% of the drop in crime is due to the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision which allowed for the abortion of many unwanted children who could have become killers. "
...
"An estimated 23 people proven innocent were wrongly executed in the United States between 1900 and 1995 (Amnesty International). "
"In 1963 the US Supreme Court imposed rules on confessions & searches that accompanied a popular sentiment increasingly opposed to capital punishment -- and in 1972 struck down capital punishment laws as being "arbitrary and capricious". There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. Murder rates soared to levels not seen since the 1930s and remained at that level until the late 1970s when sentiment changed and execution began to be increasingly reinstated. As executions rose, the murder rate declined through the 1990s."
Originally posted by ivanhoeLook up what a "strawman" argument is, you idiot, and you may eventually realize that you are using the term incorrectly. I've told you what a real "strawman" argument is before, but apparently you can't get it through your thick skull. Making an argument by analogy, which is what I did, is making an argument by analogy, NOT a "strawman argument", moron.
No1: "Ivanhoe, again you don't know what a "strawman" argument is.
You keep repeating yourself. That however will not make your assertion true. You keep creating strawmen ..... in order to do what No1 ?[/b]
Originally posted by zeeblebotMake up your mind which argument you are using: more police does not necessarily mean more people incarcerated. Randomly locking up a bunch of people would, of course, have some effect on the crime rate. However, since the 70's the number of people incarcerated rose 5 fold but there was no equal reduction in crime rates. At any rate, your original claim was that somehow Guiliani by "reorganizing" the police caused an immediate and sharp drop in crime; I again assert you have presented no evidence to support that theory and that Levitt's theory which has nationwide data to back it is more plausible.
check out the graph re the last paragraph pasted below
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
"A study of dangerous neighborhoods in St.Louis & Chicago showed that every 10% increase in number of people incarcerated reduced the number of homicides 15-20%. Another researcher, however, estimated that 50% of the drop in crime is due to the 1973 Roe ...[text shortened]... be increasingly reinstated. As executions rose, the murder rate declined through the 1990s."
No serious researcher still claims that the death penalty reduces murder rates; the studies have conclusively shown it has no effect. States which have reinstated the death penalty do not have decreases in murder rates greater than those who don't. Only politicians still believe such rot; countries without the death penalty (most of 'em) almost all have lower murder and crime rates than the US.
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=21
"But the implications are huge. By the study's estimate, the two recent federal executions will save approximately thirty-six lives. On the final day of 1999 (the last day for which we have accurate figures), there were 3,527 prisoners under sentence of death in American prisons. This study suggests that if all those sentences were carried out 63,000 lives would be saved. There were approximately 15,000 homicides in America in 1999, meaning that the deterrence effect could be the equivalent of four years free from murder. Even the most committed opponents of the death penalty should take notice of that figure. "
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
this article has the same graph.
' Basically, then, Europe doesn't have the death penalty because its political systems are less democratic, or at least more insulated from public opinion, than the U.S. government. And elites know it. Referring to France, a recent article in the UNESCO Courier noted that "action by courageous political leaders has been needed to overcome local public opinion that has remained mostly in favour of the death penalty." When a 1997 poll showed that 49 percent of Swedes wanted the death penalty reinstated, the country's justice minister told a reporter: "They don't really want the death penalty; they are objecting to the increasing violence. I see this as a call to politicians and the justice system to do more." '
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~sam/twiki/pub/Main/PoliticalScience/shepherd1.doc
"I. Introduction
Recent studies by economists, including several by me, have shown without exception that capital punishment deters crime. "
abstract
"This paper is the first study to examine whether capital punishment’s impact is different among U.S. states. Studies by economists, including myself, have typically used large data sets of all 50 states or all U.S. counties to show that executions, on average, deter murders. In contrast, studies by sociologists, criminologists, and law professors have often examined only one or a few jurisdictions and usually find no evidence of deterrence. Using a well-known data set and commonly-used empirical methods, I find that the impact of executions differs substantially among the states. Executions deter murders in six states, executions have no effect on murders in eight states, and executions increase murders in thirteen states. Additional empirical analyses indicate that there is a threshold effect that explains the differing impact of capital punishment. On average, the states with deterrence execute many more people than do the states where executions increase crime or have no effect. The results of this paper help to explain the contrasting conclusions of earlier papers: the deterrence or no-deterrence conclusion depends on the jurisdiction examined. My results also have important policy implications: to achieve deterrence, states must execute several people. If states are unwilling to establish such a large execution program, it may be better to perform no executions."
Originally posted by zeeblebotThis article is pretty hilarious. It concludes that the death penalty CAUSES more murders in most states. Then it argues that a certain baseline number of executions are necessary to get the wonderful deterrence effect i.e. 9 per year. Exactly ONE state has averaged this number over the last ten years: Texas which has seen a 61% decline in its murder rate over the last ten years. New York, which has not had an execution in over 40 years, saw a 65% decline in the same period. Please see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganTestimony.pdf where these neo-conservative "studies" are torn to pieces and justly referred to as "junk science".
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~sam/twiki/pub/Main/PoliticalScience/shepherd1.doc
"I. Introduction
Recent studies by economists, including several by me, have shown without exception that capital punishment deters crime. "
abstra ...[text shortened]... execution program, it may be better to perform no executions."
freakonomics' own stephen leavitt writes on police and deterrence:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v87y1997i3p270-90.html
"Previous empirical studies have uncovered little evidence that police reduce crime, possibly due to simultaneity problems. This paper uses the timing of mayoral and gubernatorial elections as an instrument variable to identify a causal effect of police on crime. Increases in the size of police forces are shown to be disproportionately concentrated in mayoral and gubernatorial election years. Increases in police are shown to substantially reduce violent crime but have a smaller impact on property crime. The null hypothesis that the marginal social benefit of reduced crime equals the costs of hiring additional police cannot be rejected."
more stuff:
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_as_a_deterrent.htm
lists of articles on death penalty deterrence
http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=333
a refutation of a Columbia Law study of Nevada error rates.
http://econ.cudenver.edu/mocan/papers/carrotspaper_Jl&Econ.pdf
While both economic and deterrence variables are important in explaining the decline in crime, the contribution of deterrence measures is larger than those of economic variables.
(http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm):
Harold J. Brumm and Dale O. Cloninger
Perceived Risk of Punishment and the Commission of Homicides: A Covariance Structure Analysis
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-11 (Sept. 1996)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01672681
After clicking the link, choose "volumes 31-40," then "volume 31, issue 1", finally click on "abstract."
Abstract: If the behavior of potential murderers does in fact respond to the risk of punishment, it is the perceived risk rather than the ex post risk as measured by arrest rates, conviction rates, or execution rates. Previous empirical studies of homicide behavior have, by and large, ignored this distinction. The present paper accommodates this distinction by estimating a covariance structure model in which the perceived risk is treated as an endogenous latent variable, with two measures of sanctions as its indicators. Cross-section data are used for the estimation. One of the principal findings is that the homicide commission rate is significantly and negatively correlated with the perceived risk of punishment, which provides empirical support for the deterrence hypothesis (Ehrlich, 1975). The other principal findings are that the perceived risk of punishment is (a) significantly and negatively correlated with the homicide commission rate, and (b) significantly and positively correlated with police presence. The latter results provide empirical support for the resource saturation hypothesis (Fisher and Nagin, 1978).