Are us-americans criminals?

[Mr Spinkles]

It's interesting to note that the U.S. also has a high intentional homicide rate.

In the U.S. the rate is about 5.0 per 100,000 people, which has dropped from a rate of 9.4 in 1990. Canada and Europe and China have a rate in the range 0.5 - 2.0.

Could it be that the high incarceration rate in the U.S. is a symptom of, or merely correlated with, the real problem, which is a high crime rate? Or is high incarceration a cause of problems, e.g. does the nature of incarceration in the U.S. fail to reduce crime the way it does in other countries?

Another observation that I find interesting is that when we are talking about these kinds of statistics, involving a country with millions of people, the reality of what happens "on average" can be very different from what happens in the day-to-day experience of individual people. For example, the U.S. has a "high" murder rate. And yet, millions of people in the U.S. (probably the vast majority) will live out their entire lives without ever being murdered, or witnessing a murder, or even knowing someone who was murdered. A special way of thinking is required when we are talking about a big picture social problem, involving a total population of 300 million people and statistics that occur to 1-5 people per 100,000. It's the "tiny" difference between a 1 and a 5 per 100,000 murder rate that actually makes a "big" difference to society as a whole (but might not make any difference to individuals).

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure... but is, say, treatment for mentally ill or drug-addicted prisoners a discretionary item? Like I alluded to before, even though it has the potential to positively affect lots of real people, it's not like the country will fall into the sea if it's not provided. It also doesn't seem to me (in the American context, anyhow) that the government would have a constitutional requirement to provide it.

Imagine things this way:
If we got rid of the wasteful discretionary things I mentioned, that would free up resources for discretionary things which would actually help people. Whether we believe in such social services or not, they would continue to exist even if a Libertarian prez were elected (horror of horrors!), but they could be delivered with a lower overall tax burden. As I keep telling lefties here, they need us Libertarians to recover a strong economy which will enable their progressive agenda.

I suppose, but the difference I see is that it's actually happening. For instance, what's the Tea Party but a mash-up of ideas from Libertarianism and the Religious Right?

The Tea Party has some libertarian sympathizers, but the real ones already had a party. If yer trying to use the Tea Party to tar & feather Libertarians, yer gonna fail.

Depending on your definition of "statist", I may very well be.

I'm a big fan of liberty, but I also recognize that other individuals and non-governmental groups can often be bigger threats to our liberty than the government itself. I also see value in terms of liberty in the government doing things that are normally opposed by Libertarians: significant environmental regulation, for instance. I think that one of the proper functions of government is to create an environment where factors that without intervention would be externalities (environmental pollution, for instance) are reflected in direct costs to the decision-makers.

I see environmental protection as a valid libertarian goal. If you pour your used motor oil into Lake Huron, it will affect me. (Btw, don't do that anymore.)

So... is it "Libertarian" or "statist" to want a government-run cap-and-trade system for GHG credits? I think that if it was properly implemented, it could create a net benefit in terms of liberty, but I also recognize that it'd need significant government intervention and oversight to make happen.

The market approach of Cap-&-Trade seems more libertarian (& potentially much greener too) than government imposed rigid limits.

Sure. Who says I don't consider that?

I only note that you didn't mention it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, America doesn't do the "limited government" thing compared to Canada.
You guys outrank us in economic liberty, as determined each year by The Heritage Foundation & The Wall St Journal.

Yes, and I think that this partly comes from our strong federalist system.

My whole point was that a patchwork, "limited government" approach can end up being more restrictive than a stronger, more planned approach from the outset.

Good observation. But it shows how unlimited governmental power at local levels can be when the Constitution takes a back seat to political fervor.

In what way?

The original mindset behind the Constitution was pretty much the problem I described: strong states linked by a weak Federal government without the power to compel the states to do much.

Rather than being solely a political problem, it has a lot of incompetence & corruption as causes. We just aren't qualified to have a democracy, eh?

I don't think it's that so much. I think that any time you have small individual areas coming up with their own approach to things, you're going to have a muddled mess when you try to navigate between them.

I remember hearing a story about the Great Chicago Fire: when the fire broke out, all the fire brigades from the surrounding counties rushed in to fight it. However, this was in the days before standardized firefighting equipment, so every brigade had their own standard for hose fittings. The outside brigades that came to help couldn't use the Chicago fire hydrants. So instead, all these capable firefighters who desperately wanted to help ended up having to fight the fire with bucket lines while a huge part of the city burned to the ground.

I'm sure that each fire department had very good reasons for the decisions they made about pipe diameter, thread pitch, etc., but none of it made a difference when they went to fight that fire. If - as happened later - some outside agency had limited the fire departments' "liberty" and mandated a universal set of standard equipment specifications, even though the equipment might not have been perfect in the eyes of any one fire department, the overall result would have been much better for everyone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Imagine things this way:
If we got rid of the wasteful discretionary things I mentioned, that would free up resources for discretionary things which would actually help people. Whether we believe in such social services or not, they would continue to exist even if a Libertarian prez were elected (horror of horrors!), but they could be delivered with a lower overall tax burden. As I keep telling lefties here, they need us Libertarians to recover a strong economy which will enable their progressive agenda.

Wait... earlier, you argued that government should be only as large as necessary. Where's the room for anything discretionary in that arrangement?

I see environmental protection as a valid libertarian goal. If you pour your used motor oil into Lake Huron, it will affect me. (Btw, don't do that anymore.)

Don't worry - I'm on Lake Ontario, so I'm downstream from you.

The market approach of Cap-&-Trade seems more libertarian (& potentially much greener too) than government imposed rigid limits.

Even though it requires a major government-run infrastructure to actually implement?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's interesting to note that the U.S. also has a high intentional homicide rate.

Just a thought:

Mrs. Penguin's up in the darkest blue part of Canada right now... the one that's apparently comparable to South Africa and some of the nastier parts of Central America.

I know they have a serious crime problem up there, and I've given a lot of thought to it (especially since my wife is living there). One thing that's become apparent to me is that in Nunavut, they have much less access to mental health services than we do in southern Canada, while at the same time they have the highest rates in Canada of unemployment and alcoholism.

I don't think that this correlation is a coincidence, and I think it's probably still relevant when we're talking about the US.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I realize this is flimsy evidence .... but I also can't help observing that on all the documentary / reality TV shows about cops and prisoners and homicide detectives, the crimes tend to be highly concentrated in poor, urban neighborhoods that have a very bad drug and/or gang problem.

Just the other day there was an article in the Houston Chronicle about a guy who was shot to death and his brother was stabbed .... why? They went to a neighbor's house and an argument broke out over drugs. Of course. Drugs and gangs. It's a very common pattern.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and I think that this partly comes from our strong federalist system.
My whole point was that a patchwork, "limited government" approach can end up being more restrictive than a stronger, more planned approach from the outset.

I don't want to quibble, but "limited government" is not about creating a "more restrictive" government.
Our problem is that there's a culture of lawlessness in government when it comes to obeying state & federal Constitutional guarantees & rights.
We have an old saying that "You can't fight City Hall". They do as they please & are largely unaccountable for transgressions.
These factors give government more power over us than is appropriate.

In what way?

State & local governments are always trying to subvert the Constitution when it gets in the way of their goals.

The original mindset behind the Constitution was pretty much the problem I described: strong states linked by a weak Federal government without the power to compel the states to do much.

The Fed has plenty of power. In fact, it has been increasing its power relative to the states for over 200 years.
(The Interstate Commerce Clause has been particularly abused towards this end.)

I don't think it's that so much. I think that any time you have small individual areas coming up with their own approach to things, you're going to have a muddled mess when you try to navigate between them.

I remember hearing a story about the Great Chicago Fire: when the fire broke out, all the fire brigades from the surrounding counties rushed in to fight it. However, this was in the days before standardized firefighting equipment, so every brigade had their own standard for hose fittings. The outside brigades that came to help couldn't use the Chicago fire hydrants. So instead, all these capable firefighters who desperately wanted to help ended up having to fight the fire with bucket lines while a huge part of the city burned to the ground.

Standardization is good for many things.
Lest you forget, I'm a mechanical engineer. Where would we be without standardized threads? It was a mess before Mr Whitworth came along...even though he's
pretty old school now. You should also remember that I don't favor eliminating government....only making it smaller & more answerable to the Constitution.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think that this correlation is a coincidence, and I think it's probably still relevant when we're talking about the US.

Good point. In Houston, I occasionally see people who appear to be mentally ill roaming the streets, babbling to themselves. I say to myself, "Why aren't these people being treated at some mental health facility that can help them? Wouldn't that be better both for them, and for the rest of society?"

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait... earlier, you argued that government should be only as large as necessary. Where's the room for anything discretionary in that arrangement?

We will all argue about what "necessary" means til the cows come home.
Example:
I favor legalizing drugs, even though this is at odds with the libertarian premise that adults will engage in rational behavior.
Some social mechanism of dealing with addicts seems "necessary" to me. I'd only require that it be cost effective.
Other Libertarians will have other views I'm sure.

Don't worry - I'm on Lake Ontario, so I'm downstream from you.

I'll warn NY.

Even though it requires a major government-run infrastructure to actually implement?

Ain't no solution to a problem gonna be perfect.
One can only pick the best solution to a problem.

Did I mention that even we fire breathing Libertarians still think some government is necessary?

 

[Marble]

I just stumbled on to the following wiki-page: Prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just find it strange that there are so many people in prison in the usa compared to the rest of the western world.
Why is there such a big difference?

Unlike EU, USA has no social security system (at least not according to our standards).

 

[horizon_mj1]

It's the drug war.

The largest spike in prison, jail and probation in this country is due to non-violent drug offenders serving inane sentences.

There is also the federal criminal code. The code is large enough and convoluted enough that leads many lawyers to note that every one of us is in violation of the federal criminal code at some point in our lives. Most of us pretty much every day.

And here come's Caylee's Law. More stupidity on the idiot bonfire called criminal justice in the United States. Stupid laws named after dead kids.

Add on the private prison industry and you get a system in which the need for prisoners perpetuates a bad criminal justice system in this nation.

You are not kidding when you write "stupidity" within the CJ System of the US (personally I blame Legislation; do you know how many really stupid laws still exist? I mean REALLY!?) The drug laws are an excuse for "Big Brother" to snoop (and let's not forget just the mention of AlQueda) and lazy excuses of economy marring the Truth of a Government who does not know how to run itself.

 

[Marble]

As has been stated, in the US there are pockets of high crime, concentrated in certain socioeconomic groups and areas. The vast majority of our beautiful and diverse country is very safe with low crime rates, especially when it comes to violent crime. In fact, violent crime has gone down slowly each decade.

Am I wrong or has America the highest rate of serial killers?
Wikipedia has a list of serial killers by country and an extra site for serial killers in the USA.
But I admit that serial killers are a special breed of criminals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's interesting to note that the U.S. also has a high intentional homicide rate.

From the article: "A recent study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004, the last year for which comprehensive data is available."

For 2004, they have the murder rate for the U.S. listed as 5.5 per 100,000. I'm curious as to why you would say the U.S. has a high homicide rate when the data clearly shows that the global homicide rate is nearly 40% higher than that of the U.S?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the article: "A recent study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004, the last year for which comprehensive data is available."

For 2004, they have the murder rate for the U.S. listed as 5.5 per 100,000. I'm curious as to why you would say the U.S. has a high homicide rate when the data clearly shows that the global homicide rate is nearly 40% higher than that of the U.S?

I guess it depends where you want to set the bar of "high" versus "low". Seeing how the US' homicide rate puts it in between Iraq (7.6) and Afghanistan (3.4), I'm not sure how proud you should be of it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess it depends where you want to set the bar of "high" versus "low". Seeing how the US' homicide rate puts it in between Iraq (7.6) and Afghanistan (3.4), I'm not sure how proud you should be of it.

It has nothing to do with a matter of pride. The fact is that a random human living in any country that is not the U.S., has a greater chance of being murdered than a random human living in the U.S. Seems rather arbitrary to label this as "high."

And, it's doubtful the homicide rates of either Afghanistan or Iraq are nearly as accurately reported as those of the U.S, making your rhetoric even less meaningful.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I guess it depends where you want to set the bar of "high" versus "low". Seeing how the US' homicide rate puts it in between Iraq (7.6) and Afghanistan (3.4), I'm not sure how proud you should be of it.

You have to view the "classification of homicide" in order to perceive this correctly

 

[Mr Spinkles]

From the article: "A recent study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004, the last year for which comprehensive data is available."

For 2004, they have the murder rate for the U.S. listed as 5.5 per 100,000. I'm curious as to why you would say the U.S. has a high homicide rate when the data clearly shows that the global homicide rate is nearly 40% higher than that of the U.S?

I was comparing the U.S. to Canada, Australia, and European countries. The question is, what policies might the U.S. implement which would result in less incarceration and less crime? (Or: what social factors in the U.S. lead to more incarceration and more crime?) To answer this question, we should compare the U.S. to countries with comparable GDP, culture, government, population, political stability, etc. Commando raids and kidnappings may reduce violence in Baghdad, sectarian conflict may be the cause of violence in the Sunni triangle, but these are not going to be solutions or explanations for crime in Detroit. We're more likely to find solutions/explanations for Detroit and LA by examining Toronto, or Madrid or London, don't you think?

 

[Father Heathen]

Am I wrong or has America the highest rate of serial killers?
Wikipedia has a list of serial killers by country and an extra site for serial killers in the USA.
But I admit that serial killers are a special breed of criminals.

What element of U.S. culture do you suppose creates serial killers?

 

[horizon_mj1]

What element of U.S. culture do you suppose creates serial killers?

Serial killers have a psychological predisposition (some of which has been proved through extensive Scientific research) cultural elements may play a role in this predisposition allowing for the psychosis in which "makes" a serial killer surface. This was always one of my favorite areas of study in JT and CJ.

 

[xkatz]

I blame Obama.