The News Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

Except that poverty doesn't always breed crime, as seen in Hispanic communities in America where strong family and religious bonds probably help, not to mention countless nations internationally. There are a number of sub-Saharan African countries with lower overall homicide rates than the USA.

 

[rms]

pretty sure there is no stronger indicator of criminality than poverty

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Property crime, maybe/sure whatever. Violent crime, no, check the Mort Divine thread and go a few pages back.

 

[rms]

dont see that addressed since the woman in business argument died

 

[Dak]

Why wasnt crime through the roof during the Great Depression if it is a strong independent predictor?

 

[rms]

I don't know much about great depression era domestic USA to speak any further on it

 

[Einherjar86]

Why wasnt crime through the roof during the Great Depression if it is a strong independent predictor?

The suggestion is that poverty conditions behavior, yes? So there's a difference between growing up destitute and being suddenly reduced to destitution. Both of these situations translate into poverty, but just saying "poverty" doesn't account for the way that behavior has already been conditioned in the groups we're implying here. Sudden poverty doesn't snap people into crime; but growing up in a community in which poverty is endemic may contribute to the emergence of extreme behaviors over time.

 

[Dak]

The suggestion is that poverty conditions behavior, yes? So there's a difference between growing up destitute and being suddenly reduced to destitution. Both of these situations translate into poverty, but just saying "poverty" doesn't account for the way that behavior has already been conditioned in the groups we're implying here. Sudden poverty doesn't snap people into crime; but growing up in a community in which poverty is endemic may contribute to the emergence of extreme behaviors over time.

It's possible, but I imagine enough counter examples can be shown to cast doubt on poverty being a significant independent predictor; that is, areas of affluence with high crime and/or areas with low affluence and low crime, both current and historical.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's possible, but I imagine enough counter examples can be shown to cast doubt on poverty being a significant independent predictor; that is, areas of affluence with high crime and/or areas with low affluence and low crime, both current and historical.

I don't think it's independent; but it's likely that extended poverty is a more significant predictor than the color of one's skin.

And my main point was just that the Great Depression isn't a good rebuttal, considering the difference in exposure to extreme poverty.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't think it's independent; but it's likely that extended poverty is a more significant predictor than the color of one's skin.

Rural Appalachia has been in extended poverty for generations. The poorest white regions are still much safer than any black ghetto in the USA.

 

[Einherjar86]

Again, I don't think poverty is an independent factor; but comparing rural Appalachia to black urban communities is like comparing apples and oranges. The Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice issued a report in the early nineties that crime in rural communities, including Appalachia, is often of the organized variety, and that local law enforcement are often complicit, and therefore crime tends to be under-reported.

Also, I doubt that rural Appalachia is actually "safer" than the black ghetto for your average Midwesterner or New Englander.

 

[CiG]

Poverty is probably a less important indicator for criminal behaviour than relative poverty is.
The Gini Coefficient is a good method for figuring this out, geographical locations with widespread low income or widespread high income tend to be relatively crime free compared to geographical locations with very poor, the middle-class and the very rich living closely together.

Which also seems to support Ein's view of why the poverty brought upon people by the great recession isn't necessarily indicative of violence and crime in poor communities. The great recession reduced people to a state of equality within their respective communities, which tends to bring people together and help each other, but after a few generations certain groups remain poor and certain groups rise out of poverty and that creates the exact kind of situation that The Gini Coefficient exists to measure.

The poor look around and see levels of success that they can't or feel as if they can't achieve and so eventually crime slowly develops as a norm.

 

[Dak]

Again, I don't think poverty is an independent factor; but comparing rural Appalachia to black urban communities is like comparing apples and oranges. The Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice issued a report in the early nineties that crime in rural communities, including Appalachia, is often of the organized variety, and that local law enforcement are often complicit, and therefore crime tends to be under-reported.

Soooo, moonshining? It's not like you had Bubba Death Squads roaming the Appalachians in the 90s.

Also, I doubt that rural Appalachia is actually "safer" than the black ghetto for your average Midwesterner or New Englander.

That's why the Appalachians and Baltimore ghettos boast the same number of hikers, hipsters, and family vacationers. Because there's no difference in safety.

after a few generations certain groups remain poor and certain groups rise out of poverty and that creates the exact kind of situation that The Gini Coefficient exists to measure.

The poor look around and see levels of success that they can't or feel as if they can't achieve and so eventually crime slowly develops as a norm.

Of course that's the only possible acceptable reason.

 

[CiG]

Because of course that's the only possible acceptable reason.

Meaning what?

 

[Dak]

The crime and relative poverty couldn't have common factors underlying both rather than having a direct causal connection.

 

[Einherjar86]

Soooo, moonshining? It's not like you had Bubba Death Squads roaming the Appalachians in the 90s.

Yeah, that was it. Moonshining.

That's why the Appalachians and Baltimore ghettos boast the same number of hikers, hipsters, and family vacationers. Because there's no difference in safety.

What a ridiculous comment.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, that was it. Moonshining.

Well just saying "Crime is underreported in rural areas, which would include the Appalachias" tells one fuckall about Appalachia. I'm having a hard time finding solid, original source descriptive statistics for the Appalachias specifically, but news clippings suggest A. That crime in general is half the rate of the US average and B. drug related crime is on the rise in the last 5-10 years. Hi there heroin "epidemic". Even if underreported, that's no different than underreporting of gang violence and of other crimes in neighborhoods police avoid/the population avoids police.

What a ridiculous comment.

I seriously doubt that you, when faced with the options of the following options for a visit, are going to say "meh, flip a coin, what's the difference?"

vs.

When faced with the choice of the street I grew up on and a stroll through a small east Kentucky town, I know where I'd feel safer.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well just saying "Crime is underreported in rural areas, which would include the Appalachias" tells one fuckall about Appalachia. I'm having a hard time finding solid, original source descriptive statistics for the Appalachias specifically, but news clippings suggest A. That crime in general is half the rate of the US average and B. drug related crime is on the rise in the last 5-10 years. Hi there heroin "epidemic". Even if underreported, that's no different than underreporting of gang violence and of other crimes in neighborhoods police avoid/the population avoids police.

Chalking it up to moonshining also tells one fuckall about Appalachia. It's believed that marijuana production comprised a significant chunk of Kentucky's agricultural economy in the '90s. I'm sure that's still going on, although opioids are bigger today.

I seriously doubt that you, when faced with the options of the following options for a visit, are going to say "meh, flip a coin, what's the difference?"

vs.

When faced with the choice of the street I grew up on and a stroll through a small east Kentucky town, I know where I'd feel safer.

You're right, I'd choose the place with the mountains and woods--you know, where all the hikers, hipsters, and family vacationers go...

You're conflating regions and communities.

 

[Dak]

Chalking it up to moonshining also tells one fuckall about Appalachia. It's believed that marijuana production comprised a significant chunk of Kentucky's agricultural economy in the '90s. I'm sure that's still going on, although opioids are bigger today.

Well it's crime, but it ain't gonna kill you. We can chalk that up to more drug war nonsense. But Appalachia doesn't have a Part I Offense against Persons crime problem, at least from what I can find.

You're right, I'd choose the place with the mountains and woods--you know, where all the hikers, hipsters, and family vacationers go...

You're conflating regions and communities.

Hikers and hipsters are at least as much of a blight on Appalachia as the residents, but why not conflate the region and communities when talking about the human behavior of the communities in the region? Otherwise we are just talking about the flora, fauna, and weather.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well it's crime, but it ain't gonna kill you. We can chalk that up to more drug war nonsense. But Appalachia doesn't have a Part I Offense against Persons crime problem, at least from what I can find.

They would if you transplanted them into an urban environment. Part of what I'm saying is that Appalachia is fucking huge and spread out. There aren't turf wars when you're separated by mountains and woodlands. Which leads me to my next point...

Hikers and hipsters are at least as much of a blight on Appalachia as the residents, but why not conflate the region and communities when talking about the human behavior of the communities in the region? Otherwise we are just talking about the flora, fauna, and weather.

First of all, I don't understand why hipsters and hikers are a blight (maybe the hipsters, but that's little more than a personal objection that I believe we happen to share--not a comment on their behaviors).

The reason you can't conflate them is that people who go vacationing in Appalachia aren't going and living among the local residents. They're staying in official campgrounds and national parks. There are areas of the region that are distinct from the residential communities.

So contrasting the lack of vacationers between Appalachia and the ghettos of Baltimore is misleading. It's not as though vacationers are running off to be among the residential slums of the hill folk.