“Murder is low today because doctors save more victims of violent crime, making these crimes not murder” is a pretty brilliant point. I wish I had thought about that!
It's been known for a while. Especially in the last 20 years, the ability to revive and save a young person with a couple bullet holes has increased quite substantially. One factor was the trauma surgeons who had experience in the Iraquistan wars came back and worked in high crime areas. Someone over 40 may not fare as well, docs can't replace what Nature takes away.
Unfortunately, in the case of un-connected party street crime (the most feared type) the attacker is usually younger and the target older. So the criminal is more likely to be saved than the victim.
Implementing tough on crime measures is not a question of popular will, imo, but rather, our ruling elites want high crime/murder rates and a terrorized population...
Certainly, but also remember our elites are removed from the consequences of their actions. Gated communities and private protection service can do wonders for one’s Leftist outlook.
Great article. I think Richard Hanania clued me into this problem originally with a reference to medical technology driving down homicide rates, but it's good to see a more general overview.
If we take medical advances and CCTV into account (which we should), we probably also have to take advances in offensive technology into account too. It’s a lot easier to 1. Travel quickly to a neighborhood that’s not yours, 2. Discreetly carry a reliable firearm, and 3. Travel quickly and discreetly away from the scene of the crime.
All things considered I’d much rather have to murder someone today than in 1915. I’d guess there were a lot more bar fights then, but many fewer gun murders. If you gave everyone in those bar fights a modern handgun and a car waiting outside, the murder rate would’ve been much higher.
That said, I agree with the conclusion - we shouldn’t be ok with crime rates above Japan. More incapacitation, yes, but also a much stronger and more technologically sophisticated surveillance state. We’ll never get it here because everyone reads 1984 as a teen and society over-learned the lessons.
Clearly, a proper functioning legal system could reduce crime in The United States to rates like Japan. Imagine the cost savings to a society. Our entire society is held hostage to crime day in and day out.
Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the nation’s population and yet commit about half of all annual homicides. A rate an astounding 49 times higher than that of the average American. Most of their victims are other young black men. If we took action such as returning to a policy of stop and frisk in our inner cities we would save thousands of black lives every year.
The standard tactic on the left has been to point to the decline (in the homocide rate) since the peaks in the 90's and say that everyone is being hysterical. They're still doing that despite the fact that since the BLM days even that trend has reversed quite markedly. Progressives seem to have isolated themselves from reality very well since 2016 though so things like that tend not to make it through the filter.
This piece seems to suggest that even the decline since the 90's is kind of BS as a proxy for overall crime, which is crazy. It basically means we've had probably 60 years of law and order policies making things worse while at the same time we have people like Stephen Pinker crowing about how all the stats prove everything is wonderful. It's very Soviet.
What are your thoughts on the claims that the rehabilitative systems of Northern Europe work better than the retributive systems of America? I think it’s pretty clear that deterrence through the meanness of prisons doesn’t really work on repeat offenders, they obviously don’t think about the consequences of their actions enough to really consider that. prison is mainly a criminal containment chamber, and we contain them until they’re old and less criminally inclined. I think the issue with American prisons is that it creates a competitive environment where many men resort to fitness, raising their testosterone and subsequently their criminality. We want criminals in docile environment like Soyjak
From what I remember from the article, here are some issues with the arguments supporting the rehabilitative Nordic model:
1. Recidivism is defined differently between America and Norway. America considers an arrest after five years of being released as "recidivistic" while Norway reduces this to two years and relies on conviction instead of arrest.
2. A greater share of convicted criminals in Norway have committed crimes that are associated with lower recidivism in most countries generally. For example, Norway is pretty tough on violations of traffic laws, so their prisons are often populated by people who will never commit the same crime again. America has a far greater share of violent felons which tend to be set in their ways, as is common among all people who engage in extreme behavior.
3. Many of the people in Norway who commit crimes that are associated with high recidivism are immigrants who are often deported and therefore never repeat the crime again (in Norway at least).
4. Data from within Norway has shown that the most recidivistic types of criminals tend to experience the same effects on their recidivism regardless of which prisons they go to. This is damning since prisons within Norway vary significantly in how rehabilitative they are, so you would expect some variance. Longitudinal studies have even accounted for the lack of variance in recidivism experienced by the same criminals being admitted to different prisons.
“Fortunately, however, a stricter regime does not necessarily imply more false positives, for the following reasons:”
It’s simple math. Three strikes laws were good ones. Say there was a ridiculously high false positive rate of 1 in 10, or 10%. 1/10 x’s 1/10 x’s 1/10 is a false positive rate of 1/1000. For those who claim an unfair sentence of life in prison, say of a third strike for a theft of a pizza, then the “enhanced” sentence could be a blend of those prior sentences for such crimes previously convicted of. So a pizza theft might get 10 years rather than probation—but not life. Violent crimes are excluded from blending.
The real problem is we are now a society which has lost its will to survive and thrive. This being due to the aspect of multiculturalism stemming from demographic change. Since much crime differences are directly and observably correlated with race/culture. One can’t arbitrarily punish crime per se, as “Justice” is not blind, but must be distributed “equality” across racial lines.
We actually saw this even in our public school systems starting with the Obama administration where discipline, such as expulsions were tracked as to racial application. Example, if you expelled more unruly Blacks than Whites—Blacks of course having a hire percentage of unruly students—you were liable to have Fed funds impounded. Discipline was therefore mandated to be rationed equally across racial lines—regardless of racial proclivities to such offence.
Our pathological equalitarianism will be the end of us—at least as an advanced and civilized 1st world society.
Finally, I’ll end with a note that many of the statistics cited, if broken down by race will show a favorable comparison for some demographics to those “Elysian” countries cited. There really is nothing more to be said. We don’t have a crime problem per se, we have a diversity problem.
I really don't find the "more people will be wrongly charged" argument seriously because, in the worst case, that would just be a natural and statistically unavoidable consequence of convicting more people in general given that people are still wrongly convicted now. The argument would only matter to me if it was modified to "a higher percentage of people will be wrongly charged" which I haven't seen any good evidence of largely for the reasons you gave. I don't even see the most staunchly tough on crime people advocate for scrapping due process, so I think that fear is misguided.
My precious son was murdered in 2020 for no reason by a gang member out on probation. His father and brothers were also part of the most notorious gang in our city. I quickly learned that crime is committed by a small number of criminals in a small number of zip codes. People who live outside those zip codes tend to ignore crime and the criminals. Until like me they become victims. I have spent the last four years pursuing justice for my son and after a long road butting heads with politicians and reluctant prosecutors the young man who killed my son is serving a 60 year prison sentence. I give thanks to Detective Prater who never gave up. I pray for the soul of the young man who killed my son.
Regarding number 8 (crime and mass immigration) I thought there was a link, and that crime had increased since mass immigration in the U.K (at least, according to the many articles I have read on the subject) Also, don't the prison stats suggest a link?
Are there statistics simply about violent crime rates not pegged to murder that we can use as a comparison, statistics about instances of violence, regardless of the medical outcome?
“Murder is low today because doctors save more victims of violent crime, making these crimes not murder” is a pretty brilliant point. I wish I had thought about that!
It's been known for a while. Especially in the last 20 years, the ability to revive and save a young person with a couple bullet holes has increased quite substantially. One factor was the trauma surgeons who had experience in the Iraquistan wars came back and worked in high crime areas. Someone over 40 may not fare as well, docs can't replace what Nature takes away.
Unfortunately, in the case of un-connected party street crime (the most feared type) the attacker is usually younger and the target older. So the criminal is more likely to be saved than the victim.
Implementing tough on crime measures is not a question of popular will, imo, but rather, our ruling elites want high crime/murder rates and a terrorized population...
Certainly, but also remember our elites are removed from the consequences of their actions. Gated communities and private protection service can do wonders for one’s Leftist outlook.
Great article. I think Richard Hanania clued me into this problem originally with a reference to medical technology driving down homicide rates, but it's good to see a more general overview.
Incredible article. Very well done and informative. Eye opening.
segregation is our strength
https://freevoices.substack.com/p/diversity-is-our-weakness
If we take medical advances and CCTV into account (which we should), we probably also have to take advances in offensive technology into account too. It’s a lot easier to 1. Travel quickly to a neighborhood that’s not yours, 2. Discreetly carry a reliable firearm, and 3. Travel quickly and discreetly away from the scene of the crime.
All things considered I’d much rather have to murder someone today than in 1915. I’d guess there were a lot more bar fights then, but many fewer gun murders. If you gave everyone in those bar fights a modern handgun and a car waiting outside, the murder rate would’ve been much higher.
That said, I agree with the conclusion - we shouldn’t be ok with crime rates above Japan. More incapacitation, yes, but also a much stronger and more technologically sophisticated surveillance state. We’ll never get it here because everyone reads 1984 as a teen and society over-learned the lessons.
Clearly, a proper functioning legal system could reduce crime in The United States to rates like Japan. Imagine the cost savings to a society. Our entire society is held hostage to crime day in and day out.
Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the nation’s population and yet commit about half of all annual homicides. A rate an astounding 49 times higher than that of the average American. Most of their victims are other young black men. If we took action such as returning to a policy of stop and frisk in our inner cities we would save thousands of black lives every year.
Huge if true, I always believed the « there is no real crime raise, it is only the media bringing attention on them » argument
The standard tactic on the left has been to point to the decline (in the homocide rate) since the peaks in the 90's and say that everyone is being hysterical. They're still doing that despite the fact that since the BLM days even that trend has reversed quite markedly. Progressives seem to have isolated themselves from reality very well since 2016 though so things like that tend not to make it through the filter.
This piece seems to suggest that even the decline since the 90's is kind of BS as a proxy for overall crime, which is crazy. It basically means we've had probably 60 years of law and order policies making things worse while at the same time we have people like Stephen Pinker crowing about how all the stats prove everything is wonderful. It's very Soviet.
What are your thoughts on the claims that the rehabilitative systems of Northern Europe work better than the retributive systems of America? I think it’s pretty clear that deterrence through the meanness of prisons doesn’t really work on repeat offenders, they obviously don’t think about the consequences of their actions enough to really consider that. prison is mainly a criminal containment chamber, and we contain them until they’re old and less criminally inclined. I think the issue with American prisons is that it creates a competitive environment where many men resort to fitness, raising their testosterone and subsequently their criminality. We want criminals in docile environment like Soyjak
Inquisitive Bird had a great piece on this, but he unfortunately paywalled it.
https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/recidivism-in-norway
From what I remember from the article, here are some issues with the arguments supporting the rehabilitative Nordic model:
1. Recidivism is defined differently between America and Norway. America considers an arrest after five years of being released as "recidivistic" while Norway reduces this to two years and relies on conviction instead of arrest.
2. A greater share of convicted criminals in Norway have committed crimes that are associated with lower recidivism in most countries generally. For example, Norway is pretty tough on violations of traffic laws, so their prisons are often populated by people who will never commit the same crime again. America has a far greater share of violent felons which tend to be set in their ways, as is common among all people who engage in extreme behavior.
3. Many of the people in Norway who commit crimes that are associated with high recidivism are immigrants who are often deported and therefore never repeat the crime again (in Norway at least).
4. Data from within Norway has shown that the most recidivistic types of criminals tend to experience the same effects on their recidivism regardless of which prisons they go to. This is damning since prisons within Norway vary significantly in how rehabilitative they are, so you would expect some variance. Longitudinal studies have even accounted for the lack of variance in recidivism experienced by the same criminals being admitted to different prisons.
“Fortunately, however, a stricter regime does not necessarily imply more false positives, for the following reasons:”
It’s simple math. Three strikes laws were good ones. Say there was a ridiculously high false positive rate of 1 in 10, or 10%. 1/10 x’s 1/10 x’s 1/10 is a false positive rate of 1/1000. For those who claim an unfair sentence of life in prison, say of a third strike for a theft of a pizza, then the “enhanced” sentence could be a blend of those prior sentences for such crimes previously convicted of. So a pizza theft might get 10 years rather than probation—but not life. Violent crimes are excluded from blending.
The real problem is we are now a society which has lost its will to survive and thrive. This being due to the aspect of multiculturalism stemming from demographic change. Since much crime differences are directly and observably correlated with race/culture. One can’t arbitrarily punish crime per se, as “Justice” is not blind, but must be distributed “equality” across racial lines.
We actually saw this even in our public school systems starting with the Obama administration where discipline, such as expulsions were tracked as to racial application. Example, if you expelled more unruly Blacks than Whites—Blacks of course having a hire percentage of unruly students—you were liable to have Fed funds impounded. Discipline was therefore mandated to be rationed equally across racial lines—regardless of racial proclivities to such offence.
Our pathological equalitarianism will be the end of us—at least as an advanced and civilized 1st world society.
Finally, I’ll end with a note that many of the statistics cited, if broken down by race will show a favorable comparison for some demographics to those “Elysian” countries cited. There really is nothing more to be said. We don’t have a crime problem per se, we have a diversity problem.
I really don't find the "more people will be wrongly charged" argument seriously because, in the worst case, that would just be a natural and statistically unavoidable consequence of convicting more people in general given that people are still wrongly convicted now. The argument would only matter to me if it was modified to "a higher percentage of people will be wrongly charged" which I haven't seen any good evidence of largely for the reasons you gave. I don't even see the most staunchly tough on crime people advocate for scrapping due process, so I think that fear is misguided.
My precious son was murdered in 2020 for no reason by a gang member out on probation. His father and brothers were also part of the most notorious gang in our city. I quickly learned that crime is committed by a small number of criminals in a small number of zip codes. People who live outside those zip codes tend to ignore crime and the criminals. Until like me they become victims. I have spent the last four years pursuing justice for my son and after a long road butting heads with politicians and reluctant prosecutors the young man who killed my son is serving a 60 year prison sentence. I give thanks to Detective Prater who never gave up. I pray for the soul of the young man who killed my son.
Regarding number 8 (crime and mass immigration) I thought there was a link, and that crime had increased since mass immigration in the U.K (at least, according to the many articles I have read on the subject) Also, don't the prison stats suggest a link?
Are there statistics simply about violent crime rates not pegged to murder that we can use as a comparison, statistics about instances of violence, regardless of the medical outcome?
I tried to DM you on X but X is not giving me that option. Is there another way to get in touch with you?