consider also the possibilities that:
- the productivity of the population as a whole has increased due to computers,
- the general welfare has increased due to the productivity increase,
- increase in personal entertainment options has reduced interpersonal contacts leading to reduced chances for criminal encounters.
Originally posted by zeeblebotAccording to the US government, even as late as 1997, only 18.6% of US households had on-line access. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html
(ATY spoiled my post, it was going to be):
it must be true, no one's arguing ...
Hard to see how the WWW could have affected crime rates in the US in the early '90's when so few actually had it.
Originally posted by no1marauder
According to the US government, even as late as 1997, only 18.6% of US households had on-line access. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html
Hard to see how the WWW could have affected crime rates in the US in the early '90's when so few actually had it.
It's called magic, genius.
that is a nice page, and note this interesting quote:
The West's urban areas (43.9%, 23.14😵 rank highest in PC and on-line access, while the Northeast's central cities have the lowest penetration rates (24.7%, 12.6😵 (Charts 19, 24).
but "18.6% in 1997" is a datapoint, and what is low about it, considering it was 1997? we want curves not points ... i hate looking at tables, too, graphs only for me ...
i looked for historical charts on that page, but they have only two datapoints on the x-axis, for 1994 and 1997 ... the slope between those points would tend to prove my point but it's not enough ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo, it wouldn't. Those were the dates when the US government made comprehensive surveys but in any event, WWW access was quite small in the early 90's and mostly confined to higher than average incomes. Those demographics show up the least in official crime statistics. The fact of the matter is that on-line access cannot possibly explain the large drop in crime rates in the early 90's as on-line access was limited to a relative, non-crimogenic few. You are making assertions that are plainly contradicted by the data, try making an argument based on a rational interpretation of the facts rather than suppositions.
that is a nice page, and note this interesting quote:
The West's urban areas (43.9%, 23.14😵 rank highest in PC and on-line access, while the Northeast's central cities have the lowest penetration rates (24.7%, 12.6😵 (Charts 19, 24).
but "18.6% in 1997" is a datapoint, and what is low about it, considering it was 1997? we want curves not poi ...[text shortened]... nd 1997 ... the slope between those points would tend to prove my point but it's not enough ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotWas it that police forces throughout the west finally crumbled under the rising amount of paperwork, and may crimes therefore were (and continue not to be) reported?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vage.htm
a lot of graphs look like this, crime rates start dropping in the early nineties.
what momentous event occurred around that time?
Well look at the state the internet is in now. Does it seem
like crime has dropped? maybe you don't know the russian
mafia is in on the action now sending out keyloggers, trojans,
etc. onto the internet. Sound like a reduction in crime to you?
to me it sounds like a big jump. look at all the scumware flying
around, forget the mafia. You think this is from nice guys just having
fun? Like 80% of internet traffic is scumware, you think thats not
crime? see the report about all those millions of mastercards
at risk due to only ONE attack making it into the central comp at
mastercard? H'mm, wonder just how behind those 90's figures
really are. Remember, that was last century. Welcome to the
21st Century.